The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (engineering, gay, Hispanics)

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

It's a tax subsidized entitlement provided by taxpayers on their DIME. There are plenty of other adults who don't live on the sidewalk (myself included) that aren't asking for free handouts.

What do taxpayers get back from housing an adult for free in perpetuity?

Spot on and 2Sleepy this would be my response to your question as well.

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

It's a tax subsidized entitlement provided by taxpayers on their DIME. There are plenty of other adults who don't live on the sidewalk (myself included) that aren't asking for free handouts.

What do taxpayers get back from housing an adult for free in perpetuity?

You dont live on the sidewalk because you have a GOOD job or have some other private wealth to sustain you, others dont so they live on the street.

People have a right to exist and if the more fortunate dont want to see them on the streets then subsidized tent cities on the tax payer dime is the only option. Think of it as a convenience fee so you don't have to see what being unlucky looks like.

scientist did a study on mice and found that well adjusted mice in good surroundings chose not to drink the water laced with drugs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

Very interesting study, people dont just get on drugs becasue they have a loving wife, a nice house and a good job. Its usually because they are in some kind of abusive work situation that is woefully under paid (so they have to live on the streets anyways), have no lover and no house, no way to get out of the weather, etc.

This isent rocket science. You either deal with having to see the less fortunate or you have to pay to put them into a tent city ...... or we become like Nazi germany and set up death camps, frankly its time to brush off the passport if thats where we decide to head as a nation.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

You dont live on the sidewalk because you have a GOOD job or have some other private wealth to sustain you, others dont so they live on the street.

People have a right to exist and if the more fortunate dont want to see them on the streets then subsidized tent cities on the tax payer dime is the only option. Think of it as a convenience fee so you don't have to see what being unlucky looks like.

scientist did a study on mice and found that well adjusted mice in good surroundings chose not to drink the water laced with drugs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

Very interesting study, people dont just get on drugs becasue they have a loving wife, a nice house and a good job. Its usually because they are in some kind of abusive work situation that is woefully under paid (so they have to live on the streets anyways), have no lover and no house, no way to get out of the weather, etc.

This isent rocket science. You either deal with having to see the less fortunate or you have to pay to put them into a tent city ...... or we become like Nazi germany and set up death camps, frankly its time to brush off the passport if thats where we decide to head as a nation.

Okay but that doesn't answer my question. What do we get back as a society perpetually supporting homeless people for the rest of their lives? There are huge monetary upfront and ongoing cost, but what does society get back as a benefit?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

It's a tax subsidized entitlement provided by taxpayers on their DIME. There are plenty of other adults who don't live on the sidewalk (myself included) that aren't asking for free handouts. What do taxpayers get back from housing an adult for free in perpetuity?

You don't have to give homeless people anything, but the option is that if you don't they will remain on the sidewalk.

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Okay but that doesn't answer my question. What do we get back as a society perpetually supporting homeless people for the rest of their lives? There are huge monetary upfront and ongoing cost, but what does society get back as a benefit?

That’s what you get back, you don’t have to see them wandering around.

Of course we could do job training and ramp federal jobs up and down as the economy expanded and contracted but that’s Marxist commie kensiean socialism and is of the devil lol

[BoiseBound2012]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

More hyperbole. <yawn> Do you ever stop? If you don't happen to agree with someone, try to come up with a better defense than calling that poster a "leftist" or "emotional."

His comment is the truth.

[BoiseBound2012]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

You dont live on the sidewalk because you have a GOOD job or have some other private wealth to sustain you, others dont so they live on the street.

People have a right to exist and if the more fortunate dont want to see them on the streets then subsidized tent cities on the tax payer dime is the only option. Think of it as a convenience fee so you don't have to see what being unlucky looks like.

scientist did a study on mice and found that well adjusted mice in good surroundings chose not to drink the water laced with drugs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

Very interesting study, people dont just get on drugs becasue they have a loving wife, a nice house and a good job. Its usually because they are in some kind of abusive work situation that is woefully under paid (so they have to live on the streets anyways), have no lover and no house, no way to get out of the weather, etc.

This isent rocket science. You either deal with having to see the less fortunate or you have to pay to put them into a tent city ...... or we become like Nazi germany and set up death camps, frankly its time to brush off the passport if thats where we decide to head as a nation.

Here is what's wrong with your comment...

"and if the more fortunate "

Let me correct that phrasing for you..."and if those who worked their asses off from the get go, and made good decisions based on knowledge, and chose not to use drugs and abuse alcohol..."

That is MUCH more accurate.

Choices - people have choices, don't make me pay for their bad ones. And yes, some people use drugs even when they've been given everything.

[BoiseBound2012]

I think most decent people are willing to help those who want to help themselves; i.e. the alcoholic or drug user who WANTS to get clean, and makes an effort to stay clean.

But even decent people have their limits.

We had a man living in our neighborhood who foreclosed on his home, walked the streets at night stealing, housed drug dealers in his garage...AND...collected about $2,200 per month on disability. Disability that was a result of an accident he had, WHILE ON DRUGS.

Even this decent person has her limits.

The mother who keeps having babies even though she cannot care for the 2-3 she has already.

The druggie who goes through rehab 3 times at a State funded or subsidized rehab center, only to be back on the streets again, stealing to support his habit and trashing neighborhoods via "encampments".

Those needing mental health help should get it, via tax payer dollars...no one asks to be born with mental issues bad enough to compromise their ability to support themselves. The addict who TRULY makes the effort, should get help.

Everyone else can go suck eggs, I am tired of paying for them!!!

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

That’s what you get back, you don’t have to see them wandering around.

Of course we could do job training and ramp federal jobs up and down as the economy expanded and contracted but that’s Marxist commie kensiean socialism and is of the devil lol

I agree, they should be pushed to work on public works projects. I suggested this pages ago, but you claimed that the work could be "cruel".

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You don't have to give homeless people anything, but the option is that if you don't they will remain on the sidewalk.

This isn't about an individual, I'm asking what does society get back as a whole for the hundreds of millions of dollars used to house people in perpetuity. Will these people become independent and productive? How so? Will they be dependent on the state for the rest of their lives? What's the end game?