Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm just one person, and I've done everything that I can do, as I've explained more than once. My donations and volunteer work, are not enough to solve a huge problem like homelessness.
You've soent PLENTY of time on this thread, bashing me. Why don't YOU go do something, to help the poor yourself??
I'm not bashing you. Just explaining that 1., you are part of the problem and 2., the government is not the solution.
It's an intelligent, adult conversation without emotion - at least on my part.
You are not unable to provide for yourself - it's just easier for you not to.
Oh REALLY?? If everyone is able to provide for themselves, tell that to the people who have lost their jobs, and then everything else, as a result of that!
I'm not bashing you. Just explaining that 1., you are part of the problem and 2., the government is not the solution.
It's an intelligent, adult conversation without emotion - at least on my part.
Quit saying that I'm part of the problem! I'm sure that I've done more for the poor, than you have, or probably every will. You've shown that you really don't care about them in the first place. Trying to scapegoat ME, is anything but an intelligent, adult thing to do.
Oh REALLY?? If everyone is able to provide for themselves, tell that to the people who have lost their jobs, and then everything else, as a result of that!
I didn't say everyone - there's a small segment of the population that will always be dependent on someone else due to physical and/or mental disabilities. To those people, there should be a safety net - in combination with family and/or community resources.
I said you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn
Quit saying that I'm part of the problem! I'm sure that I've done more for the poor, than you have, or probably every will. You've shown that you really don't care about them in the first place. Trying to scapegoat ME, is anything but an intelligent, adult thing to do
You are part of the problem because you seek to make the solution someone else's problem and take no personal responsibility.
As for having an adult conversation - your response to me is proof that this (an intelligent, adult conversation) is again something that you can't do. Or rather, you can - you choose not to.
I didn't say everyone - there's a small segment of the population that will always be dependent on someone else due to physical and/or mental disabilities. To those people, there should be a safety net - in combination with family and/or community resources.
I said you.
You are part of the problem because you seek to make the solution someone else's problem and take no personal responsibility.
As for having an adult conversation - your response to me is proof that this (an intelligent, adult conversation) is again something that you can't do. Or rather, you can - you choose not to.
I've been telling you what I do for the poor, which is all I can. But you choose to ignore that. And people like you, always come back with this 'personal responsibility' stuff, because you have nothing relevant to ad to the converation. Because of this, I'll just ignore you from now on. You've shown that there's no point, in even responding to your unreasonable rants anymore!
I've been telling you what I do for the poor, which is all I can. But you choose to ignore that. And people like you, always come back with this 'personal responsibility' stuff, because you have nothing relevant to ad to the converation. Because of this, I'll just ignore you from now on. You've shown that there's no point, in even responding to your unreasonable rants anymore!
Typical response. You don't have an answer so you tell me it's because I'm the unreasonable one. You can't formulate a response so you tell me you'll just refuse to answer me from now on ... that's akin to taking your ball and going home. Which is anything but what an adult should do in a conversation.
I'm telling you that you can do more - but you choose not to.
Create a business - use your skills & your own talents. Be inventive. Be creative. Find a niche and fill it. You should have more than enough time on your hands since you're unemployed.
You can even tie in your said business with helping the homeless in your area. Kill two birds with one stone - take you off the government's welfare rolls and help the poor and downtrodden at the same time.
But you won't because you choose not to. There is absolutely nothing standing in your way except your own excuses.
How is all of that not relevant to the conversation? All you've said, and continue to say is "the government owes us". Blah blah blah - talk about unreasonable rants.
I advocate help, for people that want and need it. If some people don't want it, then so be it. Most people want to take care of themselves, but circumstances beyond their control, can make that impossible. You act as if misfortune never happens to people.
you are wrong that i dont think misfortune never happens to people. i have misfortunes of my own to deal with.
Quote:
I'm sure lots of people thought that that they could never be homeless, until it happened to them. As I've said many times, quite a few people, are just a paycheck away from the streets. This rotten economy, has caused much hardship, include homelessness, for many people.
true, the economy is not helping people, but then lets look at what caused the problem in the economy, and that is the collapse of the sub prime mortgage market. and why did that collapse? because greedy people went out and knowingly bought far more house than they could legitimately afford. i mean how many people making $50k per year afford a $700k house? the correct answer is in fact NONE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn
The governt needs to do more for poor Americans, than it currently does. Though both Dems and Republicans don't do enough, the Republicans still favor the wealthy, over the poor.
so where is the government supposed to get the money? and what happened to all the trillions that have been spent on the poor over the years? and how much more is the government supposed to do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn
No, voting for the Dems rather then the Republicans, is not narrow-minded. It's voting for the party, that's done the least damage to the poor in this country. You'll have to show me where you got the info, from the US Dept. of Housing. Even if it's true, the amount of the chronic homeless, is STILL too many people on the streets.
really? the democrats have done the least amount of damage to the poor? get real. which party has been in control of congress for the last four years? thats right, the democrats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn
I think that the government should provide housing, food and healthcare, to everyone who needs it. Since private employers have the option to get rid of people at will, then people should be able to turn to the government to get their basic needs met, if they are destitute.
at some point the even the government has to tell the people to help themselves. remember the soviet union? well thats all you can do. why? because the type of programs you are advocating are far too expensive even for government, and the soviet union collapsed under the weight of all the government spending. look at europe and all their social spending. they are cutting back on social spending, why? because it is too heavy a burden to pay for everything for all the people.
Quote:
The only way that people in need would become less dependent on the government, is if they're able to earn enough income to do so. Or hopefully, have a caring family, that can provide for their needs. Government aid, should be a last resort. But due to this heinous economy, and the lack of job security anymore anyway, more and more Americans may find themselves turning to the government, for financial help.
well at least you recognize that government should be the last resort, thats a start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
Free housing. That's the only way to end it. Housing is many people's largest expense. If they're living paycheck to paycheck, and find themselves out of work for a mere week, that can mean an end to their housing. You can't pay your rent, you get out.
and who do you think should supply the "free" housing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn
The most important thing that we need right now, with regards to joblessness, is for the government to implement a jobs program. Private employers can't be forced to hire people. And they have had tax breaks, to encourage them to do more hiring. Which, by in large, they haven't done. So a government jobs program could put people back to work, that have exhausted their unemployment benefits, and still haven't found private sector jobs.
actually private businesses have done a lot of hiring. during the bush years we had 52 straight months of job creation, and it ended with the election of a democrat majority in congress in 2007, and the anti business policies they put in place. higher taxes, and government regulation only do one thing, it kills business and jobs. and since government does not produce anything, what good are government jobs when no money is coming in to support those jobs?
Quote:
Speaking of jobs, we need a higher minimum wage. Eight dollars an hour, is just not enough to support yourself, or especially a family on. Most especially, if that's your only source of income. I think that it should be raised to around 14.00 an hour. This could also help employers who typically pay the minimum wage, retain more workers. That's because if workers are paid enough to live on, then they won't be so quick to leave a job, to look for a better-paying one.
again government regulation is not the way to create jobs, and neither is a higher minimum wage. the minimum wage was not designed to be a living wage for anyone. it was designed to be a wage for students, and part time workers, and other just getting into the job market to gain experience and move up to a job with a higher wage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn
Private employers aren't solving the problems of this economy. So if taxes have to raised to create government jobs, then so be it. The tax burden, should be placed mainly on the wealthy, rather than the middle class and the poor. Jobs are not being created by private employers now, so a government jobs program, looks like our only option. And if the government can't creat jobs, then how come they did it during the great depression. This country needs a New Deal program, NOW!
understand that those jobs that were created by the government during the great depression went away as soon as the spending went away. as for the tax burden, it is already on the wealthy, remember that the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 97% of the taxes collected by the IRS. how much more do you want them to pay? also understand that the more you tax the rich, the more the middle class and the poor pay for the things they buy, because the rich push those taxes onto the others through higher prices for products, or smaller quantities, or fewer jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn
I don't have the start-up capital, to open a business if I wanted to. And that's nearly impossible to come by, if a person doesn't have assets, great credit, collateral, or a huge amount of money saved up. I have none of those things, and can't get them, because I'm out of work myself.
you dont need as much credit or money saved up as you think. there are venture capital companies out there that if you send them a solid business plan, they will pony up the cash you need to start up a business. you just need a good idea to start with, and be willing to put in a lot of hours to make your business work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn
These are NOT excuses, they are legitimate reasons. It's easy for someone to sit back and scream 'excuses', when things are not always possible. The government needs to be accountable to the American people. That's not 'robin hood', that's government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that means ALL people, including the poor.
yes the government needs to be accountable to the people, not provide for the people. that means that the government has to watch its spending just like we the people watch our spending. right now however the government is taking the robin hood approach, and taking from the rich to give to the poor. at some point in time, the rich are going to pick up their toys and go home, and then where will the country be?
I remember over the years that innovative inventors saw homeless people living in cardboard boxes on the street, and proposed very cheap and easily constructed pre-fab individual housing units that were safer, more weather resistant and more sanitary.
For example, a man named "James Stuart designed the world's smallest home after learning of the death of a Vancouver homeless woman when her makeshift shelter burnt down. The 12' by 12' cube includes a dishwasher, microwave oven, bathroom, closet, and natural light. The average price of a cube house is $24,500 (Canadian). prefabricated cube homes on Twelve3, James Stuart's website." A 12 x 12 Cube to Call Home by James Stuart | Apartment Therapy New York
Another approach to homelessness is the "Single Room Occupancy" (SRO) housing unit, which "is a multiple tenant building that houses one or two people in individual rooms...or to the single room dwelling itself. SRO tenants typically share bathrooms and / or kitchens, while some SRO rooms may include kitchenettes, bathrooms, or half-baths. Although many are former hotels, SROs are primarily rented as a permanent residence." Single room occupancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Interestingly, the primary reason Cube homes and SROs cannot be utilized is government building and zoning regulations. The government sets such high standards for housing units that it typically costs about $100,000 to build a structure that meets them. The only way a Cube home can be built is if a local government specifically writes laws that allow them, which it hates to do because (1) this opens the door for all builders to work around the extensive regulatory requirements, and (2) no local government wants to encourage a large population of a group that will need extensive (expensive) social services and provide very little in tax revenue.
As other posters have noted, the homeless population typically has a variety of problems in addition to simple lack of money, so simply providing a shelter is just one facet of the social services needed by this group.
The governt needs to do more for poor Americans, than it currently does. Though both Dems and Republicans don't do enough, the Republicans still favor the wealthy, over the poor.
How would you propose the government make people stop drinking? Stop using drugs? Stop doing many things that are the root causes of homelessness?
The government DOES have a responsibility, to provide for those, who are unable to provide for themselves. If a person pays taxes, then they should be entitled to government assistance, if they need it. If private employers don't have to guarantee people jobs, then they can't always support themselves. At that point, the government has an obligation to step in, and provide aid.
Go read these and get back with me and let me know where it says that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
