Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
After I graduated from college, my parents made it clear to me that I was on my own for EVERYTHING, with two exceptions: a medical condition or wrongly arrested. (Thankfully, neither happened.)Exactly. It sounds like parents with a loser son or daughter (or transgender LOL) where the parents keep giving them money and it never stops because just giving them money only teaches them to not solve their problems because their parents will just keep giving them more money.
This is actually what they need. We make this mistake with all users, not just the homeless. If you have a drug problem you should be taken off the streets for however long it takes to be released back out totally clean. We often have these stupid 30 day programs and then let them right back out after 30 days, expecting them to make weekly visits to maintain sobriety. Nothing but a farce. If you have a real problem 30 days doesn't cut it. If it takes months or years then it takes months or years.
There are millions of males aged like 25-40 who have left the workforce and not returned. They are either living off their parents, their wives, their girlfriends, or the government. Someone needs to give them a swift kick in the ass.After I graduated from college, my parents made it clear to me that I was on my own for EVERYTHING, with two exceptions: a medical condition or wrongly arrested. (Thankfully, neither happened.)
Nowadays, parents don’t want Johnnie or Susie to have to move out of the 5-bedroom house and start their adults lives on their own, so they either let them remain indefinitely or, if they’re wealthy, pay their rent in a luxury apartment building.
There are millions of males aged like 25-40 who have left the workforce and not returned. They are either living off their parents, their wives, their girlfriends, or the government. Someone needs to give them a swift kick in the ass.
.Pre-Covid, I was planning a cruise that stopped in Portland and San Francisco (among other ports) but off course it didn’t happen. Now you couldn’t PAY me to spend my tourist dollars in those cities.
(San Diego would have been nice, though.)
This is a good one to start with. Thanks.
I will first parse what is in the article. Because it provides a context and a cautionary tale.
The headline is a bit click baity. Something that probably drew you to it. "Oregon Bill would give homeless people 1000 dollars a month to spend without restrictions." That sounds like a terrible idea to anyone with a lick of common sense. This would include me. Since the first thing that pops in my head is homeless drug addicts using taxpayers' money to buy booze or drugs.
The thing is though when you actually read the article some context emerges that puts it in a different light.
People’s Housing Assistance Fund Demonstration Program to give 12 monthly thousand-dollar payments to those suffering from homelessness or who are on the brink of becoming homeless.
This says. It's a demonstration program. Meaning the government is studying if this works for getting people of the streets or prevent them from having to go on the streets. It also limits the assistance in time, meaning it's not a blank check.
The legislation would also require the Portland State University Homelessness Research and Action Collaborative to study how effective the long-term cash assistance program would be across different demographics and household populations, as well as consider other circumstantial elements, such as domestic violence.
This establishes a research institute tasked with finding out if the program has any success.
It is perfectly legit to question if this is a good way to spend public funds. We probably will never achieve a consensus on this considering both our ideologies.
I personally think that letting the government assist homeless people or people about to become homeless for a short time, so they can get back on their feet is an idea that is worth trying. Providing it is coupled with a way to carefully monitor it. So they can determine if it has success in certain demographics. This is important because it might be successful in some areas but be terrible in others. It might for instance have a marked effect in preventing people sliding into homelessness but have absolutely no effect in getting people out of homelessness. (I'm giving this opinion specifically, so you can address it if you want, and we can continue this premise if you think we can form a consensus on this point?)
What we might be able to agree on is that homelessness is a problem and that we need to figure out if there's anything we can do about it as a society. Is this something we can both agree on?
.Can anyone here cite an example of a government program that gives people money that succeeded in inducing those people to be weaned from the free money and become productive members of society?
It is ALWAYS the theory on which the programs are based, and it always fails. The Lefties invariably tell us, "THIS TIME it will succeed!"
Lefties think the answer to every problem is to take money from those who earned it and give it to others.Can anyone here cite an example of a government program that gives people money that succeeded in inducing those people to be weaned from the free money and become productive members of society?
It is ALWAYS the theory on which the programs are based, and it always fails. The Lefties invariably tell us, "THIS TIME it will succeed!"
and put a time limit on it so they have 12 or 18 months or so to get a job and pay their own way1) I think the homeless are about to make their way to Oregon.
2) Let’s help them get out of homelessness by requiring some work for the state (janitorial, whatever).
3) Instead of giving them that money directly, they should allocate $1200 for a cheap two-bedroom apartment for each two homeless people, and put them together. They can get the remaining $800 for food, utilities, and some clothes.
I suggested less - two months. That’s how long the $5000 one-time payment would cover them for. No reason they can’t buy a cheap suit, take a shower, and get a job In that time.and put a time limit on it so they have 12 or 18 months or so to get a job and pay their own way
Maybe develop a partnership with a handful of businesses to provide starter jobs, and couple that with random drug tests, and training in blue collar jobs to ensure that once their participation in the program results in continued employment...and put a time limit on it so they have 12 or 18 months or so to get a job and pay their own way
.Lefties think the answer to every problem is to take money from those who earned it and give it to others.
I would rather see the money spent in there ways:
1) Many of these people are mentally ill. With the $20 million being given away each month to people who can’t manage money, let’s put some of that into building and running mental clinics.
2) Most of the remaining have drug abuse problems. Everyone knows you don’t give money to junkies. They get a one-month paid stay in rehab. After that, they’re on their own.
3) Perhaps 5% are neither mentally ill or junkies. For them, I would suggest a weekly drug test for four weeks, in addition to a mental health exam. If they pass, a one-time fee of $5,000 would be paid to a furnished studio type place on their behalf (they can choose which they want from a list of pre-approved places) to give them two months of housing and a food allotment. During that time, they can buy a suit, apply for any of the gazillion jobs at McDonalds and Target and Walmart paying about $3000 a month, and they can then move to a cheap studio and begin supporting themselves.
Point taken. One-month stay in rehab to get clean, and then a supervised halfway house. The main thing is to give them a chance, rather than direct money, and if they relapse, well….they had their chance. But the idea to give junkies $1000 a month indefinitely accomplishes nothing and wastes taxpayer money..
I love your suggestions, but the one month stay in rehab rarely does any good unless the subject is then forced into a far more stable situation immediately upon release.
The small (20,000) Washington town I lived in was choked with those who were shipped from Seattle and Portland for that 30-day rehab and then spit back out on the street, and went directly back to their old ways. The road in front of the biggest shelter in town was jammed with their "homes" -- derelict RV's out of which many sold meth and heroin, and these days probably fentanyl -- and their junk spread out into the road itself so that it became a driving hazard.
But the rest of your input is great, as usual!
.
Only one correction here....The proposed program is not an indefinite proposition....While I think 12 months is too long, I do agree that the study should be around 6 months, and include training, and housing for 6 months, with a caveat that if they are succeeding, then it can be extended monthly for up to the following 6 months....Point taken. One-month stay in rehab to get clean, and then a supervised halfway house. The main thing is to give them a chance, rather than direct money, and if they relapse, well….they had their chance. But the idea to give junkies $1000 a month indefinitely accomplishes nothing and wastes taxpayer money.
.Point taken. One-month stay in rehab to get clean, and then a supervised halfway house. The main thing is to give them a chance, rather than direct money, and if they relapse, well….they had their chance. But the idea to give junkies $1000 a month indefinitely accomplishes nothing and wastes taxpayer money.
.Only one correction here....The proposed program is not an indefinite proposition....While I think 12 months is too long, I do agree that the study should be around 6 months, and include training, and housing for 6 months, with a caveat that if they are succeeding, then it can be extended monthly for up to the following 6 months....
It would include requirements for
Employment
Drug testing
Training in a marketable skill set
and therapy is required....
and I am going to throw in training in budgeting, and money management (in a rudimentary way) to curb unnecessary spending....
How does one prove to the state that they are homeless and collect the money?As per what forkup and I discussed earlier, I thought this would be a good subject for discussion...
Thoughts.
No problem....Sorry it took so long to reply, this week was a killer....Thank you for your patience...
Actually, I heard the story being discussed on Washington Journal, then went to search for the article they were using to open discussion, so, "click bait" had nothing to do with it...I agree that it sounds like a bad idea to take the taxpayers money and just give it to people that would most likely blow the money, and still be on the streets.
How many of the people granted the money do you think will actually spend the money for housing? Or, will these people actually be fleeced by some fly by night NGO that takes that money and puts them in sub standard hobble.....? They'd be better off putting this money into services like Mental Health, Medical clinics, and job training and placement....
And how much are they getting for that waste of time? Reminds me of Shrimp on Treadmills....
The trick is to discuss the subject without any passive/aggressive commentary, or outright general devolution.....If we can agree on some shared points I'd call it a success....
Don't we have this information from compiled from decades of welfare assistance programs? Why would we need to keep adding to the handouts?
Alexander Tytler said:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
And he was right....That is where we are now....But it can change....This is a bad idea, and a waste of taxpayer money.
Homelessness IS a problem...But at this point, I believe it is two fold, 1. the upcoming generation doesn't believe in the hard work it takes to be prosperous, and seem to want it handed to them...2. Society goes after the wrong issues surrounding the problem, and the wrong people perpetuating the problem...
Life has a tendency to catch up with you. And there are much more important things than talking to some stranger on the internet. So, no need to apologize.No problem....Sorry it took so long to reply, this week was a killer....Thank you for your patience...
I called it clickbait because the articles headline didn't match the content of the article. It just removed all context in order to grab maximum attention. It's not really important though..I agree that it sounds like a bad idea to take the taxpayers money and just give it to people that would most likely blow the money, and still be on the streets.
Are there other things they could spend the money on? ... Absolutely. I just don't see why it would be an either/or proposition. Neither do I know the answer to your questions. But you don't either. The difference is that you are presupposing an outcome without having data to back it up.How many of the people granted the money do you think will actually spend the money for housing? Or, will these people actually be fleeced by some fly by night NGO that takes that money and puts them in sub standard hobble.....? They'd be better off putting this money into services like Mental Health, Medical clinics, and job training and placement
This is the first logical fallacy you are committing. You are simply asserting it will be a waste of time without ever establishing it to be the case. It's what is called begging the question.And how much are they getting for that waste of time?
Define "handouts" please. Medicaid/Medicare can be considered handouts, but they have been successful in providing medical care. Pensions, disability, all are instances of the government providing aid to people who can't afford certain services, are you willing to state they aren't successful in doing this?Don't we have this information from compiled from decades of welfare assistance programs? Why would we need to keep adding to the handouts?
This doesn't seem like a reason for homelessness though. I don't think when given a choice between being working and being homeless a young person would choose homelessness.1. the upcoming generation doesn't believe in the hard work it takes to be prosperous, and seem to want it handed to them
Can you tell what in your opinion are the right issues and people in the problem?2. Society goes after the wrong issues surrounding the problem, and the wrong people perpetuating the problem
