Homeless in the USA.

[KissMy]

Here's an interesting fact. In the U.S., there are around 582,000 homeless people in the U.S. But there are more than 25 vacant homes in the U.S. for every homeless person here.

Most of those houses don't meet current codes, preventing owners from being allowed to rent new occupants.

 

[skye]

Republicans and democrats ARE rats. They are just two different sides of the same corrupt coin.

may be who knows

 

[Papageorgio]

Are you talking of ownership or renting.

I assumed you were talking about government buildings and have people stay in them. Did you want the government to buy homes and give them away?

 

[dimensional]

PR is harder to control because it's easier for third parties to get into power.

Right now all they have to do is throw money at a small area.
With PR it's about a nationwide campaign and it's very easy for smaller parties to pick up loads of votes, because there are always going to be a large number of people (like 30% upwards) who will oppose such messages from the mainstream.

I can't really see your logic. When you spoke of "proportional representing," I thought it had to do with gerrymandering or something.

 

[dimensional]

may be who knows

I know.

 

[KissMy]

I can't believe anybody could be that stupid, or insane. No sane person would choose being homeless over having a place to live.

Did you offer to repair dilapidated houses in exchange for living there for a period of time?

If not, then you chose to be homeless.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I can't really see your logic. When you spoke of "proportional representing," I thought it had to do with gerrymandering or something.

Proportional representation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2021 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Check these out.

 

[dimensional]

I assumed you were talking about government buildings and have people stay in them. Did you want the government to buy homes and give them away?

Yes. Build them and give them away. Because when something is yours, you are more likely to take care of it.

 

[dimensional]

Did you offer to repair dilapidated houses in exchange for living there for a period of time?

If not, then you chose to be homeless.

I never chose to be homeless. I never chose to be unemployed.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, there are easy fixes. Such as for those who are addicted to drugs. Execute all drug dealers. And close down the mexico-U.S. border. So more drugs can't get in. Also, they spoke of houses for the homeless to move into. I'm sure they didn't include houses that were uninhabitable.

They have been trying to stop drugs from coming in to this country for decades. And have completely failed.

 

[dimensional]

Proportional representation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2021 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Check these out.

We already have "proportional representation." More or less. There were only a few times in history where a president won an election despite not having gotten the majority of votes. Trump was one of those presidents.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes. Build them and give them away. Because when something is yours, you are more likely to take care of it.

So you want my tax dollars to be taken, by force, and used to buy a house for someone who has no investment in the home at all?

No.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you could buy 582,000 houses for $150k each. These would obviously be little shotgun houses or the like. But liveable.

That would cost the tax payers $87,300,000,000.00. And the people would still be unable to pay utility bills, property taxes, maintenance costs and other expenses.

$87 trillion dollars of money taken from people who earned it. And unless you address the drug addictions and mental health issues, all you would be doing is moving the homeless problem out of sight.

 

[dimensional]

They have been trying to stop drugs from coming in to this country for decades. And have completely failed.

That's because they never did anything that works. I gave a couple examples of something that works. The problem is that business runs this country. They decide who gets put into office. To them, drugs aren't a problem. How many Americans die isn't a problem. Having cheap foreign labor either in this country or some other country is FAR more important to them. In fact, I wouldn't doubt it if in some way politicians themselves make money off drugs.

Also, take a look at mexico. I hear that 6000 trucks a day come up from mexico carrying goods made in mexico. And no doubt, a hell of a lot of drugs. You think the government gives a shit? Those products made cheaply means FAR more to them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We already have "proportional representation." More or less. There were only a few times in history where a president won an election despite not having gotten the majority of votes. Trump was one of those presidents.

No, no, no, no and NO.
The US does NOT have proportional representation.

The US has First Past The Post.

FPTP is when you have people competing in a small area.
PR is when you have everyone competing in a largest area.

Even the Presidential election is not PR because it's done on a state by state basis.
Essentially PR means every vote is equal. This is not so in Presidential elections, Wyoming votes are worth more than CA votes. The state which voted the most for Trump was CA, and he got ZERO EC votes.

With PR each of those votes would have counted (unless under the cut off point).

 

[KissMy]

So you want my tax dollars to be taken, by force, and used to buy a house for someone who has no investment in the home at all?

No.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you could buy 582,000 houses for $150k each. These would obviously be little shotgun houses or the like. But liveable.

That would cost the tax payers $87,300,000,000.00. And the people would still be unable to pay utility bills, property taxes, maintenance costs and other expenses.

$87 trillion dollars of money taken from people who earned it. And unless you address the drug addictions and mental health issues, all you would be doing is moving the homeless problem out of sight.

You suck at math. Billion, not trillion.

 

[dimensional]

So you want my tax dollars to be taken, by force, and used to buy a house for someone who has no investment in the home at all?

No.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you could buy 582,000 houses for $150k each. These would obviously be little shotgun houses or the like. But liveable.

That would cost the tax payers $87,300,000,000.00. And the people would still be unable to pay utility bills, property taxes, maintenance costs and other expenses.

$87 trillion dollars of money taken from people who earned it. And unless you address the drug addictions and mental health issues, all you would be doing is moving the homeless problem out of sight.

Do you think the Egyptians were taxed to build the pyramids? Or the Chinese were taxed to build the great wall? Etc. etc. etc. The U.S. is plentiful in natural resources. We also have around 330 million people. We could build as much of anything as we want. But there is a problem with making live more livable for Americans. All the third world lowlifes coming up from south of the border who would want a share of what you have. That's why I say completely close the southern border. Put in land mines. And deport the illegals that are already here. President Eisenhower did something like that once. In the mid 50's he had around 1.5 million illegals deported in what they called "Operation Wetback."

 

[Unkotare]

Or, you could try to refute anything I say. That is, anything that this forum will allow me to say.

Aw, are you afraid to say something?

 

[dimensional]

No, no, no, no and NO.
The US does NOT have proportional representation.

The US has First Past The Post.

FPTP is when you have people competing in a small area.
PR is when you have everyone competing in a largest area.

Even the Presidential election is not PR because it's done on a state by state basis.
Essentially PR means every vote is equal. This is not so in Presidential elections, Wyoming votes are worth more than CA votes. The state which voted the most for Trump was CA, and he got ZERO EC votes.

With PR each of those votes would have counted (unless under the cut off point).

I see nothing wrong with doing things by state. In whatever state you vote in, your vote counts. Or at least it should if somehow it doesn't. What I don't like is gerrymandering. Where they divide up certain areas so certain candidates are more likely to win.

 

[Unkotare]

Yep, it's why you never hear anything about Proportional Representation. It'd be much, much harder for the rich to control politics.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????/

 

[dimensional]

Aw, are you afraid to say something?

No. I just don't like when it is made to disappear.