Liberals Cause Their Own Homeless Problem

[gipper]

And do you want this housing next door to where you live? How much are you willing to pay for this housing? After all, with housing, you will also be responsible for paying for their utilities as well, perhaps paying for their food on top of it.

Okay, let's do that. Did we solve the root problem?

Do you really think there is nowhere in this country where they can be housed? You continually come up with new and ignorant excuses to continue the status quo.

Whatever it costs is what is required. You have no objections to billionaires and big corporations getting whatever they want. Why object to this?

 

[Red Front]

As did I in post #1, which you dismissed in favor of your own cherry picked facts. So, right back at you.

You ignore the fact that Republicans criminalize homelessness forcing them out of their cities and into liberal-run cities, where they have more rights and access to social services. You also ignore the fact that Republicans have a penchant for defunding social programs that help the homeless get back on their feet. So the homeless get the heck out of Republican, conservative-run cities and go to Democrat-run cities, hence the greater number of homeless in liberal-run cities.

The problem is that both Republicans and Democrats aren't doing what needs to be done to eliminate homelessness in America. We have the resources to do it, but we choose not to, hence we end up paying more, in money, crime..etc. Homelessness costs America hundreds of billions of dollars when you factor in all of the court costs, incarceration costs, medical costs, property damage, and lack of business in large areas of the city:

​

Both residential and commercial properties being devalued, people not going to your business because homeless people are harrasing them and urinating, even defecating in front of your store..etc. When you count all of the money that is lost due to homelessness, it's more than a 100 billion yearly. At least. It would cost much less to house the homeless and force them into drug-rehab and outpatient treatment and counseling. That would cost much less. Our government could build new, modern, basic housing for the homeless (a studio efficiency, with a bathroom, small kitchen, bed, airconditioning, electricity..etc). Basic housing, but housing nonetheless.

It would cost aproximinately 20-27 billion dollars to build the housing for our 600 thousand homeless people around the country. Homeless couples with kids, would get a one or two bedroom apartment. Single people would get a studio-efficiency, with basic amenities, nothing fancy. We provide drug-rehab services, AA and NA meetings in the apartment complex, we provide social workers/counselors, we provide needed healthcare, and also, very importantly, we provide vocational-job training and employment opportunities for those who want jobs.

Doing all of the above would cost less than what we're doing now, which is essentially nothing (doing nothing is extremely expensive). Homeless shelters/emergency housing isn't a solution for homelessness. Have you ever slept in a homeless shelter? I work with the homeless, I know how it is in the shelter system.

Most homeless people opt to sleep outside, on a park bench, or in a cheap Walmart tent behind Walmart. That's better than being eaten alive by bedbugs in a homeless shelter and being coughed on all night by a stranger with TB, not to speak of that little AM radio he leaves on all night. The homeless talk-show listener, who doesn't let you sleep. I'm saying this because recently one of the homeless people that I know, was complaining about his bunk-mate listening to talkshows all night ("Coast To Coast With Artbell"). Homeless shelters are not the solution to homelessness. Housing is the solution. Housing.

What does God say about housing the homeless? Let's read His Word:

Isa 58:6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
Isa 58:7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?
Isa 58:8 Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the honor of Yahweh shall be thy rear guard.
Isa 58:9 Then shalt thou call, and Yahweh shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;
Isa 58:10 And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday:
Isa 58:11 And Yahweh shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.
Isa 58:12 And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.

Praise YHWH, The Living God Of Israel. Hallelujah. Open your home to the homeless. Do I have enough love to do that? If not, then I can at least allow the government to house the homeless. If I don't want the homeless living in my living room, sleeping on my couch, eating all of my Fig Newtons, and drinking all of my milk, then I can at least, as a God-fearing disciple of Jesus Christ, allow my government to house them. If and that's a big IF, I have to pay an extra $20 monthly in taxes or an extra 2% in sales tax, to make sure the homeless are adequately housed, then so be it. Why not?

I spend a fortune on Papa Johns every single week. I can show you my actual online receipts, check this out:

I'm addicted to Papa Johns, yet I can't spend an extra $20, $30 in taxes monthly to make sure the homeless are adequately housed and treated with the social services that they need? Homelessness is more expensive, both financially and spiritually. Look what Jesus says:

Mat 25:42 For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Master, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life everlasting.

I was a stranger and you took me not in. In where? Into a homeless shelter? Is that what Jesus was referring to? You didn't drop me off at the El Camino Homeless Mission? He said "you didn't let me into your home". I don't have enough love to let the homeless stay in my home but I can have my government make sure people are adequately housed and not homeless. What's "adequate"? Common sense. It's pretty self-evident what is "adequate", it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. This isn't rocket science. Housing with a bathroom, at least a small kitchen with a simple fridge, a bed, AC.

Both Republicans and Democrats are the source of the problem, due to incompetence and/or indifference.

 

[notmyfault2020]

What I've said all along and this article is the proof. And, it's not an article from Fox News. It is an article from the Atlantic, which leans left. Liberals have caused their very own problem. Same holds true with income inequality and a whole slew of other things.

The real cause of California’s homelessness crisis

It should be embarrassing to California officials that while their state deals with a seemingly intractable homelessness crisis, red states don’t have similar problems.

www.yahoo.com

CA is Number One in the number of homeless people.

Now we all know why

figures.. always the same suspects: dimrat politicians who care more about rules and regulations than people.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Lots of people are homeless by choice. Any form of order or structure is anathema to them. Confusion is order, order is confusion to them.

That's a damn lie

A lot of homeless choose homelessness because it is the lesser of 2 evils, at least to them.

And 72% of homeless women are homeless due to domestic violence. They'd rather live that way than with violence...

Surely you cannot blame them?

 

[pknopp]

That's a damn lie

A lot of homeless choose homelessness because it is the lesser of 2 evils, at least to them.

And 72% of homeless women are homeless due to domestic violence. They'd rather live that way than with violence...

Surely you cannot blame them?

This exemplifies why we can't get anything done. A poster notes that a lot of people are homeless because they aren't able to live in a structured environment. You call that a lie. It is not. There are a lot of people this way.

Does that mean they are saying all are that way? No. By them saying what they say does that mean that many women are not homeless over domestic abuse issues? No.

 

[notmyfault2020]

I was a stranger and you took me not in. In where? Into a homeless shelter? Is that what Jesus was referring to? You didn't drop me off at the El Camino Homeless Mission? He said "you didn't let me into your home". I don't have enough love to let the homeless stay in my home but I can have my government make sure people are adequately housed and not homeless. What's "adequate"? Common sense. It's pretty self-evident what is "adequate", it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. This isn't rocket science. Housing with a bathroom, at least a small kitchen with a simple fridge, a bed, AC.

Both Republicans and Democrats are the source of the problem, due to incompetence and/or indifference.

Well, I think a lot of people have compassion for the homeless and want to help but allowing a stranger to live with you is asking too much. It is not bc they are homeless, it is because people are afraid of strangers and they should be.

That said, I agree w/ your solutions. I never could u/stand why the govt always seems to have money to pay for studies of fruit flies and other horse**** but somehow they can never figure out how to build low income housing. Even a one room studio with a bathroom down the hall shared by others is far better than what we have now...

 

[Woodznutz]

Yeah that works. Yet somehow the problem gets no better.

Default position: The poor are always with you (us).

 

[Woodznutz]

Well, I think a lot of people have compassion for the homeless and want to help but allowing a stranger to live with you is asking too much. It is not bc they are homeless, it is because people are afraid of strangers and they should be.

That said, I agree w/ your solutions. I never could u/stand why the govt always seems to have money to pay for studies of fruit flies and other horse**** but somehow they can never figure out how to build low income housing. Even a one room studio with a bathroom down the hall shared by others is far better than what we have now...

We need to build facilities to sequester drug addicts (involuntary detainment). This kills three birds with one stone,

Provides shelter for addicts.
Interrupts their drug use.
Deprives dealers (and cartels) of income.

 

[notmyfault2020]

We both totally agree. I'm just pointing out to you that the party you support doesn't agree with us. They try to score points with their voters by destroying nice areas in the name of equity. I live in the burbs. I have Section 8 right next door. Every tenant there has been there was nothing but a problem. They are noisy, have zero consideration for working people, and are generally dirty and have even been violent on a few occasions. They simply don't belong here. The police have been next door about a dozen times in the last five or six years because of all the problems they bring with them.

There are always those who give the homeless or poor a bad name. But there are decent homeless people, who just cannot afford the high rent. If someone breaks the law, that someone should be disciplined. But you can't lump all poor and homeless people in one category and then decide that since thye are all, as you say, dirty and lawless and etc.. we should do thus and so for--or against-- "the homeless"

They are no more all the same as a group as are White conservative homeowners all the same

 

[Red Front]

Default position: The poor are always with you (us).

He said that to his disciples in the 1st century when Judas was complaining that the oil could be sold and the money used to feed the poor. Some "Christians" cite this verse to support their indifference to the needs of the poor or any effort that attempts to reduce or eliminate poverty. Supposedly, since Jesus told his disciples that the poor would always exist within a certain context, that means that we shouldn't make an effort to reduce or eliminate poverty. It's good to have people who are impoverished, living in abject poverty, because it supposedly confirms God's word.

Jesus spoke those words to make the point that the oil should be dedicated to its intended purpose and that the poor whom Judas was pretending to care about, would be present in the future for him and the other disciples, to serve. They wouldn't be taking anything away from the poor by dedicating the oil to its original intended purpose. People take a comment that was made by Jesus to make a point within a certain context, at a certain time, for a certain purpose, then misapply it to every age, location, circumstance, making Jesus say what he didn't intend.

To those who want to pretend that this means that the poor will always exist in every age, I ask you, does it say that the poor will exist in every location on earth? Every country will be full of impoverished people? America has to have homeless people because Jesus wants there to be homeless people? Jesus expects people to open the doors of their homes and let the homeless in:

Mat 25:42 For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Master, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life everlasting.

It doesn't make any sense for you to cite that now, as if it proves anything. It's a good policy to reduce and even eliminate poverty whenever we can. Material scarcity creates an immense amount of pain and suffering in the world. How can a Christian promote that?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are always those who give the homeless or poor a bad name. But there are decent homeless people, who just cannot afford the high rent. If someone breaks the law, that someone should be disciplined. But you can't lump all poor and homeless people in one category and then decide that since thye are all, as you say, dirty and lawless and etc.. we should do thus and so for--or against-- "the homeless"

They are no more all the same as a group as are White conservative homeowners all the same

I was not talking about the homeless. We kind of drifted off to a similar subject. With section 8 you have to have some sort of income as they only provide vouchers. The problem is the vouchers are too large that it allows them to bed down in the suburbs and destroy those places. Like I said, I haven't had a Section 8 person live there that wasn't a problem.

 

[Red Front]

We need to build facilities to sequester drug addicts (involuntary detainment). This kills three birds with one stone,

Provides shelter for addicts.
Interrupts their drug use.
Deprives dealers (and cartels) of income.

I agree and make the sale and distribution of hard-drugs a capital crime. Send drug dealers to the firing squad or gallows. Decriminalize and help the addicts, kill the dealers. Make it extremely dangerous for dealers, to the point that they won't want to risk getting caught selling drugs and being executed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you really think there is nowhere in this country where they can be housed? You continually come up with new and ignorant excuses to continue the status quo.

Whatever it costs is what is required. You have no objections to billionaires and big corporations getting whatever they want. Why object to this?

I wasn't objecting, just asking questions. What's with this hangup of yours with corporations and billionaires anyway? These are the people that create our jobs. These are the people that nearly entirely support our federal government. If government gives them a break by taking less of the money they created, don't you think they're worth it?

 

[Red Front]

I wasn't objecting, just asking questions. What's with this hangup of yours with corporations and billionaires anyway? These are the people that create our jobs. These are the people that nearly entirely support our federal government. If government gives them a break by taking less of the money they created, don't you think they're worth it?

The trickle-down doesn't trickle.

Your claim that the rich are the only ones who support the federal government is false. Many of them do everything possible not to pay taxes and hence don't. It's the working-class that supports the federal government with their taxes and labor, not a few wealthy people who do everything possible to reduce, if not eliminate their taxes.

The government has to bail out the capitalists every few years, using public funds. They privatize the profits and make the losses public. The average working-class person ends up paying the price, while the rich cash in.

The golden age of the US economy was in the 1950s and 60s. At that time the highest tax bracket was 90%. Sure there were tax loops and ways to reduce taxes, but nonetheless, the corporations, the rich, paid more, and workers paid less. The working-class (95% of the population) is the backbone of our economy, not the rich.

The capitalists need workers more than workers need capitalists. The working-class could organize production without wealthy employers.

​

 

[notmyfault2020]

This exemplifies why we can't get anything done. A poster notes that a lot of people are homeless because they aren't able to live in a structured environment. You call that a lie. It is not. There are a lot of people this way.

Does that mean they are saying all are that way? No. By them saying what they say does that mean that many women are not homeless over domestic abuse issues? No.

There was no added comment on how not all are like that.

 

[pknopp]

There was no added comment on how not all are like that.

What was said was not a lie.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your claim that the rich are the only ones who support the federal government is false. Many of them do everything possible not to pay taxes and hence don't. It's the working-class that supports the federal government with their taxes and labor, not a few wealthy people who do everything possible to reduce, if not eliminate their taxes.

The government has to bail out the capitalists every few years, using public funds. They privatize the profits and make the losses public. The average working-class person ends up paying the price, while the rich cash in.

The golden age of the US economy was in the 1950s and 60s. At that time the highest tax bracket was 90%. Sure there were tax loops and ways to reduce taxes, but nonetheless, the corporations, the rich, paid more, and workers paid less. The working-class (95% of the population) is the backbone of our economy, not the rich.

The capitalists need workers more than workers need capitalists. The working-class could organize production without wealthy employers.

​

Yes, it's the rich that does support our federal government. The top 20% of working people will pay 87% of all collected income taxes. In that figure, the top 1% pay 40%. So yes, it's the wealthy that supports nearly our entire federal government.

Payroll tax most people get back at the end of their life. If you live the average US lifespan, you will get all your SS money back and more, all your Medicare money back and more, if you become disabled depending on the age of disability, you will get all your FICA taxes back and more. Other payroll taxes go to support the services your local governments pay for such as street lights, emergency services, police, garbage pickup and so on.

If we took all our poor and put them on an island somewhere, nobody would miss them. In fact our country would be better off without them. Take all our wealthy and do the same, our country collapses.

 

[Woodznutz]

He said that to his disciples in the 1st century when Judas was complaining that the oil could be sold and the money used to feed the poor. Some "Christians" cite this verse to support their indifference to the needs of the poor or any effort that attempts to reduce or eliminate poverty. Supposedly, since Jesus told his disciples that the poor would always exist within a certain context, that means that we shouldn't make an effort to reduce or eliminate poverty. It's good to have people who are impoverished, living in abject poverty, because it supposedly confirms God's word.

Jesus spoke those words to make the point that the oil should be dedicated to its intended purpose and that the poor whom Judas was pretending to care about, would be present in the future for him and the other disciples, to serve. They wouldn't be taking anything away from the poor by dedicating the oil to its original intended purpose. People take a comment that was made by Jesus to make a point within a certain context, at a certain time, for a certain purpose, then misapply it to every age, location, circumstance, making Jesus say what he didn't intend.

To those who want to pretend that this means that the poor will always exist in every age, I ask you, does it say that the poor will exist in every location on earth? Every country will be full of impoverished people? America has to have homeless people because Jesus wants there to be homeless people? Jesus expects people to open the doors of their homes and let the homeless in:

Mat 25:42 For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Master, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life everlasting.

It doesn't make any sense for you to cite that now, as if it proves anything. It's a good policy to reduce and even eliminate poverty whenever we can. Material scarcity creates an immense amount of pain and suffering in the world. How can a Christian promote that?

The poor and homeless can found nearly everywhere. True, Jesus was referring to the ointment/oil but was also pointing out the fact that we will always have the poor among us as an ever-present social class. The names may change but the class remains.

 

[Woodznutz]

I was not talking about the homeless. We kind of drifted off to a similar subject. With section 8 you have to have some sort of income as they only provide vouchers. The problem is the vouchers are too large that it allows them to bed down in the suburbs and destroy those places. Like I said, I haven't had a Section 8 person live there that wasn't a problem.

In my city Section 8 comes with way too many regulations. Most landlords including myself reject the program. We have always had a strong rental market here and don't need to accept subsidized renters.

 

[Woodznutz]

Yes, it's the rich that does support our federal government. The top 20% of working people will pay 87% of all collected income taxes. In that figure, the top 1% pay 40%. So yes, it's the wealthy that supports nearly our entire federal government.

Payroll tax most people get back at the end of their life. If you live the average US lifespan, you will get all your SS money back and more, all your Medicare money back and more, if you become disabled depending on the age of disability, you will get all your FICA taxes back and more. Other payroll taxes go to support the services your local governments pay for such as street lights, emergency services, police, garbage pickup and so on.

If we took all our poor and put them on an island somewhere, nobody would miss them. In fact our country would be better off without them. Take all our wealthy and do the same, our country collapses.

I've put into SS $72,000 (my contribution) and have gotten back over $350,000 with much more to come.