Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks
Las Vegas Makes It Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks
Perhaps the coming of the Antichrist is in Vegas, just got lost and picked a desert?... his kinda' town.
I heard about this on NPR last week. I intended to make a thread about it. Society is lost: right is wrong, good is bad. I fear for us, I fear for our future.
Las Vegas Makes It Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks
Perhaps the coming of the Antichrist is in Vegas, just got lost and picked a desert?... his kinda' town.
You might get more discussion in these threads if you linked to a news article that doesn't make you jump through hoops to read it. I don't feel like registering at the NYT or finding an anonymizer. You could also quote the first paragraph or two of the article in your post.
Judging from the lack of response by others, I assume they aren't reading the articles either.:)
Well, you shoulda already heard about this one!
You might get more discussion in these threads if you linked to a news article that doesn't make you jump through hoops to read it. I don't feel like registering at the NYT or finding an anonymizer. You could also quote the first paragraph or two of the article in your post.
Judging from the lack of response by others, I assume they aren't reading the articles either.:)
He did something like that awhile and got his ass handed to him, for pasting tmi.
He did something like that awhile and got his ass handed to him, for pasting tmi.
Yup...
Can't win I guess.
But, I'll do it for the one who can't be put-out by regitering for the Times.
Las Vegas Makes It Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
Published: July 28, 2006
LAS VEGAS, July 21 — Gail Sacco pulled green grapes, bread, lunch meat and, of course in this blazing heat, bottles of water from a cardboard box. A dozen homeless people rose from shady spots in the surrounding city park and snatched the handouts from her.
Monica Almeida/The New York Times
Gail Sacco, a retired restaurant owner, has for years been giving meals to homeless people in a Las Vegas park. The city has outlawed the practice.
Monica Almedia/The New York Times
Recipients of Ms. Sacco’s handouts say that they are far from shelters and that they get little public assistance.
Huntridge Circle Park is about three miles from most soup kitchens.
Ms. Sacco, an advocate for the homeless, scoffed at a city ordinance that goes into effect Friday making it illegal to offer so much as a biscuit to a poor person in a city park.
Las Vegas, whose homeless population has doubled in the past decade to about 12,000 people in and around the city, joins several other cities across the country that have adopted or considered ordinances limiting the distribution of charitable meals in parks. Most have restricted the time and place of such handouts, hoping to discourage homeless people from congregating and, in the view of officials, ruining efforts to beautify downtowns and neighborhoods.
But the Las Vegas ordinance is believed to be the first to explicitly make it an offense to feed “the indigent.”
The ordinance does not apply to the famous Las Vegas Strip, which lies mostly in unincorporated Clark County, but it demonstrates both the growing pains the city has endured as tourism has boomed, and the steps Las Vegas is taking to regulate where entrenched populations of homeless people can gather. And eat.
“The government here doesn’t care about anybody,” said one homeless woman, Linda Norman, 55, taking a bottle of water and already perspiring in morning heat approaching 100 degrees at Huntridge Circle Park, a manicured, well-watered three-acre patch of green in a residential area near downtown. “We just want to eat.”
Las Vegas officials said the ordinance was not aimed at casual handouts from good Samaritans. Instead, they said it would be enforced against people like Ms. Sacco, whose regular offerings, they said, have lured the homeless to parks and have led to complaints by residents about crime, public drunkenness and litter.
“Families are scared to go to the park,” said Gary Reese, the mayor pro tem and a City Council member who represents the area around Huntridge Circle Park. The city, Mr. Reese added, had just spent $1.7 million in landscaping and other improvements there.
“I don’t think anybody in America wants people to starve to death,” Mr. Reese said. “But if you want to help somebody, people can go to McDonald’s or Kentucky Fried Chicken and give them a meal.”
He said that the police would ignore “isolated cases” of violating the ordinance, and predicted that the law would ultimately help the homeless because they would be forced to seek meals at soup kitchens run by social service organizations that could provide other assistance as well.
But Maria Foscarinis, director of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty in Washington, said the prohibition would do more harm than good. “Nobody wants the poor and homeless living in public spaces,’’ Ms. Foscarinis said, “but this kind of response is terribly misguided.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, which opposed the ordinance, said it was preparing a legal challenge. The group’s general counsel, Allen Lichtenstein, called the measure absurd and said it was an unconstitutional infringement on free assembly and other rights.
Mr. Lichtenstein accused Mayor Oscar B. Goodman, who supports the new restriction, of waging a campaign against homeless people, whom the mayor has openly criticized. At a June meeting of the City Council, Mr. Goodman suggested that panhandlers with signs asking for food be sued for “false advertising” because soup kitchens provide free meals. “Some people say I’m the mean mayor,’’ Mr. Goodman acknowledged, but he defended the ordinance as part of the effort to steer the homeless to social service groups, and said the city was taking part in a regional initiative to end homelessness in 10 years.
The ordinance, an amendment to an existing parks statute approved by the Council on July 19, bans the “the providing of food or meals to the indigent for free or for a nominal fee.” It goes on to say that “an indigent person is a person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive” public assistance.
Violating the ordinance is a misdemeanor, and can be punished by a fine of up to $1,000 or a jail term of up to six months, or both. Diana Paul, a spokeswoman for the city, said the police would begin enforcing it after briefings from city lawyers.
Mr. Lichtenstein said the ordinance allows a picnicker to offer food to a middle-income friend but not to a poor one. “If you have a picnic, are you supposed to have everybody give you a financial statement? This is a clumsy and absurd attempt to make war on poor people.”
The ordinance says nothing about offering money to the homeless, and allows offering food to poor people on adjacent sidewalks, something Ms. Sacco said she was considering.
Las Vegas already prohibits 25 or more people from gathering in parks without a permit, and allows the police and city marshals to bar people on the spot for certain periods. The A.C.L.U. has filed a federal lawsuit attacking those restrictions, and Mr. Lichtenstein said he would seek to add this new ordinance to the suit.
Bradford Jerbic, the city attorney, did not reply to a message left at his office. Mr. Reese, the mayor pro tem, said Mr. Jerbic had assured officials that the ordinance was legal and would hold up in court if applied “sensibly.”
And Mr. Goodman, a lawyer, said he did not fear a court fight either.
“For 35 years, I represented reputed mobsters and was never afraid to go to court,’’ he said, “and I am not afraid to go to court against the A.C.L.U.’’
Some cities, like Fort Myers, Fla., and Santa Monica, Calif., have scaled back restrictions in the face of community objections or lawsuits. The Santa Monica ordinance, which governs public gatherings in parks, faced a federal lawsuit in 2003 by Food Not Bombs, a group that has drawn controversy in several cities for serving regularly scheduled hot meals to the homeless in city parks.
The city eventually eliminated a provision requiring a permit to distribute food on public property, but with the backing of a federal appeals court last month, it requires a permit for giving out hot food to groups of 150 or more. Carol Sobel, a lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, said they still feed the homeless in parks but make sure the groups have fewer than 150 people.
In New York, Angela Allen, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeless Services, said: “The city has not created any policies around feeding in the park, but we believe there are better ways of serving the homeless and all of their needs for both food and shelter. No one should ever go hungry."
On Monday, Orlando, Fla., adopted a prohibition on feeding groups of 25 or more people in downtown city parks and other public facilities without a permit.
Social service providers said they had mixed views of the Las Vegas ordinance. Las Vegas has a severe shortage of shelter space for the homeless, but operators of soup kitchens said they could feed many more people than they do.
“We don’t want to discourage people to give out food, but it has to be done intelligently and with the right format and in the right area,” said Charles Desiderio, a spokesman for the Clark County chapter of the Salvation Army.
Homeless people and Ms. Sacco, a retired restaurant owner who has been serving pots of soup and beans for several years in Huntridge Circle Park, said that it could be difficult to travel to soup kitchens and that the police often forced the homeless from areas where shelters were located.
Huntridge Circle Park is about three miles from most of the soup kitchens downtown, a difficult walk when the weather is hot.
Another reason the homeless do not flock to shelters here, Ms. Sacco acknowledged, is that the chronically mentally ill who make up a sizable part of the homeless population typically resist treatment and services.
“I don’t have no money for a bus,” Nalinh Khamsoukthavong, who said he was “about 50,” and gave a rambling explanation of his plight that involved promised help from several people, a visit to his native Laos and a series of deceitful bosses. “I have to walk, and I don’t have food.”
Huh, I was able to read it with no registration issues... but I didn't respond to this one because I wholly disagree with rkzenrage and Flint's position on the matter, and didn't feel like starting off an argument about it. But since I've gone this far:
I have no problem with this ordinance. Especially as the mayor specifically said that cases of individual giving would be ignored, and that this was to stop the scheduled, large-scale feeding of homeless people in public parks when there are soup kitchens and other locations that already provide that service. I believe that the neighbors' complaints that this has caused large numbers of homeless people to congregate in the park, leading to increased crime, are legitimate. And I fundamentally feel that most (not all, but most) homeless people are unwilling to help themselves, and giving them continued handouts is doing nothing to improve their situation anyway.
There. Now yell at me and tell me why I'm heartless.
Thanks for posting it (although you really didn't have to post the whole thing. I got the idea after 4-5 paragraphs.)
I'm torn on this. Bottom line is I oppose the law. I think it's silly to put a law like this on the books.
On the other hand, the city has a very good point. Homeless people congregating in a park will scare others away. I've seen it first hand here in D.C. A nice park that has turned into a sort of homeless campground is now really a dump, and I would be nervous taking my kids there. Also, if a kitchen is giving out free food 2-3 miles away, that's close enough. If I was hungry, I would walk 2 or 3 miles to get something to eat. It's not that far. I might even set up camp closer to the food.
But it's overkill to make a law about this. IMHO.
Judging from the lack of response by others, I assume they aren't reading the articles either.:)
Or perhaps they're already registered to read NYT's screeds and don't feel like making the obvious comments so the liberals can jump all over them about how heartless they are.
Look...a public park isn't a homeless shelter. If you're looking for a warm fuzzy feeling by proving what a noble soul you are for feeding the homeless, part of your job is finding a place to do it without turning the park (which was built for other purposes) into one.
There's a
lovely big park down the street from my house. It's also a working farm. It closes at sunset, and overnight camping is not permitted.
I can imagine the patrols the rangers would have to run to empty the place (nearly 700 acres of farm, woodland and stream, including a trout hatchery) at night if free food was being dispensed there...they'd be working long after the do-gooders went home, patting each other on the back.
It's not about being liberal it's about being compassionate. Taking the food to where the homeless already are is not going to make them suddenly propogate... they are not plants.
"Oh, great, now we'll never get rid of them! ...and they'll only bring their friends!"
Let's give them gift cards to some of the upscale restaurants in the area. That'll keep them out of the park! Let them eat cake - somewhere away from us well-fed folks.
It's the same old "they don't help themselves, they're lazy, unsightly, inconvenient, criminal" rationalizations. If minimum wage was enough to provide food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and maybe a few amenities, there would be fewer of these folks in the park.
Taking the food to where the homeless already are is not going to make them suddenly propogate... they are not plants.
I disagree. Word gets around. "Did you know they hand out sandwiches at the park at 3pm?". One tells another and so on. Then they hang out around the park -- because, hey, that's where they hand out sandwiches.
I used to work in the Pioneer Square area of Seattle - right by where the original "Skid Row" was in the depression. There were always lots of homeless in the area - because there was a shelter in the area. Same deal.
"they don't help themselves, they're lazy, unsightly, inconvenient, criminal"
It always upsets me to hear these arguments since a big reason why many people are homeless is because
they're mentally ill and can't help themselves.
Approximately 200,000 individuals with schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness are homeless, constituting one-third of the approximately 600,000 homeless population (total homeless population statistic based on data from Department of Health and Human Services).
If minimum wage was enough to provide food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and maybe a few amenities, there would be fewer of these folks in the park.
Unlikely. Homelessness is not a temporary condition for most of these folks -- it's a lifestyle.
I understand that most of these folks can't improve themselves because they have mental issues. I am compassionate to their situation. But you can't help a situation if you don't really understand it.
If minimum wage was enough to provide food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and maybe a few amenities, there would be fewer of these folks in the park.
How much per hour do you reckon that would have to be?
Maybe there would just be fewer minimum wage jobs, and MickeyDburgers would cost north of $15 each. Or maybe that would simply expand
opportunitidades por nos hermanos y hermanas hispanicos sin documentos.
Perhaps you'd get to order it as "
Doble hamburguesa con queso, por favor. Aqui esta America. Habla español."
And no, using
estar vs.
ser wasn't a mistake.
I disagree. Word gets around. "Did you know they hand out sandwiches at the park at 3pm?". One tells another and so on. Then they hang out around the park -- because, hey, that's where they hand out sandwiches.
I used to work in the Pioneer Square area of Seattle - right by where the original "Skid Row" was in the depression. There were always lots of homeless in the area - because there was a shelter in the area. Same deal.
So, next logical step is to outlaw shelters?
Unlikely. Homelessness is not a temporary condition for most of these folks -- it's a lifestyle.
I understand that most of these folks can't improve themselves because they have mental issues. I am compassionate to their situation. But you can't help a situation if you don't really understand it.
I've been homeless, once as a child. You assume much.
This is about just helping to feed them, not building them homes there. But I guess we cannot be burdened by those trying to help some people who are hungry... the hungry are so very inconvenient and look so bad with the landscaping.
This law is
so much better than one that outlaws having too few beds in shelters and clinics, nice priorities there.
This is about just helping to feed them, not building them homes there. But I guess we cannot be burdened by those trying to help some people who are hungry... the hungry are so very inconvenient.
OK, so feed them at your house. Problem solved.
Not really. You can bet that neighborhood zoning issues would come up for that much faster than they did for public parks.
Why doesn't some genius politician create a program so these people could EARN some food in exchange for grounds maintenance? I'm sure sandwiches and coffee would be cheaper than overpaying the lazy-ass city employees. At the same time it may improve their social skills and in turn be a type of therapy.
So, next logical step is to outlaw shelters?
Nowhere did I say or convey that. The point was that the homeless go where there's help. You made the point that there would not be more homeless in a particular area just because there were handouts. I refuted it.
I've been homeless, once as a child. You assume much.
Notice that I used the word
most when describing the long-term homeless.
This is about just helping to feed them, not building them homes there. But I guess we cannot be burdened by those trying to help some people who are hungry... the hungry are so very inconvenient and look so bad with the landscaping.
This law is so much better than one that outlaws having too few beds in shelters and clinics, nice priorities there.
I'm not against feeding them. I just thing there's better places to do it than the park.
I also recognize that feeding them is just putting a band-aid on the problem. I suspect that more and better facilities for the mentally ill would go a long way to easing the problem.
Not really. You can bet that neighborhood zoning issues would come up for that much faster than they did for public parks.
{insert rant about how zoning is controlled by the evil rich property owners who hate people here}
How much per hour do you reckon that would have to be?
Maybe there would just be fewer minimum wage jobs, and MickeyDburgers would cost north of $15 each. Or maybe that would simply expand opportunitidades por nos hermanos y hermanas hispanicos sin documentos.
...
So what's the answer?
Can't feed 'em in the park,
Can't feed 'em in the square,
Can't feed in your home,
Can't feed 'em anywhere!
Do you want them to go to hell?
Do you want that, MaggieL?
Seriously. It's a matter of choice, and the continuum goes from kill them all to help them all. Do you want to spend your money or your conscience?
{insert rant about how zoning is controlled by the evil rich property owners who hate people here}
It may very well be, but that's not the issue - if a place is zoned residential, setting up what amounts to a soup kitchen (or any other business/organization that generates foot traffic) would almost certainly be prohibited. And if the foot traffic is homeless people, you can bet it will be enforced double quick.
Heck, getting a homeless shelter or soup kitchen through zoning in a commercial area is hard enough.
So what's the answer?
The answer is, if you want to feed the homeless, in addition to finding the food, and perhaps preparing it (and accepting the liability if it harms the people you give it to), you have the additional job of providing a place to distribute (and perhaps eat) it. You're not entitled to turn a public park into a soup kitchen. Yes, it's a logistical hassle...but this is a logistical undertaking.
I'm not the one who is proposing doing (only part of) the job. If you want the warm fuzzy feeling, you do the the work.
I suspect that more and better facilities for the mentally ill would go a long way to easing the problem.
Bingo. The homeless problem really took off in the 80s when the Reagan administration drastically cut federal funding to mental hospitals. Many of the patients left the hospitals and hit the streets.
The problem is far from simple.
A solution requires coordination between local, state and federal governments. It also requires cooperation from private volunteers who hand out sandwiches in the park, and the charity organizations that run kitchens and shelters.
If better facilities were available for the mentally ill, and if areas were set aside where the homeless could squat without hassles from the police, hell, maybe even with the protection of the police, and if bathrooms were set up that they could use, and if job training/help was more readily available for those that wanted it, the problem would decline.
Lots of locations just pick them up and give them a bus ticket.
Passing laws restricting behavior is really just a band aid on a symptom, it isn't going to do much to fix anything.
So what's the answer?
What's *your* answer? How much per hour would minimum wage have to be before your shiny, happy fed/housed/healthcared/amenitied criteria would be met? It's obviously such a simple solution, let's see you put a price tag on it.
The collectivist crowd here seems to be doing a lot of handwaving about how if only there wasn't so much poverty, un- and under-employment and untreated mental illness, there would be less homelessness.
Duh.
I'm reminded of the folks who used to buy soft pretzels at 30th Street Station and then amuse themselves while waiting for their train by feeding the remains to the pigeons. They were never commuters, and didn't have to deal every day with the bird exhaust encrusting everything (including few available benches on the platform)...they got their strokes and moved on.
I sometimes fantasized a giant mutant pigeon carrying them off to feed to her young...their companions screaming to them "Charleen! Charleen! Drop the car keys!"
I wish this thread was what I misread it as.
Illegals to Feed Homeless in Parks
Nowhere did I say or convey that. The point was that the homeless go where there's help. You made the point that there would not be more homeless in a particular area just because there were handouts. I refuted it.
Notice that I used the word most when describing the long-term homeless.
I'm not against feeding them. I just thing there's better places to do it than the park.
I also recognize that feeding them is just putting a band-aid on the problem. I suspect that more and better facilities for the mentally ill would go a long way to easing the problem.
Agree with all of this... has nothing to do with the mean-spirited legislation that we are discussing. It is in the vein of the NY downtown "clean-up". I was there during that and it almost made me believe in evil.
... has nothing to do with the mean-spirited legislation that we are discussing...almost made me beleive in evil...
So since you're neither evil nor mean-spirited you'll be opening a soup kitchen at your place?
Maybe there would just be fewer minimum wage jobs, and MickeyDburgers would cost north of $15 each.
I personally don't rate the "right to cheap and tasty fast food" very high on the
big-picture scale.
Why doesn't some genius politician create a program so these people could EARN some food in exchange for grounds maintenance? I'm sure sandwiches and coffee would be cheaper than overpaying the lazy-ass city employees. At the same time it may improve their social skills and in turn be a type of therapy.
Bravo! Bravo! Thank you for saying this! Whatever happened to social policies that accomplished multiple objectives?!
So since you're neither evil nor mean-spirited you'll be opening a soup kitchen at your place?
While you're talking about opening soup kitchens in homes, as some sort of analogy to doing it in public parks, just remember that the people closest to being "at home" in the public park are the homeless.
So since you're neither evil nor mean-spirited you'll be opening a soup kitchen at your place?
It's very easy and fun to criticize others and not stick out your own neck, isn't it?
Bingo. The homeless problem really took off in the 80s when the Reagan administration drastically cut federal funding to mental hospitals. Many of the patients left the hospitals and hit the streets.
Right, when you talk about "the homeless" just remember
how they got "homeless" to begin with.
Unlikely. Homelessness is not a temporary condition for most of these folks -- it's a lifestyle.
I understand that most of these folks can't improve themselves because they have mental issues. I am compassionate to their situation. But you can't help a situation if you don't really understand it.
Who would choose a lifestyle of homelessness?
What's *your* answer? How much per hour would minimum wage have to be before your shiny, happy fed/housed/healthcared/amenitied criteria would be met? It's obviously such a simple solution, let's see you put a price tag on it.
The collectivist crowd here seems to be doing a lot of handwaving about how if only there wasn't so much poverty, un- and under-employment and untreated mental illness, there would be less homelessness.
Duh.
Actually, my answer is to set up a regular free meal truck at the Norristown Farm Park. ;) Maybe even leave a case of Jiffy Pop behind, so they'll start fires at night.:rolleyes: Duh right back at ya.
The answer? Well, I don't have the means to feed them all in my home, and I have too much compassion to kill them, so it would be somewhere between the two. Maybe provide facilities (oh no! collectivism!) where they can satisfy the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If that's all they want, so be it. If they want more, they can find a job, but they won't need a job that would cause a $15 McBurger, because their basic needs would be met.
BTW, if homelessness isn't caused by un- and underemployment and untreated mental illness, what does cause it?
Maggie, why are you so against helping people? If it's the cost, it would be alot cheaper to help these folks than it has been to develop the Osprey. How about we use some of that cash?
While you're talking about opening soup kitchens in homes, as some sort of analogy to doing it in public parks, just remember that the people closest to being "at home" in the public park are the homeless.
I'd say that the local homeowners are the closest to being at home in the park. They effectively have a soup kitchen being set up in their backyard.
Maybe provide facilities (oh no! collectivism!) where they can satisfy the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
But that's the whole point, there
are facilities provided, just like there are public parks provided. Except the public parks are being usurped for other purposes.
But if you feed them they lose the ability to survive in the wild without handouts. They become dependent on people to survive and when winter comes and the tourists go home, they will suffer horribly. Well, that's why You shouldn't feed the critters in the National Parks, anyway.
Who would choose a lifestyle of homelessness?
Most of the people they kicked out, when they closed the PA State Hospitals, some years ago. These people need help but the courts have ruled you can't help them against their will. They can't be locked up unless they're dangerous to others....being a danger to themselves, doesn't count.
I've no first hand experience, but everything I've read says the shelters are generally hell holes. Your life and possessions are at risk every night you're there. We saw some of that in New Orleans where the people were tossed into the dome without supervision. Of course to make the shelters safe, you would have to run it like a jail or at least a strictly controlled dormitory. That would drive many of the homeless away, just as fast. Catch 22?
The same thing applies to any kind of structured employment, no matter what you pay. Certainly not all, but a large portion of the homeless, don't want a regular job....nothing with rules.
It's much easier to be compassionate when it's not your backyard, and doesn't create problems for you. But, if these homeless people were drawn, by the good samaritan, to the playground your kid uses, it's much tougher,...... much, much tougher. Even if you stand watch over your kid the whole time they play, you don't want Aqualung sitting on the next swing.
Aside ~Public Park, owned by the city. Public property, right?
All the public or just legal residents of that city and their guests? Who owns it, if the residents of the city paid for it? I can remember, as a kid, being shooed out of a park in a town where I wasn't a resident, for that very reason. Of course when you're a kid raised in a climate of respect for authority, legality isn't questioned. :D
I'd say that the local homeowners are the closest to being at home in the park. They effectively have a soup kitchen being set up in their backyard.
Whereas the homeless effectively have one being set up in their home.
Maggie, why are you so against helping people? If it's the cost, it would be alot cheaper to help these folks than it has been to develop the Osprey. How about we use some of that cash?
You're pretty lose with the word "help", there, Scooter.
You may believe a handout is "help", and you're welcome to hand out all of
your stuff that you like if you really beleive it's helpful. But since at least the Johnson administration I've seen way too much welfare state accomplish exactly nothing (other than providing employment to the useless apparatchiks that run the programs), while robbing people of their initiative and self-respect.
You can claim it's "help". I'm not convinced. And you're certainly not entitled to despoil a public park to do it.
Actually, my answer is to set up a regular free meal truck at the Norristown Farm Park.
Exactly...you're prepared to spew glib allusions as to how a civilized society would already set the minimum wage so anyone making it could live comfortably...fed, shelted, medical care and some unnamed "amenities" provided (Cable TV? Cellphone service? Crack cocaine? What?)
But you don't even know how much that would be...there's no limit to your largess with employer's money in setting the price for unskilled labor.
And don't you run with the same crowd that tells us how our economy can't afford to do without the illegals who work for
less than the prevailing wages?
It's very easy and fun to criticize others and not stick out your own neck, isn't it?
Whom are you addressing?
We saw some of that in New Orleans where the people were tossed into the dome without supervision.
I'm in agreement with most of what you say in this post, but I'd be wary of waving the Superdome around as a scarecrow...most of the wild stories in the press about what supposedly went on there turned out to be urban legend.
That said, in the same situation the cops would find it difficult to confiscate my legally owned weapons, as the NO cops seemed to think they were entitled to.
Fortunately we now have some state laws explicitly forbidding that, with federal laws perhaps to follow.I personally don't rate the "right to cheap and tasty fast food" very high on the big-picture scale.
As we all know, homeless folks cook their own food from healthy ingredients in spacious, sanitary kitchens.
My point was that a massive increase in the minimum wage would price some goods that use unskilled labor in their production out of reach of the very people most likely to need them. Or cause minimum wage jobs to dry up.
I think that's why Sexxvet is dodging the question as to how much he thinks the minimum wage should be to solve all these problems.
Whatever happened to social policies that accomplished multiple objectives?!
You mean like the WPA?
just remember that the people closest to being "at home" in the public park are the homeless.
Squatting someplace doesn't
make it your home. Having the homeless consider the parks to be their home is what this law is intended to avoid.
So since you're neither evil nor mean-spirited you'll be opening a soup kitchen at your place?
I am not evil, no one is.
I am not mean-spirited, like your post, and did work in them, while I still could and still support them. I have also fed the homeless in my home, several times.
Criticize away... those in pain always want to share it.
It's not about being liberal it's about being compassionate. Taking the food to where the homeless already are is not going to make them suddenly propogate... they are not plants.
Actually, it does.
I deal with a lot of homeless people. From Robert the homeless, crazy guy who sometimes sleeps on the porch, to a variety of folks in bad circumstances, folks who have lost everything to crack use (and continue to use), and people who have alienated their families.
There need to be limits set, otherwise they do keep coming and coming and coming, from all over.
Las Vegas is a sort of mecca for the homeless in the Western US. I have a friend who lives there (actual native Las Vegan, former emergency dispatcher, husband was a cop, her children are cops, so she's speaking from real experience, rather than just NIMBY type bitching) who tells me that it's worse than it ever has been.
I wish this thread was what I misread it as.
Illegals to Feed Homeless in Parks
Nice modest proposal. I'm for it.
Soylent Green is people!!
Actually, it does.
I deal with a lot of homeless people. From Robert the homeless, crazy guy who sometimes sleeps on the porch, to a variety of folks in bad circumstances, folks who have lost everything to crack use (and continue to use), and people who have alienated their families.
There need to be limits set, otherwise they do keep coming and coming and coming, from all over.
Las Vegas is a sort of mecca for the homeless in the Western US. I have a friend who lives there (actual native Las Vegan, former emergency dispatcher, husband was a cop, her children are cops, so she's speaking from real experience, rather than just NIMBY type bitching) who tells me that it's worse than it ever has been.
Does what?
I don't know what you are referring to in my post, specifically.
But, if you are saying, it will bring them to the park, feeding those who are already there... so?
Good, then we know where they are so we can help them and then they will not be homeless any longer, right? Problem solved.
Is it just me or is it
sick to anyone else that someone would think it is a
bad thing to feed a hungry person in any circumstance, ever?
My old boss, before he went nuts and stopped coming to work, used to talk about the shelter system in Britain.
They had a lot of strict rules, including one that I found very interesting. You were only permitted to spend one night at a shelter within a specified period of time. Shelters were placed about one day's walk apart. You got a bed, a meal, and were sent out.
There are some shelter programs that just house and feed people. I don't think that these are of much value, beyond making people dependent on their services. The successful programs are the ones that focus on transition to permanent residence, Ready-for-Work programs, and so forth ... but those beds are going empty,
because people refuse to sign up for them.
Philadelphia has several programs, like
Horizon House, that I believe I've discussed before, specifically designed to assist the seriously mentally ill homeless. They have psychiatrists, social workers, nurses, and case managers, provide apartments, life skills training, etc.
Only about 15% of homeless people are identified as mentally ill. Off the top of my head, I think the rate for the rest of the population is about 10%. Based on my own personal experience, that five percent difference is probably attributable to two things ... classifying substance abuse as mental illness (which it isn't) and getting a psych diagnosis by manipulating the system into calling you crazy for three hots and a cot and some nice cozy medications.
Trust me, I know a lot of homeless crazy people, but I also know a lot of homeless manipulators. Talked to one tonight, in fact. By a careful combination of talking about suicide interspersed with requests to go to rehab, this person has been hospitalized since early May. Not all at the same place, but the individual has gone from facility to facility this way. The most recent place was too demanding. They actually wanted the patient to participate in treatment, and so, on cue, the suicide card is played, including a refusal to contract for safety, and a threat to "flip out" and throw a computer off a shrink's desk to add flavoring. Even managed to sob on the phone, blaming the facility before last's changing of medication, for today's "instability."
Yeah. Sure.
My hospital is closer to the client's significant other, and unlike a rehab, we allow visiting.
But you know what? The insurance company agrees to pay, and the person will be brought in.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
This is your tax dollars at work, people. Aren't you proud?
Does what?
Causes the homeless to propagate.
If you feed them, they will come.
We can't have them fed then. That is the reason for the law. Back to square one.
I wonder how many taking part in this discussion know what it is to be truly hungry?
I wonder how many taking part in this discussion know what it is to be truly hungry?
Man, I havent had anthing to eat in fifteen minutes! Of COURSE I know!
In America there is hunger, but not one single sign of starvation.
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=243852&postcount=14 I have also fed the homeless in my home, several times.
One-on-one charity, while it might be thought admirable by some, doesn't count in this case.
I said "opening a food kitchen"...making a public announcement that food is available to the hungry for the taking at (or very near is good enough) your home. Otherwise you're not demonstrating a willingness to bear the burden of a convergence of large numbers of "the needy" on your home.
You can fling accusations of "mean-spiritedness" or "sickness" around if you like...but then that's awfully hard to distinguish from criticism, isn't it? As for sharing pain...well...I'm sure my pain is not in the same league as yours; you've certainly shared a lot of it here.
Hypocrisy is a different animal from mean-spiritedness though...
-------
By the way, perhaps I should mention that the mental hospital where Wolf works is on the same property as the Farm Park...in fact the farm itself used to be worked by inmates of the hospital to raise some of their own food.
In most grocery stores you can get a dozen eggs for $1. Good luck with the project rk
Nice modest proposal. I'm for it.
Soylent Green is people!!
No, waitaminute...
"Illegals To Feed Homeless In Parks"
is not to be confused with
"Illegals Fed To Homeless In Parks"
or
"Illegals Feed On Homeless In Parks"
Reminds me of my ex-father-in-law, who liked to joke that "I've got good news and bad news. The bad news is the Martians have landed. The good news is they eat n*ggers and piss gasoline."
Now there's a "social policy with multiple objectives" for ya.
If I go to the park and hand out free balloons to children, do you think they would consider passing a law to prohibit it?
If I push a cart to the park and pass out free samples of ice cream, would the current law apply? (another might -- soliciting)
Why does this law specifically cite the homeless?
If I go to the park and hand out free balloons to children, do you think they would consider passing a law to prohibit it?
...
Why does this law specifically cite the homeless?
Because after they get their balloons the children will go home. Is the concept of "creating a nuisance" that foreign to you?
Is the concept of "creating a nuisance" that foreign to you?
Not in the least. Is there not already a law that prohibits "creating a nuisance" or "loitering" or "trespassing" or whatever problems people think are being created? What, exactly, do city officials think such a specific law is going to stop?
Las Vegas Makes It Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks
Gail Succo is simply going to go across the street and pass out sandwiches on the sidewalk. Will they then make it illegal to feed the homeless (and only the homeless, of course) on public property or in Las Vegas proper? How can you write a law like that? You can't distribute free things to people? You can only give out food to people that have a permanent address?
City officials and law makers need to stick to writing laws that actually prohibit
crime. The problem of homeless people sleeping in the park is a bigger issue than someone handing out food and it isn't going to be remedied by banning the distribution of food in a public area to a specific class of people.
Not in the least. Is there not already a law that prohibits "creating a nuisance" or "loitering" or "trespassing" or whatever problems people think are being created?
The law removes the burden of proving that operating a food kitchen in the park in a specific instance created a nuisance, just as having a speed limit law creates a presumption of reckless driving. If you're stopped for speeding, try complaining to the cop that he should instead be enforcing "laws that actually prohibit crime"; that always works.
The law isn't intended to "remedy the larger issue of homelessness"...and neither is handing out sandwiches.
The law removes the burden of proving that operating a food kitchen in the park in a specific instance created a nuisance, just as having a speed limit law creates a presumption of reckless driving. If you're stopped for speeding, try complaining to the cop that he should instead be enforcing "laws that actually prohibit crime"; that always works.
Let's think about this comparison for a moment.
Speeding/drunk driving laws: based on legally binding contracts that apply to
everyone that signed them (the little card in your wallet) preventing actions based on personal decisions that directly cause life threatening situations.
Don't feed the homeless in the park law: attempts to prevent
already illegal activities that are based on the decision of a person that are somehow related to the completely benign actions of another party on those of a specific social class defined strictly by income level and resident status.
Does this sound right to you? A law based on a specific class of people and the harmless actions of another? Say, graffiti is a big problem, right? The action, itself, is already illegal, so we should obviously
ban the sale of spraypaint to minors. Not all paint and not to everyone. Just spraypaint and only to people under 18. But, ah, minors don't have equal rights, so...
The law isn't intended to "remedy the larger issue of homelessness"...and neither is handing out sandwiches.
And that is exactly the problem of these pointless band-aid laws that single out select races/classes/ages/genders of people and perfectly harmless actions -- They do about as much good for the community as, well, handing out packets of free food to the homeless.
They could have passed a law that prevented distributing free food in public places by anyone for public health reasons, maybe? Setup hours of operation for the park and no trespassing laws? There are plenty of other ways to accomplish the same goal.
Silly thought: it'd be funny if a disaster hit the area, causing the Red Cross to setup relief operations in the park to serve the suddenly homeless population of the city. Wonder if they would let the law slide then?
sure they would. that's why this whole thing is so damn silly.
I think that's why Sexxvet is dodging the question as to how much he thinks the minimum wage should be to solve all these problems.
I think I posted that if we provide basic needs to folks, the minimum wage issue goes away, but let's do some quick and dirty math.
rent $500/month
food $15/day X 30 days $450/month
utilities $150/month
clothing $100/month
Minimum monthly costs $1200
monthly hours worked 176
take home $/hr to cover enpenses $6.82
assuming 25% payroll taxes,
necessary gross hourly salary
to cover monthly expenses $9.09
That's no phone, vehicle, car insurance, life insurance, renter's insurance, health insurance (or paid in full by employer), and walking to work.
DUH
Let's think about this comparison for a moment.
Speeding/drunk driving laws: based on legally binding contracts that apply to everyone that signed them (the little card in your wallet) ...
An appealing theory, but bogus. The traffic laws apply to you operating a motor vehicle even if you are not licenced. They're laws, not the considerations of a covenant.
Don't feed the homeless in the park law: attempts to prevent already illegal activities that are based on the decision of a person that are somehow related to the completely benign actions... pointless band-aid laws that single out select races/classes/ages/genders of people and perfectly harmless actions --
You're begging the question again. The law creates the presumption that the actions are
not benign. Obviously the people living near the park don't think it's "benign" and "harmless" to run a seven days a week mobile food kitchen in their park.
...they said it would be enforced against people like Ms. Sacco, whose regular offerings, they said, have lured the homeless to parks and have led to complaints by residents about crime, public drunkenness and litter.
Apparently folks in Orlando feel the same way about it.
About a dozen downtown residents and business owners spoke in favor of the rule. Eric Kerlin said people have used his yard and bushes as a bathroom and damaged his property. More urgently, "I'd like to use the park without fear of being harassed or robbed."...[O]pponents included well-known homeless charity groups, such as The Ripple Effect, and lesser-known ones, such as Tailgating for Jesus and the First Vagabond Church of God.
I wonder how far from the park Ms. Sacco lives? Available evidence suggests that she actually lives in Reno. Certainly far enough not to be bothered by any nuisance she creates in the neighborhood of the park; for her that's just a political stage.
The NYT article also mentions "Food Not Bombs" with the implication that they're a separate group; it would appear that that's not the case since Sacco and her brother run the Southern Nevada FNB chapter. Her brother apparently at least lives within 20-30 miles of the park in question....still a comfortable distance away.
I think I posted that if we provide basic needs to folks, the minimum wage issue goes away...
I think that if "we" (what's this "we" stuff...got a mouse in your pocket? :-)) provide basic needs to folks, that's called socialism.
You may think that's a good idea.
I don't.
So if the minimum wage is
nearly doubled, the homeless problem goes away. No impact on available jobs. Anybody can find a place to live for $500/mo within walking distance of work. Power
and heat for $150/mo. Health insurance paid in full by employer.
Sure.
(I finally got a job with fully-paid medical in January for the first time in at least thirty years, and it's a plum I don't expect to see last forever; it's a significant high-value part of my compensation, and probably only available because my employer is in the insurance industry.)
And what became of your "amenities"?
You're begging the question again. The law creates the presumption that the actions are not benign.
If I hand out free sandwiches to people in a park, it is
absolutely benign and is not a criminal offense. What the person I give the sandwich to does with their time is their decision, not mine, and any crimes they commit in the area are of their own doing, not my own.
Obviously the people living near the park don't think it's "benign" and "harmless" to run a seven days a week mobile food kitchen in their park.
Wow, it must suck to live near a public space where people do public things. Maybe they would feel better if they moved to a secure gated community with a private park where only residents are allowed and they can go about their daily stroll without having to look at another person that has an income lower than half of theirs. Living in a downtown area near an open, public park is their decision, their choice, and absolutely no one is forcing them to live where they are. I've lived in neighborhoods where conditions changed and crime went up, but I've never felt compelled to lobby for a law that would shut down the new
Dollar Store or liquor store on the corner that that was attracting "undesirables" with perfectly legal transactions. I did what a normal, sensible person would do: I moved.
Most have restricted the time and place of such handouts, hoping to discourage homeless people from congregating and, in the view of officials, ruining efforts to beautify downtowns and neighborhoods.
If I elect to give resources to others, it is quite simply none of the government's business as to what the economic standing of the recipient is or how many people I elect to supply, no matter how overly concerned local residents are about their precious property values.
This isn't to say what Succo is doing isn't annoying and that local residents don't have a right to be pissed off about it. Still, there is nothing illegal about it. A law, however, that dictactes "you cannot [perfectly legal action] to a person who is of [race/gender/economic standing/etc]" most certainly is.
We can't have them fed then. That is the reason for the law. Back to square one.
I wonder how many taking part in this discussion know what it is to be truly hungry?
No, no, no. That is not true. The question is
where?
The city says at the shelter/kitchen. The park dwellers want room service.
But, either way, they
will be fed, if they wish, so leave out starvation, compassion and all the things that don't apply. ;)
As an aside,
here is a link to The 12 Myths About Hunger.
If I hand out free sandwiches to people in a park, it is absolutely benign and is not a criminal offense.
What, you mean it's not a felony? It's certainly against the law.
And it's only "benign" in the sense of 2a...certainly not 3b.
1 : of a gentle disposition : GRACIOUS <a benign teacher>
2 a : showing kindness and gentleness <benign faces> b : FAVORABLE, WHOLESOME <a benign climate>
3 a : of a mild type or character that does not threaten health or life; especially : not becoming cancerous <a benign lung tumor> b : having no significant effect : HARMLESS <environmentally benign>
Maybe they would feel better if they moved to a secure gated community with a private park where only residents are allowed and they can go about their daily stroll without having to look at another person that has an income lower than half of theirs. Living in a downtown area near an open, public park is their decision, their choice, and absolutely no one is forcing them to live where they are.
I've seen the area on satellite imagery...it's not "a downtown area"...not that that's particularly relevant.
Look, it's their municipality, they decided they don't want food kitchens in their park. Nobody's forcing
you to go there...are they supposed to move because some activists from out-of-town decided it would be a cool place to operate and
you think it should be OK?
If you want to run a food kitchen, it's incumbent on you to find a place where that's permitted.
This isn't to say what Succo is doing isn't annoying and that local residents don't have a right to be pissed off about it. Still, there is nothing illegal about it.
Uh...yeah, it
is illegal: they passed a law against it (and you just admitted it's not benign in the 3b sense). "Legal" doesn't mean "Kitsune thinks it's OK", it means "in accordance with the law".
If you want to run a food kitchen, it's incumbent on you to find a place where that's permitted.
Establishing a kitchen would be a zoning issue. Having the ability to give a sandwich to whoever one wants to is a right.
I would assume that from a libertarian perspective, the rights of the sandwich giver and reciever would trump those of officials upset about appearances.
Establishing a kitchen would be a zoning issue. Having the ability to give a sandwich to whoever one wants to is a right.
I would assume that from a libertarian perspective, the rights of the sandwich giver and reciever would trump those of officials upset about appearances.
The rights of the citizens of the municipality trump the rights of the homlessness activists from out-of-town, who have been careful to keep their soup kitchen mobile to avoid the need for zoning compliance. They were already busted once for an unpermitted gathering of more than 25, which it seems they circumvented somehow; presumably by marshalling their clientele in groups smaller than 25, which must be a real cat-herding exercise.
Nobody's been hassled for giving away a sandwich one-on-one.
I think that if "we" (what's this "we" stuff...got a mouse in your pocket? :-)) provide basic needs to folks, that's called socialism. You may think that's a good idea. I don't.
Unless of course you end up in that position:rolleyes: The "we" is because I can't feed them alone, and you want them out of the park. "We" have to come up with a solution satisfactory to both of us, or one of us will be pissed. That may not bother you, but I'm a win/win kind of guy.
So if the minimum wage is nearly doubled, the homeless problem goes away. No impact on available jobs. Anybody can find a place to live for $500/mo within walking distance of work. Power and heat for $150/mo. Health insurance paid in full by employer.
Sure.
(I finally got a job with fully-paid medical in January for the first time in at least thirty years, and it's a plum I don't expect to see last forever; it's a significant high-value part of my compensation, and probably only available because my employer is in the insurance industry.)
And what became of your "amenities"?
That's my point, exactly. It's not likely that $9.09 would do it. Before you bring up the $15.00 McBurger, the only way this will work is if the wealth gluttons settle for less. That's right - WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION (gasp). Some folks who make hundreds of million dollars a year need to cut down, so that there won't be starving crazy lazy criminals making an eyesore in your park. Because
I don't.
Maggie, you still haven't committed to a position - do you think they should be left to die? You don't seem to want to pay for anything that will help them. How do we resolve this situation It's one thing to just be critical of what's happening, it's another to suggest a solution.
Uh...yeah, it is illegal: they passed a law against it (and you just admitted it's not benign in the 3b sense). "Legal" doesn't mean "Kitsune thinks it's OK", it means "in accordance with the law".
If Succo went to the park and handed out food to everyone, would the police be right in saying that Succo could
only give it to people with who had homes and must turn away everyone that does not? Is that not discrimination? If I went to the park and gave away cotton candy to people everyday and, in time, some Asians that came from surrounding neighborhoods over to enjoy the free treats commited crimes, would the local government be right to pass a law that said it was illegal to give cotton candy to Asians in public parks in order to prevent crime? Under your logic, that law would be just fine if the residents deemed it to be.
I wouldn't have any problem if they passed a law preventing mass food distribution to
anyone in public parks. Problem "resolved".
Honestly, if I lived in this area, I'd rent a van and bus the homeless to Succo's house to make it easier for food distribution on both parties.
Honestly, if I lived in this area, I'd rent a van and bus the homeless to Succo's house to make it easier for food distribution on both parties.
Not cheap...assuming by "Succo's house" you mean the place FNB press releases list as Ms. Succo's phone number...it's in Reno. Her brother's number geolocates to a residential area near McCarran International....miles away from the park in question.
I'm sure "Food Not Bombs" would welcome your cash contributions, so "if I were in the area" isn't a consideration. Whether they'd abide by your conditions for using the money or not I don't know. Wikipedia describes them as an anarchist organization; I rather suspect that they are at least partially motivated by a desire for publicity. Apparently the FNB deal is they "rescue" vegan-compliant food from being discarded and offer it to all comers...along with some form of political promotion in the form of brouchures/broadsides etc. You could almost call it "faith-based social services", inasmuch as they seem to not believe in war or meat.
Somehow I don't think there's a huge demand for this food amongst the non-indigent.
Maggie, you still haven't committed to a position - do you think they should be left to die? You don't seem to want to pay for anything that will help them. How do we resolve this situation It's one thing to just be critical of what's happening, it's another to suggest a solution.
What a bunch of hooey. These people aren't in danger of dying...TFA points out that there are food kitchens within a few miles. What FNB is doing is political theater, nothing more.
The "we" is because I can't feed them alone, and you want them out of the park. "We" have to come up with a solution satisfactory to both of us...
So the park is held hostage by the homeless, the socialists, and their anarchist buddies until "the goverment" (meaning taxes from me and the other people earning a living) feeds everyone for free.
I think not.
That's right - WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION (gasp). Some folks who make hundreds of million dollars a year need to cut down, so that there won't be starving crazy lazy criminals making an eyesore in your park. Because
Oh...I see. Homelessness is the fault of the rich for not giving away what they own. Lovely.
That's my point, exactly. It's not likely that $9.09 would do it.
If minimum wage was enough to provide food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and maybe a few amenities, there would be fewer of these folks in the park.
Make up your mind.
All the world seems in tune
on a spring afternoon
when we're...
Make up your mind.
That's pretty plain - what's your confusion?
A minimum wage job is not something that really has to be able to support someone, let alone a family. Look at the work involved, you put fries in oil and mop floors for 8 hours and go home. We can automate for less cost than human workers, so the labor is not worth more than a few dollars an hour. In essence, anyone who can't do more complicated or valuable work has no value to the market and should be at least understanding that the only reason they have work at all is that other people, for differing reasons, have kept low wage positions available. We don't live in an era where menial labor is very useful anymore, so why do people still expect to be able to live a decent life with no skills??
Complete mechanization of simple low wage jobs plus partially subsidized continuing education would be where I would begin
That's pretty plain - what's your confusion?
You started off by representing that an adequate minimum wage would solve the homeless problem.
Asked what that "adequate" wage would be, you blew smoke for a while then quoted about $10/hr (comparable to places like the UK and France, where of course they have utterly no problems with either unemployment or homelessness).
Then when I pointed out that you'd trimmed the original scope of what was "adequate", you said "Well, of course that's not enough, The government should feed everyone and pay for it with wealth redistribution."
Stick with one position, please. You got a foot in the door with "raise the minimum wage" and now we've slippery-sloped to "eat the rich".
'Scuse me ... but what about the homeless who are on public assistance, get their checks at the drop-in center, and are eligible for housing programs like section 8 and do not make use of these services, prefering to stay in the shelter system, eat at the food kitchen and use their government supplied money for important things, you know, like crack and alcohol? This is not the typical 'anecdotal evidence' ... I know these folks personally. The ones who get tired of being on the streets tell me they are suicidal so they can have a roof, a bed, a shower, and three meals a day until the insurance or the county stops paying, or the next check is due tomorrow. Then they sign out and the whole cycle begins again?
Not in the least. Is there not already a law that prohibits "creating a nuisance" or "loitering" or "trespassing" or whatever problems people think are being created? What, exactly, do city officials think such a specific law is going to stop?
Gail Succo is simply going to go across the street and pass out sandwiches on the sidewalk. Will they then make it illegal to feed the homeless (and only the homeless, of course) on public property or in Las Vegas proper? How can you write a law like that? You can't distribute free things to people? You can only give out food to people that have a permanent address?
City officials and law makers need to stick to writing laws that actually prohibit crime. The problem of homeless people sleeping in the park is a bigger issue than someone handing out food and it isn't going to be remedied by banning the distribution of food in a public area to a specific class of people.
Funny... I thought the idea of a park was a place to loiter?
I was thinking about maggie's anti-semi-socialism and spexxvet's 'take money from the rich' bit, and had an idea:
When anyone over a certain (extremely high) value dies, a tidy chunk of their fortune (a third or so) should be taken to help the poor, and the rest can be given out however. This would not only help the poor, but also not take money away from those who actually earned it. Don't try to tell me Paris Hilton has ever earned a penny in her life...
I was thinking about maggie's anti-semi-socialism and spexxvet's 'take money from the rich' bit, and had an idea:
When anyone over a certain (extremely high) value dies, a tidy chunk of their fortune (a third or so) should be taken to help the poor, and the rest can be given out however. This would not only help the poor, but also not take money away from those who actually earned it. Don't try to tell me Paris Hilton has ever earned a penny in her life...
It's called "
Estate Tax", and it's already in place.
So we should take money from someone you're sure hasn't earned it, and give it to people who haven't earned it either but you're sure are more deserving. Administered by the government.
Thank you for clarifying your misunderstanding.
You started off by representing that an adequate minimum wage would solve the homeless problem.
That misrepresents my words. Actually, I said
If minimum wage was enough to provide food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and maybe a few amenities, there would be fewer of these folks in the park.
Not
solve. Are you disputing that there would be fewer homeless in the park if minimum wage were enough to support someone?
Asked what that "adequate" wage would be, you blew smoke for a while .
Like you are with your own solution. Kill them? Help them? You don’t want
your money to help feed them. You don’t want them in your park. What’s your plan?
then quoted about $10/hr (comparable to places like the UK and France, where of course they have utterly no problems with either unemployment or homelessness).
Actually, my thoughts were in general terms at the time, and when you demanded specifics I hadn’t taken the time to do any calculations. I thought about it, and posted an estimate.
Then when I pointed out that you'd trimmed the original scope of what was "adequate", you said "Well, of course that's not enough,
If you want minimum wage to be higher, suggest your own amount. I posted what I thought was a bare minimum.
The government should feed everyone and pay for it with wealth redistribution."
Actually, I didn’t bring the government into it at all.
That's my point, exactly. It's not likely that $9.09 would do it. Before you bring up the $15.00 McBurger, the only way this will work is if the wealth gluttons settle for less. That's right - WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION (gasp). Some folks who make hundreds of million dollars a year need to cut down, so that there won't be starving crazy lazy criminals making an eyesore in your park. Because
It’s the CEO, who makes $100 million, saying “I can exist on $80 million, I’ll put $20 million toward payroll and raise the standard of living for my employees, who can’t support themselves on $9.00/hour. See? Look Mom, no government!
And it was an either/or statement. Either society/government provides for these folks, with tax revenue, or business does, not by raising prices, but by not being wealth-gluttons. Except for the mentally ill and the prodigal sons, of course.:)
Stick with one position, please. You got a foot in the door with "raise the minimum wage" and now we've slippery-sloped to "eat the rich".
Hey, There’s an option I hadn’t considered.
A minimum wage job is not something that really has to be able to support someone, let alone a family. Look at the work involved, you put fries in oil and mop floors for 8 hours and go home. We can automate for less cost than human workers, so the labor is not worth more than a few dollars an hour. In essence, anyone who can't do more complicated or valuable work has no value to the market and should be at least understanding that the only reason they have work at all is that other people, for differing reasons, have kept low wage positions available. We don't live in an era where menial labor is very useful anymore, so why do people still expect to be able to live a decent life with no skills??
...
Try living without those folks doing what they do.
'Scuse me ... but what about the homeless who are on public assistance, get their checks at the drop-in center, and are eligible for housing programs like section 8 and do not make use of these services, prefering to stay in the shelter system, eat at the food kitchen and use their government supplied money for important things, you know, like crack and alcohol? This is not the typical 'anecdotal evidence' ... I know these folks personally. The ones who get tired of being on the streets tell me they are suicidal so they can have a roof, a bed, a shower, and three meals a day until the insurance or the county stops paying, or the next check is due tomorrow. Then they sign out and the whole cycle begins again?
Is that every homeless person? Probably not. How about we help the ones who will use the help? Pay them enough so that they aren't financially penalized for working? How can we, as a society, break the cycle? Should we do an "Escape from New York" or leper colony concept? What do we do?
What a bunch of hooey. These people aren't in danger of dying...TFA points out that there are food kitchens within a few miles. What FNB is doing is political theater, nothing more.
While they might not be in danger of starving, there is increased exposure to disease and infection, and decreased access to healthcare, proper nutrition, etc.
Is that every homeless person? Probably not. How about we help the ones who will use the help? Pay them enough so that they aren't financially penalized for working? How can we, as a society, break the cycle? Should we do an "Escape from New York" or leper colony concept? What do we do?
I haven't met those homeless people.
While they might not be in danger of starving, there is increased exposure to disease and infection, and decreased access to healthcare, proper nutrition, etc.
Which has nothing to do with feeding them in the park. It's still political theater, and I'm not bound for find a "solution" to a phony problem. You claimed they were in danger of starving to death if FNB doesn't get to do their political theater, and that's bogus.
So...are you noww proposing some affirmative action program that eliminates the increased risks that arise from being homeless? That's looney.
Or are you just looking for another red herring to wave?
I haven't met those homeless people.
How would you know?
Which has nothing to do with feeding them in the park. It's still political theater, and I'm not bound for find a "solution" to a phony problem. You claimed they were in danger of starving to death if FNB doesn't get to do their political theater, and that's bogus.
So...are you noww proposing some affirmative action program that eliminates the increased risks that arise from being homeless? That's looney.
Or are you just looking for another red herring to wave?
No, a red herring would be to claim that Isaid they were in danger of starving to death. I challenge you to supply a quote of that. Then we can get back on topic.
BTW, now has only one w.
I haven't met those homeless people.
And I haven't met the ones you describe.
Like you are with your own solution. Kill them? Help them? You don’t want your money to help feed them. You don’t want them in your park. What’s your plan?
My plan is exactly what's happening: running a food kitchen in the park is illegal. My money is dedicated to feeding and housing me and my family, and sending my kids to college so they'll be more likely to not be homeless.
I'd like to have some left over to live on when I'm too old to work, but that's not looking too strong right now; taxes for well-meaning entitlement programs soaked up all my retirement savings while I was unemployed for a few years. (Funny, nobody wanted to feed me then, in the park or otherwise...they still waned *me* to feed *them*). Fortunately I had enough to meet the above vital needs until I could improve my skills and become employable again.
If you want minimum wage to be higher, suggest your own amount. I posted what I thought was a bare minimum.
No, I don't particularly...that's *your* idea. I lived though the Nixon administration, and I don't think wage controls are particularly useful. I prodded you to run the numbers to show you what a lame, ineffective idea it actually is.
It’s the CEO, who makes $100 million, saying “I can exist on $80 million, I’ll put $20 million toward payroll and raise the standard of living for my employees, who can’t support themselves on $9.00/hour. See? Look Mom, no government!
Do you know such a CEO? I don't. That's a fantasyland scenario. You don't get to be a CEO by being altruistic.
[quote=Maggiel]...eat the rich...
Hey, There’s an option I hadn’t considered.[/QUOTE]
Sure you have...it's implicit in your collectivist platform.
And I haven't met the ones you describe.
How many homeless people have you met? I'm guessing it's a small fraction of Wolf's cohort.
No, a red herring would be to claim that Isaid they were in danger of starving to death. I challenge you to supply a quote of that. Then we can get back on topic.
Maggie, you still haven't committed to a position - do you think they should be left to die?
I missed the starve part.;)
I missed the starve part.;)
What were you suggesting they would be left to die
of? Boredom? The issue at hand to which you wished to return was feeding them in the park.
...I'd like to have some left over to live on when I'm too old to work, but that's not looking too strong right now; taxes for well-meaning entitlement programs soaked up all my retirement savings while I was unemployed for a few years. (Funny, nobody wanted to feed me then, in the park or otherwise...they still waned *me* to feed *them*). Fortunately I had enough to meet the above vital needs until I could improve my skills and become employable again.
...
Didn't you watch the oreo video in ye olde video thread? A hell of a lot more oreos go to the pentagon than anywhere else. Don't blame high taxes on entitlements, blame the hawks.
Didn't you watch the oreo video in ye olde video thread? A hell of a lot more oreos go to the pentagon than anywhere else. Don't blame high taxes on entitlements, blame the hawks.
I prefer pie to cookies.
Ok, I concede that point. :redface: I trust your pie to be honest and correct.
Wait til I get my hands on Ben, co-founder of Ben and Gerry's Icecream!:mad:
It's called "Estate Tax", and it's already in place.
So we should take money from someone you're sure hasn't earned it, and give it to people who haven't earned it either but you're sure are more deserving. Administered by the government.
I know of the estate tax, but I think it's not enough, and doesnt go anywhere. The estate tax just goes to the government at large, and is buried in the billions of dollars spent on bullshit... I'm sure you've heard the one that goes something like "
Upon achieving successful space flight, the US found that ball-point pens do not write in space. So, they spent millions on research, and developed a pen that could not only write in space, but upside-down and underwater... The Russians just used a pencil." I think the estate tax should go straight to the needy, not get caught up in all the other bullshit.
And quite simply, yes, I do think we should take money from someone someone who hasn't earned it and give it to people who haven't earned it either but need it more.
Think of homelessness like being trapped down a well. I dont care if someone was pushed in, fell in, or jumped headfirst, I want to help them. Maybe they could get out on their own if they had the willpower or physical strength, but I'm not going to yell down the well "HEY! YOU! DO SOME PUSH-UPS AND CLIMB OUT YOURSELF!", I'd toss them a rope or even climb down myself and help them. I personally like helping people that need help, whether it's tossing them a rope or climbing down there, picking them up, and carrying them out all by myself. It doesnt hurt me to throw a rope, I don't need it and he does. Maybe you don't feel the same way, but I think if you were filthy stinkin' rich, you could stand to part with a bit of cash when you go.
Isn't "Entitlement Program" a loaded term? Should we ridicule the irresponsible public for feeling "Entitled" to a decent highway system, or dependable mail delivery? Why can't those lazy slackers pull themselves up by their bootstraps and develop a good-old-fashioned do-it-yourself attitude?
Sure, let's go completely liberal and relabel everything until we like the spin. "Undocumented immigrant" rather than "illegal alien" for starters. "Dispropotionate response" rather than "self-defense". "Affirmative action" rather than "race-based set-aside".
"Entitlement" has a specific meaning in this context. Perhaps you'd prefer to refer to it as "mandatory humanitarianism".
When was the term "entitlement program" coined? It sounds like spin.
I'm sure you've heard the one that goes something like "Upon achieving successful space flight, the US found that ball-point pens do not write in space. So, they spent millions on research, and developed a pen that could not only write in space, but upside-down and underwater... The Russians just used a pencil."
Yes, I've heard of it, and it's
completely an urban legend. I happen to be a Space Pen user...they rock hard, and they're not at all expensive now.
Gawdawmighy, you really, really, really don't want to use a graphite pencil in a microgravity environment full of electronic equipment. Trust me.
Sure, let's go completely liberal and relabel everything until we like the spin.
No, let's go completely
conservative and relabel everything until we like the spin.
Wow, what an unproductive and over-simplified game of good guys versus bad guys. I'll bet we can do this all day long and get absolutely nowhere.
Welcome to the Cellar. ;)
When was the term "entitlement program" coined? It sounds like spin.
In the Federal budget process...the distinction is "entitlements" vs. "discretionary spending".
see
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/budgetprocess/budgetprocess.htm
While the size of the annual federal budget has increased in dollar terms (reflecting inflation, increased population and economy) over the years, the proportion available for common government services has shrunk dramatically. Competition among federal agencies for funding is heating up. Over the last three decades, discretionary spending has been cut significantly to accomodate rapid growths in other expenses. Discretionary spending covers everything from road building to police protection to medical research to our national defense -- most of the government services with which Americans are familiar. All other spending is mandatory -- required by law regardless of what is left over for discretionary spending. Mandatory spending includes entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, and the enormous interest the U.S. must pay every year to finance the national debt.
"Entitlements" because someone has been "entitled" by existing law to receive the money.
Yes, I've heard of it, and it's completely an urban legend. I happen to be a Space Pen user...they rock hard, and they're not at all expensive now.
Gawdawmighy, you really, really, really don't want to use a graphite pencil in a microgravity environment full of electronic equipment. Trust me.
Okay, maybe it didnt
really happen, but the story gets my point across.
Any comments on, uh, anything else in my entire post? Or just that one little redundant point?
:::slowly backs out of thread:::
..."Entitlement" has a specific meaning in this context. Perhaps you'd prefer to refer to it as "mandatory humanitarianism".
Believe me when I tell you that nobody feels more entitled than a wealthy person.
No, let's go completely conservative and relabel everything until we like the spin.
An original term is not a relabeling. Like "liberal"...which is now "progressive".
Moral equivalance again...
Believe me when I tell you that nobody feels more entitled than a wealthy person.
Really? Show up at the welfare office on the day when checks are late.
So...where's your "hawks are spending all the tax money"?
Any comments on, uh, anything else in my entire post?
Good luck, but that doesn't appear to be how it works in here.
You fool!
:boxers:
I think I graciously conceded the point, Maggie. Are you really gonna gloat and rub it in? :dedhorse:
Oh, I forgot, magnanimous is not in the conservative dictionary.
An original term is not a relabeling. Like "liberal"...which is now "progressive".
...
and "clear skies initiative" which allows increased polution in the air we breath, and "anti-abortion" which is really "anti-choice", and "right to life" which means "we conservatives will tell you when you can allow your brain dead wife to die". Yeah, spin. Go figure.
Both of you, grow up and stop arguing conservative vs. liberal. Argue conservative points versus liberal points, not conservative nature versus liberal nature.
Pretty please?
stop arguing conservative vs. liberal
[SIZE="1"]That was my point, actually.[/SIZE]
and "clear skies initiative" which allows increased polution in the air we breath, and "anti-abortion" which is really "anti-choice", and "right to life" which means "we conservatives will tell you when you can allow your brain dead wife to die". Yeah, spin. Go figure.
The position re-labelling on abortion rights happened on both sides almost immediately..."pro-choice" was invented to counter "pro-abortion" as an obvious antonym to "anti-abortion". "Pro-abortion" is a misnomer, because abortion rights advocates aren't simply in favor of abortions; they're opoosed to restrictions on them. Hence "pro-choice". "Pro-life" begs the question of whether a fetus is in fact human life.
Happens I'm pro-choice, and I also think the Chiavo case was well-decided; they were both examples of unwarrented government intrussion.
"Clear Skies Initiative" I'd not heard of but it obviously can't be a
relabelling if it's a new program. Which it is...and being a program of pollution limits it seems fair to call it "Clear Skies' unless you'd prefer "Clear But-Not-As-Clear-As-The-Greens-Want Skies".
Anyway, now that the weekend's over, I have work to do...and quite enough time has been spent in this thread chasing collectivist ghosts. My position on the central proposition is that people have a right to set rules for their park...whether it's "curb your dog" or "no food kitchens--no matter how informally organized".
"What to do about homelessness" is another topic...but I'll remind you that that the cop waking up the bum sleeping under newspapers on the park bench with the words "move along" is an ancient icon of American Culture, and that Jesus (no, I'm not a Christian either) once said "The poor will be always with you".
Let us know how you make out convincing the CEOs of the world to pay for your "unofficial voluntary no-government-involved minimum wage program"...and how FNB reacts to your offer to pay for bussing their clients to someplace where they're (more) welcome.
"Pro-life" begs the question of whether a fetus is in fact human life.
Aren't you the one who is always nagging about the misuse of the expression "begging the question?" :)
You can't feed the homeless but you can pay the prostitues for sex.
Aren't you the one who is always nagging about the misuse of the expression "begging the question?" :)
Yes, and I used it correctly. Perhaps you still don't get it.
You can't feed the homeless but you can pay the prostitues for sex.
????
????
I think she means 'in the park'--as in you can't feed the homeless there, but you can meet and exchange business with the working guys and gals there.
I think she means 'in the park'--as in you can't feed the homeless there, but you can meet and exchange business with the working guys and gals there.
Thanks. Wait a minute, I just had a thought.....ew, never mind.
Okay, maybe it didnt really happen, but the story gets my point across.
Oh...I see. It's one of those "higher truth" things like F-911 and the Rathergate memos.
Any comments on, uh, anything else in my entire post? Or just that one little redundant point?
No, not really...struck me mostly as aimless blather about how terrible homelessness is...other than to note that the Estate Tax is already a bigger percentage than you proposed, so how "it's not enough" arises I don't know.
Apparently there already were a bunch of collectivists who tapped that vein, so you'll have to find another one. I suppose you could always opt to simply confiscate all inheritances over a certain amount, but you'll just force people to deed stuff over before dying if they really want thier heirs to get it rather than the government, so then you'll be looking for another gift tax, I suppose.
There are indeed a very few extremely rich people. But there's so many more poor people, just playing Robin Hood is one of those "band-aid solutions" people were mocking here earlier...and you can only do it so often.
You started off by representing that an adequate minimum wage would solve the homeless problem. --snip
Nope.
It's the same old "they don't help themselves, they're lazy, unsightly, inconvenient, criminal" rationalizations. If minimum wage was enough to provide food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and maybe a few amenities, there would be fewer of these folks in the park.
emphasis mine.
Moving the parameters of the discussion by misrepresenting Spexxvet's remarks by only makes it easier for you to criticize. It does nothing to lend credibility to your claims.
I haven't read any of your comments that I agree with that were sufficiently non-trivial to warrant remembering, but I still (try) to listen to and understand what you're saying. Because it's voices like yours that need to be shown their wrongness, in my opinion. I see your "toughlove, anti-enabling" point. To some degree, I agree with it. But it is wrong to have "do not feed the hungry" as one's bottom line.
The what ifs and could haves and but but buts form a double line that extends beyond the horizon. I'll get to those, maybe, some other day. But when faced with one hungry man, I'll feed him if I can. The law is, and I'm being generous, mean spirited and ill crafted at best.
I think she means 'in the park'--as in you can't feed the homeless there, but you can meet and exchange business with the working guys and gals there.
That is what I meant basically. I just spent 10 days there (in Vegas) and I watched, countless times, as they (prostitutes, male and female) made their arrangements and cops near by just stood and watched. As if they were saying "we're here for their protection". WTF is all I had to say. I thought prositution was illegal. You can pay for STD's and sexual recreation, as the cops "lovingly" watch, but you can't feed the homeless as long as it's done in the park. Aren't their bigger things we should be worried about, instead of where people are getting their food?
.............Aren't their bigger things we should be worried about, instead of where people are getting their food?
No, because having to see those homeless 'bums' in our local parks every day is an annoying reminder that, with merely a small twist of fate, we could be one of them. Why in the world would we want to see such disruptive, ugly, smelly evidence of how fragile our own existance is? Particularly in what is supposed to be a peaceful, tranquil place where we should be able to continue our denial of the suffering of humanity?
/sarcasm off
Stormie
How would you know?
I ask them.
I interview homeless people on an almost daily basis. I do not see the happy, motivated, successful kinds of homeless people that are trying to improve their circumstances.
And I haven't met the ones you describe.
I'm not surprised. You don't seem the sort of person that hangs around homeless shelters.
You can't feed the homeless but you can pay the prostitues for sex.
Prostitution is actually illegal in the Las Vegas City Limits. That's a common misconception. A friend of mine's brother is a cop with LVPD. Until he got known he used to work hooker detail because he looked like an accountant and had a Philadelphia accent.
Cops looking the other way and legal are not the same thing.
But when faced with one hungry man, I'll feed him if I can.
The word hungry is completely misleading. That they are "hungry" implies that if they do not eat this food served in this park, they will not eat.
This is totally false. They have food available to them, in shelters and soup kitchens and a variety of places. No one is denying them food. They are denying them a place to
sit while they eat their food.
The word hungry is completely misleading. That they are "hungry" implies that if they do not eat this food served in this park, they will not eat. This is totally false. They have food available to them, in shelters and soup kitchens and a variety of places. No one is denying them food. They are denying them a place to sit while they eat their food.
In this case, that's true. But if more people felt as Maggie does
I think that if "we" (what's this "we" stuff...got a mouse in your pocket? :-)) provide basic needs to folks, that's called socialism. You may think that's a good idea. I don't.
and got their way, the situation would be very different.
In this case, that's true.
And "this case"
is the case under discussion.
But when your maneuver was to insist that if I supported people who wanted to exclude soup kitchens from their park that it became my responsibility to solve "the problem" as you cast it, and I explained that I didn't agree with that.
But if more people felt as Maggie does...
In my experience, *most* people believe it's not the function of the government to provide everybody's basic needs...although there certainly are constituencies that disagree: primarily the "needy", and also the social welfare apparatchiks that derrive a middleman income from administering the "wealth transfer". (The latter tend to be more politically effective.)
Of course, if you spend your time hanging out in Blue space (either online, in the media, or by living in an urban center where such stuff tends to concentrate) you begin to beleve everybody (or at least all the right-thinking people, the one who aren't "mean-spirited") think the way you do.
Then an election happens, and obviously there must have been massive fraud...after all, doesn't everybody think Blue?
I ask them.
I interview homeless people on an almost daily basis. I do not see the happy, motivated, successful kinds of homeless people that are trying to improve their circumstances.
In your capacity as intake at a mental institution?
Yes.
I have also, as the result of volunteer work, directly interacted with shelter residents, and I have contacts at two of the city programs I described above ... Horizon House, which I linked to, and one of the large scale Philadelphia shelters.
So your primary interaction is pretty self selecting.
Yes.
I have also, as the result of volunteer work, directly interacted with shelter residents, and I have contacts at two of the city programs I described above ... Horizon House, which I linked to, and one of the large scale Philadelphia shelters.
How do you discern those who are just "playing the system" from those who are mentally ill? Could "playing the system" not be considered a result of mental illness? After all, you've got to be crazy to live on the streets with little or no possessions, no self-respect, uncertain about your next meal, or living from fix to fix, don't you? That's not what mentally healthy, mainstream folks do, is it? Could it be that they are, actually, mentally ill, and want you to think they're normal, just playing the system to get food and shelter?
Could "playing the system" not be considered a result of mental illness?
The ultimate "insanity defense". Puh-leeze.
No, because having to see those homeless 'bums' in our local parks every day is an annoying reminder that, with merely a small twist of fate, we could be one of them. Why in the world would we want to see such disruptive, ugly, smelly evidence of how fragile our own existance is? Particularly in what is supposed to be a peaceful, tranquil place where we should be able to continue our denial of the suffering of humanity?
/sarcasm off
Stormie
This is really what it comes down to.
This, and that it is a reminder that they are unwilling to do enought to stop the homeless problem.
I know you are addressing wolf here, and I appreciate that--however, I've worked with homeless as well. I worked with them from the standpoint of admission to hospital interviews and then while they were on the ward (mental health/substance abuse ward). 99% of the homeless I saw preferred to remain homeless because: they valued the freedom to live their life they way they wanted to. Rules and regs at homeless shelters or halfway houses (and even the rules of the hosp. ward) were too much for them. They wanted to do what they wanted, when they wanted. They didn't like the fact that meals and snacktimes and cigarette breaks were scheduled--if they wanted a snack at 2:30 in the morning (not a 'snack time' via hosp. rules) they WANTED IT! NOW! If they wanted a cigarette the moment they woke up--they expected to have it, regardless of ward rules. If they wanted 15X the amount of medicine they were prescribed they wanted it--NOW! And, so on. They would intimidate, threaten, and even one that I witnessed became violent and broke a tech's thumb over a cigarette. Homeless shelters do not have to put up with this sort of behavior and they simply kick them out, which, is fine with them, now they can smoke/drink/use to their hearts content. We've tent cities in Dayton (well hidden, in woods by the Miami river) and social worker outreach people go into them to try to assess the human need and see if anybody wants to get help--like mental health help, help with getting on their feet, subs. abuse help---routinely, these workers are run out of the tent city. The homeless KNOW who they are, so they are not threatened by these (ususally) female workers, they just don't want to have anything to do with mainstream society.
I have seen motivated homeless on Oprah. And, for the most part, homeless teens are motivated to improve their situations.
As for playing the system-no one, NO ONE is better at it than substance abusers and the mentally ill. Mentally ill does not equal stupid.
So your primary interaction is pretty self selecting.
Sure it is. But since you're concerned about this ... how many homeless people did you have half-hour conversations with last week?
There always was and will be, homeless, vagrants, bums, drifters, con-men, destitutes, poor, nuts, rugged individualists and wackos.
It's really hard to sort out individuals and their unique circumstances when you're in the unenviable position of making policy/rules to cover the non-mainstream crowd.
We (notice: we, meaning the general consensus from which you may opt out), want a safety net to catch the people who are in need. But we don't want the net to become a comfy hammock.
We don't want to be played for a sucker by people using the safety net as an entitlement, just another resource to supplement their income, or a reason not to try help themselves.
We perceived so much abuse of the welfare system, at least anecdotally, we're skeptical of everyone claiming to need help.
Logically, the best place to make individual assessments is on the local level, one on one, if you will. So they tried that, and found giving that money and power to some people, created petty power brokers that abused the system and the people it was supposed to help.
Then the pendulum swung back to making hard and fast rules at the state or federal level. That doesn't work either....every case is different and any time there are strict rules, there's a back-alley lawyer figuring out how to play the rules for their benefit.... beat the system. Of course, these cheats are the ones that make the papers, rather than the ones that are truly helped.
Brianna and Wolf described a group/behavior pattern that will always be a problem. There's another problem group, that they'll never see (professionally), because it avoids any contact with any institutions if it can.
In a democracy, you can't help people unless they want to be helped.
The trick is to provide help to those that want and need it, without being conned..... or enabling failure.
No. I don't have a solution.... just trying to clarify the problem.
Food in the park or food at the shelter?
There will always be some individualists that will go hungry and some that will never go hungry, either way.
It appears Vegas is being petty with a specific rule to thwart one samaritan, but this woman is throwing a monkey wrench in their program. Whether their program is sound or has a hidden agenda is beside the point. It's their plan to handle their problem and she doesn't have the right to screw it up. If she wants to change it, there are avenues for change, but if she wants to buck the system she has to be willing to pay a price, as all protesters have done. :2cents:
This, and that it is a reminder that they are unwilling to do enought to stop the homeless problem.
As if failure to "do enough" were the issue rather than "doing the right thing".
It is incredibly difficult to structure institutional solutions that actually "help" without doing huge amounts of collateral damage through laregly unintended consequences. I'm awestruck by the simple wisdom of the UK "only one night" rule that Wolf mentioned earlier.
Government-managed "help" entirely too often simply creates new ecological niches in which people take up permanent residence. You can
call it "help", but it's too seldom actually
helpful.
... 99% of the homeless I saw preferred to remain homeless because: they valued the freedom to live their life they way they wanted to. Rules and regs at homeless shelters or halfway houses (and even the rules of the hosp. ward) were too much for them. They wanted to do what they wanted, when they wanted. They didn't like the fact that meals and snacktimes and cigarette breaks were scheduled--if they wanted a snack at 2:30 in the morning (not a 'snack time' via hosp. rules) they WANTED IT! NOW! If they wanted a cigarette the moment they woke up--they expected to have it, regardless of ward rules. If they wanted 15X the amount of medicine they were prescribed they wanted it--NOW! And, so on. They would intimidate, threaten, and even one that I witnessed became violent and broke a tech's thumb over a cigarette. Homeless shelters do not have to put up with this sort of behavior and they simply kick them out, which, is fine with them, now they can smoke/drink/use to their hearts content. We've tent cities in Dayton (well hidden, in woods by the Miami river) and social worker outreach people go into them to try to assess the human need and see if anybody wants to get help--like mental health help, help with getting on their feet, subs. abuse help---routinely, these workers are run out of the tent city. The homeless KNOW who they are, so they are not threatened by these (ususally) female workers, they just don't want to have anything to do with mainstream society.
...As for playing the system-no one, NO ONE is better at it than substance abusers and the mentally ill. Mentally ill does not equal stupid.
That sounds pretty crazy to me.
Have you ever been with the crazy for hours on end? I have. State institutions, private hospitals...name it. If you doubt me, I whole heartedly encourage you to posse up to the very next organization to help the homeless that you can! Act now! Go into the woods! Go into the abandoned homes without running water, without food, with 75 dogs and cats and 12 children! Go on, young man! You haven't lived until you've experienced these smells, these sights! you try to help, you offer assistance and do you know what they say? "How much oxycontin can I get? 'Cause I need a lot of oxycontin..."
Crazy does NOT = Stupid.
If you don't know this, you don't know crazy.
Um... exactly how many mentally ill people have you worked with , BTW?
:2cents:
I agree with much of what you say. But there has to be a way to help those who want to be and can be helped. And for those who can't be or don't want to be helped, what do "we" do? Bri and Wolf say that they would rather be homeless, and I accept that at face value. Maggie says to let them be homeless, just don't be homeless around her, because when we try to help, it's seldom helpful, and it costs more than she's willing to pay.
What do you do when leaving the situation alone is unacceptable, but changes would be unacceptable.
Have you ever been with the crazy for hours on end? I have. State institutions, private hospitals...name it. If you doubt me, I whole heartedly encourage you to posse up to the very next organization to help the homeless that you can! Act now! Go into the woods! Go into the abandoned homes without running water, without food, with 75 dogs and cats and 12 children! Go on, young man! You haven't lived until you've experienced these smells, these sights! you try to help, you offer assistance and do you know what they say? "How much oxycontin can I get? 'Cause I need a lot of oxycontin..."
Crazy does NOT = Stupid.
If you don't know this, you don't know crazy.
Um... exactly how many mentally ill people have you worked with , BTW?
Brianna, don't get excited, I was agreeing with you! The behavior you described sounds like the people are mentally ill. I know crazy people are not necessarily stupid - and the ones who play the system are certainly not stupid.
I am sorry for jumping. I am very upset. I've even posted a comment on the UK's Guardian (don't worry, it wouldn't embarrass you all) --I am very, very upset about everything. This is why I am not effective in the crazy/high community and wolf is. I take it much too much to heart. I also take dead babies to heart (we all do) but hate the way foreign media portray us---as if we could portray all mexican's as bean eating, siesta taking, tequila drinking assholes....that is the way American's are being described in foreign media----SUV driving, McDonald's eating, Religious Right, etc....
it is making me totally nuts.
I apologize and I need to stop reading this shit.
snip~ What do you do when leaving the situation alone is unacceptable, but changes would be unacceptable.
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink"
The only solution I can come up with, is provide the help needed to those that will accept it and don't meddle with people that won't, but are not a danger to society.
I'll admit that's not a warm and fuzzy be all, end all, but it's the best I can think of without trampling all over people's rights. :o
snip~ I take it much too much to heart. ~snip~ it is making me totally nuts. ~snip
Chill, darlin'. There's nothing wrong with having an emotional response. Normal adults, unlike TW, do.
The problem, as usual, is the desire for approval....lack of disapproval won't do, either....it must be affirmation. You know where I'm going.
I'm really not Spock, honest. ;)
Sure it is. But since you're concerned about this ... how many homeless people did you have half-hour conversations with last week?
If I'd tried to say "Oh, well
I've never met any homeless people who did X", that might be relevant.
If I'd tried to say "Oh, well I've never met any homeless people who did X", that might be relevant.
Is that really so much different than implying that "I'm sure there must be homeless people who
don't do X"? Accusing a sample of being biased implies that you believe there are cases out there that don't fit the sample.
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink"
The only solution I can come up with, is provide the help needed to those that will accept it and don't meddle with people that won't, but are not a danger to society.
I'll admit that's not a warm and fuzzy be all, end all, but it's the best I can think of without trampling all over people's rights. :o
I'm not necessarily looking for warm and fuzzy. Are we at the point where nobody can even offer a suggestion? Ok, as king of the world:D , I'll start.
If it is determined that someone wants to be a productive member of society, they are put into a system that provides food, clothing shelter, for a limited time, until they can survive on their own. At the same time, minimum wage is increased until it is enough to survive on.
If it is determined that someone can never be a productive member of society, due to mental or physical issues, they are put into a system that provides food, clothing shelter for the rest of their life. Not optional. The loss of some of their freedoms is in exchange for not being a productive member of society, and not being left to die on their own. Gotta keep those loonies off the grass!;)
If it is determined that someone doesn't want to be a productive member of society, is "playing the system", they will be severely punished, maybe even forced to be a productive member of society, in an incarcerated sort of way.
Let the discussion begin!:worried:
Let the discussion begin!:worried:
Sure is an awful lot of passive voice in that post...which is always a red flag where bureaucrats are involved. When you say "it is determined"...who is making this determination and by what criteria?
That should employ a substantial pile of the aformentioned apparatchiks.
I'm starting to flashback on the
Velvet Monkey Wrench. Or
CoventryOr why don't you comment on the subject matter, rather than introducing a red herring, trying to sidetrack the discussion with comments about passive voice and details.
Or why don't you comment on the subject matter, rather than introducing a red herring, trying to sidetrack the discussion with comments about passive voice and details.
Sorry that you don't agree with me on what the "subject matter" is.
You've apparently postulated a government bureaucracy that going to make these life-and-death decisions for a pretty sizable population. Would you model it on the current social services infrastructure, well-known for its efficiency and cost-effectivness?
Even if so, the criteria they will use to sort the sheep from the goats is germane.
If those are dismissable as "details", then the discussion you invited is pointless.
At least
The Velvet Monkey Wrench is entertaining. Ever read that? Or
Coventry?
I wonder if this decision was made by a "smaller government" Republican local administration? If I know this area I'd bet on it.
I love how Republicans still like to say they are for "smaller, less intrusive, government" then break every right in the Bill of Rights, perform illegal phone taps, extend the Anti-Patriot Acts make laws about feeding hungry people, illegally/secretly track financial transactions, etc, etc, etc...
Yeah, smaller, less-intrusive, government, sure, tell me another one...
Yeah, smaller, less-intrusive, government, sure, tell me another one...
I think government that lets folks from out-of-town open a soup kitchen in your local park is nearly as intrusive as one that quarters soldiers in your home. Fortunately the latter is explictly forbidden by the Constitution.
I would vote for it, just for the pink floyd reference...
I think government that lets folks from out-of-town open a soup kitchen in your local park is nearly as intrusive as one that quarters soldiers in your home. Fortunately the latter is explictly forbidden by the Constitution.
I don't see the parallel. Not in the least.
Again, there is not an "open soup kitchen IN the park".
You make it sound like a permanent structure in the park. Not so.
I think government that lets folks from out-of-town open a soup kitchen in your local park is nearly as intrusive as one that quarters soldiers in your home. Fortunately the latter is explictly forbidden by the Constitution.
But the government isn't intruding by
not doing anything... They may be failing to intrude when you
want them to intrude a bit, depending on how one views the issue, but they arent intruding.
I think government that lets folks from out-of-town open a soup kitchen in your local park is nearly as intrusive as one that quarters soldiers in your home. Fortunately the latter is explictly forbidden by the Constitution.
That's a bold
[SIZE="3"]-s--t--r--e--t--c--h- [/SIZE]Magster. My hat is off to you.
That's a bold [SIZE="3"]-s--t--r--e--t--c--h- [/SIZE]Magster.
Holy shit, I second that.
Everyone,
to arms! We must halt the spread of food in a public area to the public by the public!
Holy shit, I second that.
Everyone, to arms! We must halt the spread of food in a public area to the public by the public!
You keep waving around the word "public" like it was blanket permission do do whatever you want...simply calling something "a public park" doesn't mean any member of "the public" can do anything they they feel like there.
When "a public park" is, say, a municipal park, the municipality is responsible for it and sets the rules for its use. The same applies to state parks and Federal parks: each is adminstered and controlled by the branch of governement that brought it into being and owns (or leases) the land.
For example, the Farm Park I mentioned earlier is on land owned by a state agency but leased to the county it resides in, and occupies land in three different municipalities...but it's administered and controlled by the county, so the county sets the rules there. The municipal park down the road belongs to West Norriton Township, the municipality.
If the people of West Norriton decide, for example, that walking dogs without a leash is
verboten in their park, they have the right to implement that rule though a township ordinance. They don't give up that right just because "it's a public park". Nor can anyone who wanders in off the street use the municipally-owned golf course for free (or for playing horsehoes, or feeding paupers) just because "it's public".
But the government isn't intruding by not doing anything... They may be failing to intrude when you want them to intrude a bit, depending on how one views the issue, but they arent intruding.
If the county or state decides to tell the municipality whose park it is that they must allow Ms. Anarchist-from-Reno to run her soup kitchen in their park, I'd call that "intrusive". The folks whose park it is have already expressed their desire though their municipal government.
That doesnt change the fact that the government isn't intruding when it doesn't do something. It's hard to intrude without actually doing something...
If the people of West Norriton decide, for example, that walking dogs without a leash is verboten in their park, they have the right to implement that rule though a township ordinance. They don't give up that right just because "it's a public park".
You are correct. If the people of West Norriton decide, however, that black people walking dogs commit more crime when they come to the park, the people cannot ask for a law or ordinance that bans black people from walking their dogs. The city of Las Vegas has not outright banned the homeless from the park, yet, but they restricted an activity specific to that class of people. That is not valid.
Nor can anyone who wanders in off the street use the municipally-owned golf course for free (or for playing horsehoes, or feeding paupers) just because "it's public".
Correct again -- many towns and cities do this based upon restricting the facilities to the people that pay the taxes that upkeep it. (the use of the term "public" in this sense, however, is questionable) The Las Vegas park, to my knowledge, has not set any restrictions regarding this and has, as I keep saying, implemented a law based on social class. I keep suggesting that there are other ways around this that don't involve writing city laws that discriminate based on income level, but you just keep on advocating the law that does for some reason.
If the county or state decides to tell the municipality whose park it is that they must allow Ms. Anarchist-from-Reno to run her soup kitchen in their park, I'd call that "intrusive". The folks whose park it is have already expressed their desire though their municipal government.
I missed this post... The government
didn't say they had to let her, nor did they sat she
couldn't. As far as I know, they stayed out of it. Therefore, they didnt intrude in the slightest.
Is that really so much different than implying that "I'm sure there must be homeless people who don't do X"? Accusing a sample of being biased implies that you believe there are cases out there that don't fit the sample.
I think it's pretty much accepted all round that mentally ill homeless people are less likely to be working their way out of it (though it does happen - my mom volunteers at a soup kitchen and knows a woman who managed to get a place to live, and a job after getting on medication). In that light, I think wolf's statement needs to be interpreted in light of her position in a mental hospital.
And, logically speaking, accusing a sample of being biased implies only that the sample is useless in drawing a conclusion; it says nothing about what the conclusion should be.
American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada lawyer Allen Lichtenstein said the lanuage makes the law unenforceable. “The ordinance is clearly unconstitutional and nonsensical,” he said. “How are you going to know without a financial statement who’s poor and who’s not poor?” “It means they can discriminate based on the way people look,” Lichtenstein said.
Unenforceable
It may be that...although the ACLU isn't of course the ultimate authority; they're just putting forward their theory.
If FNB insists on continuing to be a pain in the ass in trying to mainain access to what they want to make their political stage, sooner or later the municipality will find a formula that passes muster even in the Ninth Circuit.
What they may end up with is a law requiring permits to use the park, as some Jersey Shore and Delaware communities have for beach access, and many places have for parking in certain zones. Apparently they already tried a system requiring permits for gatherings more than 25, and FNB found a way to beat that. Perhaps use-permitting with differential access for residents and non-residents.
I missed this post... The government didn't say they had to let her, nor did they sat she couldn't. As far as I know, they stayed out of it. Therefore, they didnt intrude in the slightest.
Watch this space. :-) The ACLU is convinced they will.
The trick may be coming up with a definition that encompases "mobile anarchist vegan soup kitchen" without interfering with ordinary picnics, which they have claimed to be.
What they may end up with is a law requiring permits to use the park, as some Jersey Shore and Delaware communities have for beach access, and many places have for parking in certain zones. Apparently they already tried a system requiring permits for gatherings more than 25, and FNB found a way to beat that. Perhaps use-permitting with differential access for residents and non-residents.
This is an interesting idea I've not seen used in any park I've been to, before. I think FNB is beating the permit system by not having genuine organized groups -- they may only use a handful of people that enter the park together. A lot of parks I've seen, lately, get funded with taxpayer dollars and are still open to the public. They're not fully accessible to anyone out side the community, though, as the entire community is gated off. Only those that live behind the gate fund the park. Almost, in essence, an HOA.
They're not fully accessible to anyone out side the community, though, as the entire community is gated off.
Yeah, that's not practical in this case based on the satellite imagery.
At what point do the "authorities" decide to "ask" those receiving the food if they are homeless?
Is the next step a law that all within the Vegas city limits without a permanent address in Nevada wear an arm-band? A tattoo perhaps?
How is this to be done?
I had an opportunity tonight to talk to the Director of the local homeless shelter. I asked her about her successes, since, as it has been pointed out, I don't ever see people who do well. She said that they do indeed have them ... this week alone she has placed six people in apartments. This is an unusually high number. She didn't say what was more typical.
She was quite excited, since hers is a relatively new program, and they've been needing the boost. They usually have 60-70 people staying at their casual shelter (folks are taken by vans to different places in the county each night, usually churches or community centers. They will be opening a 50-bed permanent shelter in the near future, apparently once some life-safety code stuff gets taken care of in their building.
She is hoping that similar programs get started in the Western and Eastern parts of the county, but it is not an easy task, given the NIMBY aspects of homeless programs of any kind. The benefits of opening other shelters is that it would allow each section of the county to focus on service provision for their own homeless residents. The idea is to keep people in their own communities, rather than foist the problem on some other part of the county, or on another county.
At what point do the "authorities" decide to "ask" those receiving the food if they are homeless?
Soup kitchens and food cupboards are not the exclusive province of the homeless. Many folks with limited incomes or resources make use of these programs. The homeless are the ones that you think of first, however.
So, if they are just scruffy looking apartment dwellers that is perfectly legal and no officer of the law would raise a ruckus I take it, since no arm-band, chip-implant or tattoo would be present, right?
Soup kitchens and food cupboards are charitable organizations that operate from a fixed location that is either owned or leased by the organization. It is not a couple of tables (or even a stack of boxes) in a public park where the homeless loiter.
If someone makes a van or bus into one and that is what it is to them, then it is one. Who made you the authority on soup kitchens?
All this talk of soup is making me hungry.
All this talk of soup is making me hungry.
At 8:01am, soup is only part of this compelete breakfast...
At 8:01am, soup is only part of this compelete breakfast...
If I can have breakfast all day at IHOP, I should be able to find soup at 8am. Anything from lobster bisque to Chunky Sirloin Burger will do nicely.
Say, what kind of soup do the homeless get at kitchens, anyways?
YOU ASK WHAT KIND OF SOUP?!
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
YOU ASK WHAT KIND OF SOUP?!
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
:p
As to what kind of soup? What goes in "gruel?"
mmmmmmm..... Homeless people soup....yummy!
The Soup Nazi is selling autographed photographs of himself for $200. :eek:
Why, I do believe it is
lawsuit time!
Be careful of the bones.
"It's so chunky you'll want to eat it with a fork...but use a spoon, to get every bite!"
Why, I do believe it is lawsuit time!
Have a heart attack and die from surprise. ACLU were already trying the case in the press earlier...see upthread.
Let 'em sue....Vegas will declare the homeless and the samaritan are urban terrorists and have the shipped to Gitmo with Homeland Security funding.
The Constitution? Bush wrote a post-signing statement to annul that. ;)
the samaritan
Speaking of stretches.
Just remeber the parable of the Samaritan was told to answer the question "Who then is my neighbor?" Obviously your "samaritan" isn't a neighbor to the people whose park she's exploiting.
exploting
2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage
She's taking advantage of it and not paying for it. Would you prefer another word? Too bad.
She isn't really an altruist, but she plays one in political theater.
How is it her advantage? I thought it would be to the advantage of the homeless.
She's taking advantage of it and not paying for it. Would you prefer another word? Too bad.
Out of curiosity, what is she not paying for? What, exactly, is she taking advantage of?
Maggie, have you ever considered that she fed the homeless people out of the goodness of her heart? That she might just like helping people?
Maggie, have you ever considered that she fed the homeless people out of the goodness of her heart? That she might just like helping people?
Briefly. Until I did some online research on Food Not Bombs. Then it was clear to me what her motivation was.
Maybe you should do that too.
If she "likes helping people", she sure doesn't seem to like the folks whose park she's using, who she'd definately not helping. And not everybody agrees that she's helping the people she's feeding, either.
Out of curiosity, what is she not paying for? What, exactly, is she taking advantage of?
The park.
Oh. I didn't know you were required to pay for things like that.
Oh. I didn't know you were required to pay for things like that.
Well,
somebody "pays for things like that". In the case, it's those nasty people who don't want a soup kitchen in it.
In addition to those nasty people ladling out the soup. And the nasty people eating the soup. And the nasty people who support such an endeavor. Nasty nasty nasty.
In addition to those nasty people ladling out the soup. And the nasty people eating the soup. And the nasty people who support such an endeavor. Nasty nasty nasty.
Oh...sorry...the official description of the townspeople is "mean-spirited Republicans". My mistake.
They are playing Us & Them.... a very nasty game.
Oh...sorry...the official description of the townspeople is "mean-spirited Republicans". My mistake.
Well there's your loophole.
It prohibits "providing food or meals to the indigent for free or for a nominal fee" in a city park and defines indigent as a person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to county public assistance.
I'm sure the town council considers Republicans 'reasonable ordinary persons', and many of them don't think
anyone is entitled to county public assistance.;)
At the very least illegal aliens should be able to eat for free.
I'm sure the town council considers Republicans 'reasonable ordinary persons', and many of them don't think anyone is entitled to county public assistance.;)
Ah, but it doesn't say "think". It says "beleive". And Republicans *know* what an entitlement is...to many liberals it's like water to a fish:
I didn't know you were required to pay for things like that.
Not to worry...ACLU will tell us it's illegal to discriminate
against the homeless. It's only legal to discriminate in their favor.
Ah, but it doesn't say "think". It says "beleive". And Republicans *know* what an entitlement is...to many liberals it's like water to a fish:
...
Sure. Entitlements like subsidies for big oil companies. What's free food from a non-governmental organization compared to the Cheney administration's reducing environmental restrictions and subsidizing the largest corporate quarterly profits in the history of the world? :right:
Sure. Entitlements like subsidies for big oil companies...
There was a time when people were "entitled" to keep money they made. That appeared to end around the time Congressional Democrats started trying to call tax cuts "unfunded expenditures", in some odd perversion of Jimmy Carter's "zero-based bugeting" concept.
The new "zero base" was: however much the government took from you last time around...anything less than that became a "subsidy".
Actually, I think it ended when the robber barons, and their ilk, tried to keep their employees' salaries, and didn't care if those same employees died making the wealthy wealthier. If those in control of wealth were less gluttonous, there would be no need for labor unions, entitlements, and the like. It all stems from excessive greed.
Back in a week - TTFN.
Actually, I think it ended when the robber barons, and their ilk,...
Oh, puhleese...
The government has never taken as much in taxes as the robber barons did in "company stores", where you often came out owing more each month.
But the Robber Barons, while treating employees like dirt and politicians like Hummel Figurines to be collected, did however, care about the country.
Their current successors, the Fortune 500 CEOs, seem to care about nothing but personal gain. Not the employees, not the country and not the future of the company they head, or it's stockholders, past their personal wealth accruing tenure.
ME, with a capital $. :mad:
Why do you really care what happens to those people that are so unequiped to function that they cannot keep a minimum wage job? They will simply reproduce less then others and everything will balance itself. Hey, it works for every other animal, why not us?:neutral:
Those too stupid or ill equipped to keep minimum wage jobs tend to reproduce more than smart, gainfully employed people.
We are being outbred.
Why do you really care what happens to those people that are so unequiped to function that they cannot keep a minimum wage job? They will simply reproduce less then others and everything will balance itself. Hey, it works for every other animal, why not us?:neutral:
So it's ok that if you are unequipped to stop somebody from cutting your dick off, it's ok that you, then, will not be able to reproduce? Hey, it works for every other animal, why not you?:cool:
I care because, except for circumstances, that could be me. Or you. Or Maggie. There's very little sperating the homeless from the homed.
Spexxvet, you make a lot of sense. "There but for the grace of God go I".
I wonder how many of the people making these anti-poor laws, and those supporting them, consider themselves to be Christian?
I care because, except for circumstances, that could be me. Or you. Or Maggie. There's very little sperating the homeless from the homed.
One of the biggest financial obstacles I faced during four years of involuntary unemployment was the huge slice of my remaining retirement savings taken out by taxes that mostly went for entitlements as I tapped that money to feed my family and put my kids though college. It's kind of hard to feel much sympatico for those drowning in the same pool you're in when they keep climbing up on your shoulders.
I dispute the tacit supposition above that it is just some roulette wheel in the sky that determines these outcomes. That's bullshit. And it's an incredibly destructive meme to sell to those still in the pool.
Absolutely. Let those still in the pool drown....for their own good
Absolutely. Let those still in the pool drown....for their own good
No, they need to swim...you can't swim for them. And I'll be damned if I'll let them drown me just because they can't.
Funny how the people who sell the abovementioned meme most vigorously are those who are are getting a slice of the proceeds themselves.
Funny how the people who sell the abovementioned meme most vigorously are those who are are getting a slice of the proceeds themselves.
In what way am I getting a slice of the proceeds myself? Right now, I am a tax` paying member of the established order....of course I represent a lot of people who are currentl drowning. See.....sometimes it's good to shout at the drowning man to "Swim dammit!" but other times it really is better to drag him out and rescuscitate him.
In what way am I getting a slice of the proceeds myself? Right now, I am a tax` paying member of the established order....of course I represent a lot of people who are currentl drowning.
For free?
No, make them pay - take their house. Oh, wait - they're broke and homeless...
Actually I am paid a very modest allowance (£9,400 per annum before tax) by the Council in order to cover costs incurred during my duties as an elected member. The people I represent? No I don't charge them. Those who are in work pay Council tax a portion of which goes to paying Councillors the aforementioned allowance. Those not in work are exempt from Council tax and therefore do not contribute financially in any way for the representation they recieve. At no point are any of my constituents charged for this representation.
representing them can mean anything from putting their views to the Council body, to researching and representing them directly to organisations such as the Housing Associations, Anti Social Behaviour Units, Police etc.
On several occassions I have attended interviews at Housing Advice in order to provide moral support and add weight to their claim for assistance.
No, make them pay - take their house. Oh, wait - they're broke and homeless...
Erm...what? Dana is a (presumably paid) government official who was elected on the basis of a particular ideological platform.
No, they need to swim...you can't swim for them. And I'll be damned if I'll let them drown me just because they can't.
How about you AND them not drowning? Maybe the guy on the high dive can tread water with both of you (when you were forcably unemployed).
Funny how the people who sell the abovementioned meme most vigorously are those who are are getting a slice of the proceeds themselves.
Yeah. Them and people who aren't focused on their own pocketbook to the exclusion of what might be good for other people/our country/the world.:smashfrea
Erm...what? Dana is a (presumably paid) government official who was elected on the basis of a particular ideological platform.
The "drowning people" can't pay her.
At no point are any of my constituents charged for this representation.
Surely *some* of the people you represent pay taxes.
The "drowning people" can't pay her.
No, but everybody else does.
... during four years of involuntary unemployment ...
Tell me about this. Why couldn't you get a job?
Erm...what? Dana is a (presumably paid) government official who was elected on the basis of a particular ideological platform.
Yah, pretty poorly paid :P After tax my allowance works out at around £670 per month. For this I work anywhere between 25 and 50 hours a week.
Tell me about this. Why couldn't you get a job?
The market for software engineers crashed at a particularly inopportune moment career wise; I had tarried too long at a company whose new management ran it into the ground and essentially walked off with most of the comany's cash--which was substantial. I had just gotten caught in a layoff I shoud have realized was coming but didn't.
I had to retool my skills and learn how to market them, while the market reestablished itself. Me and the market met someplace in the middle.
No, but everybody else does.
Only those who can. If you can't give, you qualify to receive. Stop whining or I'll spank you with a fish! :D The only reason some of what you earn is taken from you is because you make enough that you can survive without that amount. You can, can't you?
The market for software engineers crashed at a particularly inopportune moment career whise. I had to retool my skills and learn how to market them, while the market reestablished itself. Me and the market met someplace in the middle.
Why didn't you work at McDonalds, or something? Isn't that what you expect of the homeless?
Surely *some* of the people you represent pay taxes.
I did say in my earlier post that those in work pay council tax and those not in work do not. I also btw, pay council tax. I would be horrified if after paying such high levels of tax, my borough could not afford to provide for those of its citizens who needed it.
The only reason some of what you earn is taken from you is because you make enough that you can survive without that amount. You can, can't you?
Oh...am I only allowed to keep things that belong to me if I can prove I won't survive without them? Otherwise they're fair game for anybody who wants them...
Why didn't you work at McDonalds, or something? Isn't that what you expect of the homeless?
Because my efforts were better invested in improving my situation. Had *all* my money been used up (and it was close) I would have indeed ended up flipping burgers, and getting a better job would have been that much harder.
I did say in my earlier post that those in work pay council tax and those not in work do not.
So...some in your council pay taxes, some do not, some of the tax money goes for other things, some goes to those who don't pay taxes, and some goes to you.
Also, on a side note. Sometimes when you help the drowning man/woman, they go on to put more back into the system than they took out. Like me for instance. I needed that social safety net for a while. If I'd been left to drown then nobody would have known what my potential was, or whether or not I could contribute meaningfully to my society.
Having been saved from a watery grave I then worked as an adult literacy tutor, and helped some others out of the pool. Granted some of them seemed fairly determined to stay wet......but one or two of them broke free and are now contributing to their society in a way that enriches both them and it.
The trouble with a system that is brutally determined to let people fail, is that it presupposes that only those that can make it in that system are worth keeping. How many great inventors have died poor on streets, never knowing or having a chance to explore their potential? How many great teachers never taught? How many healers were consigned to McDonalds?
One lad that i taught sticks in my mind. He was a few years older than me and had never worked. Never had a job. Never passed an exam. Severely dyslexic, he hated school and school had little time for him. He was labelled at a young age as a troublemaker and took that as his identity. Spent years on and off in prison for various petty crimes.
He was so clever. Possibly one of the brightest minds I have ever come across. With a little help at an earlier point in his life, he could have been anything, done anything, made enormous contributions to the society he lives in. As it is, we'll never know what he could have been or done. I got to him too late and he was with me for only 6mths. Not long enough to undo a lifetime of despair.
A How many great inventors have died poor on streets, never knowing or having a chance to explore their potential? How many great teachers never taught? How many healers were consigned to McDonalds?
...As it is, we'll never know what he could have been or done. I got to him too late and he was with me for only 6mths. Not long enough to undo a lifetime of despair.
Despair largely engendered by Spexxvet's big roulette wheel in the sky.
While you're at it, how many Einsteins have been lost to wanking in a Kleenex?
:::singing::: every sperm is sacred!
So...some in your council pay taxes, some do not, some of the tax money goes for other things, some goes to those who don't pay taxes, and some goes to you.
If what you were originally asking was do I work for free, then no, the answer is I don't. But do I charge people for the work I do for them? No. I do not. Anyone in my ward gets my assistance by asking for it, regardless of their income. The allowance I am paid is there to cover the costs incurred in carrying out my duties. That's why it's such a low amount. It's essentially a fixed amount to cover expenses, rather than a 'wage' or payment for services.
Would I help and represent people for free? Well, if I had an independant income to keep my roof over my head then yes. My first year of teaching was voluntary. During that time I was called upon to do more than just teach. Many of my students were completely illiterate and suffering various social problems. I helped them interface with various organisations and authorities. I didn't charge.
My point earlier, was that I believe it is fundamentally right for human beings to help other human beings if they are able to. That can take the form of actually, physically helping people by handing out food to the homeless and it can also take the form of willingly parting with a small amount of one's wages in order to fund a society that provides a safety net to those who need it. Does that mean accepting financial ruin on their behalf? No. It just means if you have an income that allows a comfortable life with a little to spare....spare a little.
If what you were originally asking was do I work for free, then no, the answer is I don't.
Well, that was in fact what I asked, since you don't seem to be making the connection: that you have a vested interest in the welfare system you speak so highly of; if you didn't support it I presume you'd not have been elected.
Sepaking of socialism...doesn't your National Health System offer treatment for dyslexia? I'm assuming as a literacy tutor you could diagnose the difference between true dyslexia and illiteracy.
Dyslexia testing is difficult to arrange. There is a shortage of specialists working in the field. It's also not generally given free to adults nor is it paid for by the Benefits system.
As to whether I can diagnose the difference. Sort of :P. It's not a simple as it sounds. You can be illiterate, you can be dyslexic and you can be an illiterate dyslexic or you can be a highly literate dyslexic.
There are indicators which can be highly suggestive of dyslexia. But it requires full testing to be sure. If someone is illiterate (as in totally illiterate) it makes it more difficult to test for dyslexia, dyspraxia, and scotopic sensitivity. You then have to look at other ways of testing. Dyslexia affects a great deal more than just reading/writing and the way it affects each sufferer is highly individualised.
I've had a little training in how to recognise and respond to dyslexia in students, but I am in no way expert. There's also a lot of crossover between the way dyslexia can manifest in the reading/writing skills and the way in which other reading disabilities manifest.
OK...so what I'm hearing is the answer to my NHS question is effectively: no. Of course, "dyslexia" is caused by the Great Roulette Wheel of Misfortune and thus makes a more sympathetic story.
Well.....Dyslexia isn't dealt with as a 'health problem' bizarrely enough. It's considered an 'educational' matter. I think some authorities are better on this one than mine is. We are a little on the tight side when it comes to spending in my borough:P
My point earlier, was that I believe it is fundamentally right for human beings to help other human beings if they are able to.... it can also take the form of willingly parting with a small amount of one's wages in order to fund a society that provides a safety net to those who need it.
I somewhere missed the part of taxes that was voluntary.
Despair largely engendered by Spexxvet's big roulette wheel in the sky.
There are reasons these people are homeless. Not everyone is Maggie (thankfully).
While you're at it, how many Einsteins have been lost to wanking in a Kleenex?
6
The 'voluntary' aspect of taxation comes in when we as a country vote not to remove them and to continue providing support where needed.
We all moan about taxes, don't get me wrong. But, whenever a party tries to push for tax cuts, the public want to know what happens to the serviices? Generally speaking, tax cuts are not a popular, winning agenda when it comes to elections. We've been there (under the last conservative government) and whilst people like the idea of lower taxes, they don't like the idea of fewer services and they don't like the idea of Pension cutbacks, NHS cutbacks and loss of social security. They DO however, still gripe about some of the people who claim social security and want more policing of the system to take away benefit fraud.
6
I didn't mean just you, or just today. ;-)
I somewhere missed the part of taxes that was voluntary.
You wouldn't voluntarily give tax money for developing the Osprey? For roads? Police protection? Fire Protection? For trying to educated the homeless idiots? To try to motivate the lazy homeless idiots? To medicate the crazy, lazy, homeless idiots? To keep the crazy, lazy, homeless idiots from eating free food in the park down your street? To keep out illegal immigrants?
I didn't mean just you, or just today. ;-)
Just me, today. I have incredibly intelligent sperm. And I like killing them.:eyebrow:
The 'voluntary' aspect of taxation comes in when we as a country vote not to remove them and to continue providing support where needed...
Yes, there's that collectivist first person plural again. Of course there's more than one "we" in this equation...there's at least the "we" that pays taxes, the "we" that doesn't, and the "we" that makes money from the whole transaction.
And the "we" that votes.
All non-identical, but fun to blur together in rhetoric.
So would you entirely remove all taxes in the US?
Also, the 'we' in question all have a ballot paper. That collectivism you keep referring to bears a striking resemblance to the 'democracy' I hear so much about from your side of the pond. The idea that each individual should make their own personal decision as to ho wthey engage in the system (a system which requires some form of funding) bears an equally striking resemblance to certain forms of anarchy......you.....you're not an Anarchist on the sly are you Mags?
Yes, there's that collectivist first person plural again. Of course there's more than one "we" in this equation...there's at least the "we" that pays taxes, the "we" that doesn't, and the "we" that makes money from the whole transaction.
And the "we" that votes.
All non-identical, but fun to blur together in rhetoric.
Actually, it's the majority of those who represent the "we" of the majority of voters. Unfortunately, majority rules, or "we" wouldn't have a moron in the whitehouse.
Just me, today. I have incredibly intelligent sperm. And I like killing them.:eyebrow:
Kitten killer.Also, the 'we' in question all have a ballot paper. That collectivism you keep referring to bears a striking resemblance to the 'democracy'
There's more than one "we" in question...that was my point.
If you actually don't know the difference between collectivism and democracy, that's too bad. One is a system of government, the other a political philosophy. But if you really do think they're the same thing, that would explain a lot.
Actually, it's the majority of those who represent the "we" of the majority of voters. Unfortunately, majority rules, or "we" wouldn't have a moron in the whitehouse.
Not simple majority. And there's reasons for that, too.
So would you entirely remove all taxes in the US?
Quite a straw man there.
No, I would not eliminate all taxation...but that doesn't mean I approve of how all of it is currently spent.
Just me, today. I have incredibly intelligent sperm. And I like killing them.
Well...let's see....given a normal sperm count and semen volume, six Einsteins per day may actually be below the normal rate per capita. Especially if we're losing some because they're not getting enough welfare money.
You disagree with how it taxes are spent. Do you think that taxes should be paid on a voluntary basis?
There's more than one "we" in question...that was my point.
If you actually don't know the difference between collectivism and democracy, that's too bad. One is a system of government, the other a political philosophy. But if you really do think they're the same thing, that would explain a lot.
My point, was that individuals pay tax according to the collective will of the people as expressed through the democratic system. In your country, taxes are also something that you pay as an individual but decide upon collectively as expressed through the democratic system. Does that mean that evey individual in the country gets to make their own individual decision? No. It does however mean that everyone in the country has an opportunity to express their view through the ballot box. Don't want it? Don't vote for it.
No. It does however mean that everyone in the country has an opportunity to express their view through the ballot box.
I do...and through other means, such as advocacy in public fora. As I am doing.
But one difference between your advocacy and mine is: yours is supported by taxes. My original point was:
Funny how the people who sell the abovementioned meme most vigorously are those who are are getting a slice of the proceeds themselves.
I think that's been firmly established in your case.
You wouldn't voluntarily give tax money for developing the Osprey? For roads? Police protection? Fire Protection? For trying to educated the homeless idiots? To try to motivate the lazy homeless idiots? To medicate the crazy, lazy, homeless idiots? To keep the crazy, lazy, homeless idiots from eating free food in the park down your street? To keep out illegal immigrants?
Yes, Yes, Yes, Maybe (although educating an
adult idiot is a pretty futile endeavor; no matter how many social services functionaries it might employ as a side "benefit"; it's like trying to fill a leaky bucket. Not all uneducated adults are idiots, but those who aren't tend to self-identify)
Where were we? Ah...: No, No, Already answered under police protection, same answer.
"...insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" is in the constitution. "Promote the general welfare" doesn't mean a dole (now cleverly renamed to "welfare" in an attempt to make it look more like a proper function of government), nor is the right roll into somebody's town to convert the park to a soup kitchen one of "the blessings of liberty".
That's as may be Maggie. But the view I am expressing here has been consistent throughout my adult life. I have not always been in the field I am in. I was just as vehement about this viewpoint when I was selling satellite systems and when I was part of a small design house. I have espousing these same views here on the Cellar for over two years, long before I even thought about standing for office. I have only been an elected member of the council for three months.
The fact that I am now a part of the system is not the cause of my desire to uphold said system. I support/seek to uphold the system because I believe it is right to do so. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a desire for a 'slice of the proceeds'. By choosing to pursue this career instead of nipping down and applying at the local college for another teaching post (where they are crying out for experienced Skills for Life trained teaching staff), I have taken a paycut of approximately 50% whilst significantly increasing the hours I work.
I do what I do because I love it and I believe I can genuinely help people. Not everyone is guided by financial vested interests.
Yes, Yes, Yes, Maybe (although educating an adult idiot is a pretty futile endeavor; no matter how many social services functionaries it might employ as a side "benefit"; it's like trying to fill a leaky bucket. Not all uneducated adults are idiots, but those who aren't tend to self-identify)
Where were we? Ah...: No, No, Already answered under police protection, same answer.
So this isn't a "don't tax me" rant, it's another typically conservative "I want to determine who gets taxed how much, and what the tax money should be used for" rant. Run for office, and stop bitching.
"...insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" is in the constitution. "Promote the general welfare" doesn't mean a dole (now cleverly renamed to "welfare" in an attempt to make it look more like a proper function of government), nor is the right roll into somebody's town to convert the park to a soup kitchen one of "the blessings of liberty".
Hopefully that was "ensure".
If promoting the general welfare isn't providing for those who can't provide for themselves, what is it? Notice I siad "can't", not "don't want to" or "choose not to".
Well...let's see....given a normal sperm count and semen volume, six Einsteins per day may actually be below the normal rate per capita. Especially if we're losing some because they're not getting enough welfare money.
We were taliking Einsteins. I didn't mention all the Hawkings, Hubbels, Clintons, Fishers, Gates, Jeffersons, Newtons, etc., that bit the dust.;)
...If you actually don't know the difference between collectivism and democracy, that's too bad. One is a system of government, the other a political philosophy. But if you really do think they're the same thing, that would explain a lot.
Speaking of straw men...
Speaking of straw men...
She said they looked "an awful lot alike". My response is that failure to distinguish between the two is problematic in the extreme; in fact doing so begs the question that democracy is supposed to answer. I don't see a straw man here...which proposition would that be?
We were taliking Einsteins. I didn't mention all the Hawkings, Hubbels, Clintons, Fishers, Gates, Jeffersons, Newtons, etc., that bit the dust.;)
No great loss in the case of Gates, Fisher and Clintons. Carry on.
If promoting the general welfare isn't providing for those who can't provide for themselves, what is it?
That's not the
general welfare. It's the benefit of a particular class of people.
The language derives from Franklin's first draft of the Articles of Confederation:
The said United Colonies hereby severally enter into a firm League of Friendship with each other, binding on themselves and their Posterity, for their common Defense [and Offense], against their Enemies for the Security of their Liberties and Propertys, the Safety of their Persons and Familes, and their (struck out: common and) mutual and general Welfare.
You're asserting that a dole improves the
general welfare. I remain unconvinced by the evidence I've seen; in fact, as an entitlement, I belive a dole even acts to the detriment of the particular class of people it purports to help, much less improving the
general welfare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
The 'voluntary' aspect of taxation comes in when we as a country vote not to remove them and to continue providing support where needed...
MaggieL:
Yes, there's that collectivist first person plural again. Of course there's more than one "we" in this equation...there's at least the "we" that pays taxes, the "we" that doesn't, and the "we" that makes money from the whole transaction.
And the "we" that votes.
All non-identical, but fun to blur together in rhetoric.
__________________
In this snipped of our conversation you refer to the use of the word 'we' as collectivist. Did you really mean the political ideology of 'collectivism'? Which you later claim I am unable to distinguish from democracy, or did you mean collective decision making which (as I have already stated) bears a striking resemblance to Democracy. If you insist on categorising this as collectivism then I am afraid you are the one who has misunderstood the difference between collectivism and democracy.
I was comparing
your[I] apparent definition of collectivism with the [I]definition of democracy.[/I][/I]
The definition of collectivism where it pertains a specific political ideology is:
collectivism
noun {U} SPECIALIZED
a theory or political system based on the principle that all of the farms, factories and other places of work in a country should be owned by or for all the people in that country
........................................................................................................
That is not what we were discussing. We were discussing the idea of collective decision making as expressed through an electoral system. ie: Democracy.
I am a socialist, not a collectivist. There is a difference.
Definition of socialism:
socialism
noun {U}
the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in the wealth of the country, or the political systems based on these beliefs
I am a believer in democracy and I am a socialist. I am not a communist or a collectivist. The definitions of these words have changed over time. Where once socialism was seen purely as a stage between capitalism and communism, it is now usually seen as a system in its own right and not a precursor to another. I suppose the most accurate description of my beliefs would be 'democratic socialism'. I do not believe that all production should be nationalised. I do however believe that my country's basic infrastructure and amenities should be. The corner shop should belong to the shopkeeper.....gas supplies, healthcare, electricity, water and public transport should belong to the country. The factory which makes toys should belong to the entrepeneur who started it.....the Universities and schools should belong to the nation.
:)
I am a believer in democracy and I am a socialist. I am not a communist or a collectivist.
That's a pretty slick definition...the "wealth of the country", eh? We start off with "everything belongs to the country" and proceed to divide the spoils from there. What's the source of your definition?
This one strikes me as a bit more standard:
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Maggie, you posted that whilst I was editing my last post. Read the addition, it covers what you just posted.
The definiton I stated was from a British English dictionary. There are differences in how these words have come to be defined in our two countries. This is because the original definitions have altered over time, but because of the distinctly different political landscapes in our countries, the changes have led to a divergence between what you would term 'socialism' and what we would term 'socialism'. Your definition is closer to the original, it's set in its historical context. Ours has changed a good deal more because it is more relevant to our contempory political landscape.
No great loss in the case of Gates, Fisher and Clintons. Carry on.
That would be Bobby, the chess master, and Bill, whose IQ is probably double W's
Ours has changed a good deal more because it is more relevant to our contempory political landscape.
Or because it's consonant with your political
objectives. And "Infrastructure" and "amenities" are subject to definition at your convenience.
Didn't the UK privatize the rail system? Is that not "public transport"? When I used it it seemed to work quite well, compared with the government-subsized Amtrak system..admitedly my UK experience is highly anecdotal.
That would be Bobby, the chess master, and Bill, whose IQ is probably double W's
I know who you meant. Fischer's a nutcase.
As for BillG, we know much more about his bank account than his IQ. He's certainly a skilled marketeer and monopolist.
That's not the general welfare. It's the benefit of a particular class of people.
Not exactly, in that the people who fall into the "particular class" change. Listen, if you begrudge the folks that get welfare, just become disabled, or lose all of your assets, become "involuntarily unemployed", and you can be one of them. It's just that simple.
You're asserting that a dole improves the general welfare. I remain unconvinced by the evidence I've seen; in fact, as an entitlement, I belive a dole even acts to the detriment of the particular class of people it purports to help, much less improving the general welfare.
The country is only as strong as its weakest link. Do you think we would be better or worse prepared for world domination with a poverty-stricken homeless class to deal with. Don't get me wrong - my solution is not a government dole. I think I stated before that wealth gluttons should accept a lower income so that jobs can be created which have incomes high enough to support a family. See, I'm all about "the family".:earth:
I know who you meant. Fischer's a nutcase.
As for BillG, we know much more about his bank account than his IQ. He's certainly a skilled marketeer and monopolist.
Bill Clinton - Rhodes Scholar - now tell me how stupid he is.
Not exactly, in that the people who fall into the "particular class" change.
That's true even if the "particular class" is "alive".
If you want to assert that what the Constitution calls "the general welfare" is served by what you might refer to as "welfare payments", you'll have to offer more by way of evdence. Decades of welfare stateishness has not abolished poverty or homelessness, and in many ways actually encourages it.
I don't buy the argument that money should be taken from me for redistribution according to some do-gooder's criteria of worthiness or neediness. That's bullshit. Who the hell gave
you the right to regulate somebody else's income because you think they're a "glutton"?
If you want to assert that what the Constitution calls "the general welfare" is served by what you might refer to as "welfare payments", you'll have to offer more by way of evdence. Decades of welfare stateishness has not abolished poverty or homelessness, and in many ways actually encourages it.
If you want to assert that what decades of welfare stateishness has encouraged poverty or homelessness, you'll have to offer more by way of evdence.
I don't buy the argument that money should be taken from me for redistribution according to some do-gooder's criteria of worthiness or neediness. That's bullshit. Who the hell gave you the right to regulate somebody else's income because you think they're a "glutton"?
Who gave you the right to determine that these folks should be left on their own, to deal with their problems by themselves? Obviously, the majority elected a congress that disagrees with you. I think you might be out of step.
Didn't the UK privatize the rail system? Is that not "public transport"?
Yes we did and yes it is. England is not a socialist country. I have never claimed it to be such. We are not a socialist country, we are a capitalist democracy. As per our democratic will, our capitalist democracy has been fitted with some social safeguards as a direct response to the detrimental effects that deep seated poverty was having on our country.
The rail service was privatised by the previous conservative government, who had a great deal in common with mainstream republicans and despised all forms of 'socialism'. The current Labour government allowed that change to continue rather than dragging the whole system back into public hands. The current government is also (despite its roots in a socialist leaning party) not socialist.
In the years since the rail service was privatised, it has been beset with problems; the level of service has significantly reduced; the prices have been hiked far more than anybody expected; the government has had to throw tax-payers money at the project time and time again, so as to retain some sort of service in the face of mis-management. It is widely recognised on both sides of the House that this was a mistake. The left believe it should never have happened and the right believe it was done in entirely the wrong way.
What the answer is i don't know. I would like to see the rail service back in public hands. Right now, we have different companies responsible for each little facet of your journey....consequently there are many times when those don't link up properly. Things slip between different spheres of influence and responsibility (this had led to some fairly severe safety concerns over the years) and the system is unwieldy and unnecessarily complicated, particularly if you are travelling between regions and making changes along the way.
There are those on the right who argue that some sort of private-public joint governance might be a good idea, as long as the system gets linked up rather than remaining in its current fragmented state.
Right now, some people have a very good experience of train travel, but many have very bad experiences of it. It can vary not just region to region but change to change as well.
The country is only as strong as its weakest link.
Not really, countries dont give important jobs to it's weakest groups. If you look at the world as one large conglomerate we can point to evolution as the greatest example of how, by allowing those who fail to adapt and thrive to fade away, the entire group is strengthened. Socialism goes against basic evolutionary principle, once we get schools up to speed so kids can actually understand it teaching evolution will be a great boost to humanity's progress. Thrive or die, that's nature.
If you want to assert that what decades of welfare stateishness has encouraged poverty or homelessness, you'll have to offer more by way of evdence.
I have the evidence of my own experience, but you made the first claim: that "welfare payments" enhance the "general welfare" as intended by the Constitution; the burden is on you.
Who gave you the right to determine that these folks should be left on their own, to deal with their problems by themselves?
The Constitution, again. Asking a silly parallel question isn't an answer. What principle entitles you to decide someone has "too much money" and thus should be subject to the redistribution of wealth?
Obviously, the majority elected a congress that disagrees with you. I think you might be out of step.
Bread and circuses. It's not as bad as it could be, nor is it worse than it has ever been. But it certainly could be better. I'm not even sure it's all that "obvious" that the majority agrees with you; weren't you just whining about the President (and presumably his tax cuts)?
The left believe it should never have happened and the right believe it was done in entirely the wrong way.
Given your narrative, it's difficult to beleive it was done in the right way. I can only compare my expereince travelling a few trips between Heathrow/Paddington/Swansea/King's Cross with what comparable travel on Amtrak would have entailed. Yet when I admired the service everyone rolled their eyes and complained about how awful it was.
I can well imagine that constant injections of government money were necessary if the operators wern't permitted to terminate unprofitable service. That's pretty much the Amtrak story too.
... weren't you just whining about the President (and presumably his tax cuts)?
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
Obviously, the majority elected a congress that disagrees with you. I think you might be out of step.
Now the president is part of congress? Check the constitution: they're in seperate branches of government.
...The Constitution, again. ...
Where?
What principle entitles you to decide someone has "too much money" and thus should be subject to the redistribution of wealth?
...
None. I think people should decide for themselves that they have enough, and compensate their employees better, improve their benefits, or lower the price of their product or service. Instead, they tend to be wealth gluttons.
By the way, you can't feed the homeless in Orlando or Dallas, either. :bolt:
More money being brought in by a company usually does result in higher wages or better benefits for employees above a certain point on the company ladder. The lower you go, the less you see the effects.
Now the president is part of congress? Check the constitution: they're in seperate branches of government.
Indeed they are...yet you were citing election results and the authority of the majority....when it suited your argument, anyway..
Bill Clinton - Rhodes Scholar - now tell me how stupid he is.
Didn't say he was stupid. I said losing him would not be a great loss...and I used the plural "Clintons". Getting a big scholarship isn't evidence of genius so much as political acumen, which Slick Willy certainly does have. Gates isn't stupid either, but he's certainly not a genius. And Fisher sure looks like an idiot savant from here.
Where?
None. I think people should decide for themselves that they have enough, and compensate their employees better, improve their benefits, or lower the price of their product or service. Instead, they tend to be wealth gluttons.
You show
me where the constitution empowers the government to redistribute the wealth of people who "have too much". You keep playing this shell game between "the government should do it" and then when pressed for the source of that authority you fall back on "Oh, but the gluttons should do it on their own...that they don't is evidence of exactly how evil they really are."
I'm not willing to chase you around that bush yet again; this is where I came in.
By the way, you can't feed the homeless in Orlando or Dallas, either. :bolt:
You can't feed large groups of the homeless
in public parks in Dallas or Orlando. Let's keep our facts straight.
And those higher on the ladder don't need the increased income, the lower paid ones do.
And those higher on the ladder don't need the increased income, the lower paid ones do.
If you want to see income distributed on the basis of
need (however you calculate *that*), you'll have to go someplace with a different economic system. Let us know how you make out...if you can find a computer there. Maybe you should take one with you, and hope nobody there "needs" it more than you do.
I believe that poor people have no entitlement to the money that other people made fair and square, but I also believe that people with the ability to do so should help others as much as they can, every chance they get.
... You keep playing this shell game between "the government should do it" and then when pressed for the source of that authority you fall back on "Oh, but the gluttons should do it on their own...that they don't is evidence of exactly how evil they really are."
I'm not willing to chase you around that bush yet again; this is where I came in.
You are right, Maggie. I did get sidetracked, responding to your heartless assertions. I still beleive that, for those who want to be a productive part of society, there have to be jobs that will make their quality of life better having a job than being on welfare, and that increased income needs to come from the folks who already make a lot of money. For those who absolutely cannot hold a job that will support their family's basic needs, there needs to be a safety net. It seems to make sense for government to provide that safety net. If you would like to set up a system of private providers, have at it. There must be a mechanism to weed out those who can, but choose not to be a productive member of society.
You show me where the constitution empowers the government to redistribute the wealth of people who "have too much". ...
"General Welfare"
BTW, why don't you bitch about the redistributing everybody's wealth, whether we have too much, or not enough, to programs like the Osprey? You have this phobia about people getting something that they didn't earn, I have issues with the defense department pissing away millions, with virtually nothing to show for it but failure and dead bodies. What makes your "general welfare" different from my "general welfare"?
If you want to see income distributed on the basis of need (however you calculate *that*), you'll have to go someplace with a different economic system. Let us know how you make out...if you can find a computer there. Maybe you should take one with you, and hope nobody there "needs" it more than you do.
Off topic, snide, pointless, draws conclusion that was not inferred, and typically Maggie.
If you would like to set up a system of private providers, have at it.
You assert that there is a need, but you want "somebody else" to meet that need...because there "has to be a solution", and then when somebody doesn't do it for you they're all evil, greedy, heartless gluttons. Honest, it's not the government's job to meet every need.
.
I believe that poor people have no entitlement to the money that other people made fair and square, but I also believe that people with the ability to do so should help others as much as they can, every chance they get.
Helping others is admirable...but remeber not every
charitable act is actually "help".
You have to examine actions intended to help to make sure that they don't have negative unintended consequences. A heroin junkie may have a "need" for a fix...but is giving him one "helping" him? Especially if you're not intending to supply him with heroin for life? Fair minds could differ. It is not by accident that physicians have the aphorism: "first, do no harm".
Government agencies in particular are not at all good at examining the consequences of their actions, and a value judgement as to what is "help" in any given case must stand up to scrutiny later in a court of law, to respond to a complaint of "discrimination" if you don't give citizen X exactly what you gave citizen Y.
BTW, why don't you bitch about the redistributing everybody's wealth, whether we have too much, or not enough, to programs like the Osprey?
"...
provide for the common defense..."
pointless
Not at all pointless. My point is that you're taking "need" as an absolute requirement that the government, somebody else, or some magical Mommy In The Sky
must respond to, like the kindergarden child who has discovered that "it's not fair!" is a plausible objection to any outcome he doesn't like and reason to invoke debate.
Were you really born in 1959, as your profile claims?
The real inroads into the educational system by the socialists really started stacking up a couple years later than that, but Spexx is within the demographic ...
You assert that there is a need, but you want "somebody else" to meet that need...because there "has to be a solution", and then when somebody doesn't do it for you they're all evil, greedy, heartless gluttons. Honest, it's not the government's job to meet every need.
.
And your solution seems to be "I'm too greedy to help them, I say let them rot!".
And your solution seems to be "I'm too greedy to help them, I say let them rot!".
It's not my job to meet every need either, and that doesn't make me "greedy". Since you think this is so important, come up with a solution that isn't fueled by confiscating things that belong to other people, or throwing a tantrum and calling them names when their priorites don't align with yours.
The real inroads into the educational system by the socialists really started stacking up a couple years later than that, but Spexx is within the demographic ...
Ya think? My younger brother was born in '58, but he doesn't seem to have this problem. Not that every generation doesn't have it's "under 30 socialists", but geez...Spexxvet was 30 allegedly 15 years ago.
You are right, Maggie. I did get sidetracked, responding to your heartless assertions.
Sorry, I forgot that your behavior is my fault. Look what I made you do! It's not fair!
"...provide for the common defense..."
By taking my hard earned money? I don't think so...:p
Ya think? My younger brother was born in '58, but he doesn't seem to have this problem. Not that every generation doesn't have it's "under 30 socialists", but geez...Spexxvet was 30 allegedly 15 years ago.
17, but who needs math skills anymore?
Maybe it's not generational. Maybe it's the difference between compassionate people and those who aren't.
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
You are right, Maggie. I did get sidetracked, responding to your heartless assertions.
Sorry, I forgot that your behavior is my fault. Look what I made you do! It's not fair!
Which words blame you? Are you a professional word-twister, or is it just your way of trying to win an argument when your facts and rationale don't cut it?
Which words blame you?
You blamed "getting sidetracked" on my "heartless assertions". As for whose arguments are holding up better, all I hear is unsupported assertions, wishful thinking, socialist cant, circular logic and namecalling/ad hominems.
Maggie, you continue to say "my money". If people behaved the way I think they should, raising the standard of living for low wage workers would not take any of "your" money - unless of course you happen to be a filthy rich wealth glutton.
You blamed "getting sidetracked" on my "heartless assertions". As for whose arguments are holding up better, all I hear is unsupported assertions, wishful thinking, socialist cant, circular logic and namecalling/ad hominems.
So stop typing them.;)
No, I chose to respond to your assertions - you didn't make me do anything, just as I declared and inferred nothing different. Hope that clears things up for you. Do you always interpret statements this erroneously?
17, but who needs math skills anymore?
Maybe it's not generational. Maybe it's the difference between compassionate people and those who aren't.
OK, you were two years *past* thirty 15 years ago. More's the pity. And you'll get credit for being "compassionate" when you stop wanting to do it with other people's money.
So stop typing them.;)
The "Pee-Wee Herman" school of argumentation.
OK, you were two years *past* thirty 15 years ago. More's the pity. And you'll get credit for being "compassionate" when you stop wanting to do it with other people's money.
Yeah, it's really incompassionate to encourage someone to drive a Caddy instead of a Mercedes, so his/her employees can upgrade from a 10 year old ford to a 5 year old Dodge. :mad:
Using words like 'heartless' in your accusations mean nothing and are appeals to wayward emotionalism, not logic. Wouldn't it be far more useful to provide education on how to avoid being stuck in a $10/hr job and just let people decide for themselves where they want to sit in society? Aid for certain classifications of injury is workable, but with stipulations about moving to a new type of work that the injury doesn't inhibit. As a last resort the only thing that I could see working would be a sort of large dormitory style housing project complete with integrated/mandetory schools for the children. I can rationalize myself donating a roof, running water, and a bed, but not anything more. A tiered system along these lines would catch the people with the ambition and will to improve their situation, the rest can freeze according to their own choice.
The "Pee-Wee Herman" school of argumentation.
I know you are, but what am I? :p
Yeah, it's really incompassionate to encourage someone to drive a Caddy instead of a Mercedes...
Make up your mind: are you espousing charity, or advocating cooercive wealth redistribution? Because that "glutton" namecalling won't attract much philanthropy.
By taking my hard earned money? I don't think so.
It's in the Constitution; that's the contract.
Nowhere does it say anything about "taking money from people Spexxvet thinks have too much to give it to people Spexxvet thinks deserve it more".
Maggie, do you think the disparity of rich to poor is good for our society?
Edit: yes or no, only.
Maggie, do you think the disparity of rich to poor is good for our society?
Edit: yes or no, only.
Sorry, I don't do requests.
The only alternative to a "disparity between rich and poor" would be everybody having equal wealth. I do not think that would be a good thing for our society.
The only alternative to a "disparity between rich and poor" would be everybody having equal wealth. I do not think that would be a good thing for our society.
You are probably right; however, what do you think about narrowing the gap? What do you think about a system whereby the people at the bottom are not actually in the gutter and the wealthy could stay wealthy?
You are probably right; however, what do you think about narrowing the gap? What do you think about a system whereby the people at the bottom are not actually in the gutter and the wealthy could stay wealthy?
I design "systems" for a living, in a environments with many fewer political oxen to be gored. They are like big factories for unintended consquences. Governmental mucking about with the economy to implement sombody's notion of "fairness" or "equitability" doesn't work; it's like trying to deal with blood pressure instability by installing a spigot in your aorta.
If you're unhappy with how the government does defense, do you think they'd do a better job managing your wealth?
But our poor aren't actually in the gutter - use marichico as an example... she has her own place, an suv, a computer with net access, a purebred showdog etc etc...
I grew up in suburban, middle class, mostly white neighborhoods with good schools. The number of my peers, even relatives, that are on state assistance of some kind is very frightening to me. I don't see a whole lot of "compassion" involved in letting people born on 3rd base raise the next generation on welfare - which is what I think Maggie has been saying over and over again....
The people at the bottome are not in the gutter, it takes lifelong irresponsibility to do that. The U.S. has one of the most well established middle classes of any country in the world, it's absolutely rediculous to say that we are divided into a rich class who wallow in luxury and a destitute class that is trapped and struggling to survive. I add the word 'trapped' to that because it's crucial to the idea that the poorest need active help. If they were not trapped in that fate through no fault of their own, then their plight will not garner sympathy. The small population of very poor in the U.S. is not trapped, everyone is provided the opportunity to live comfortably if they choose to make the choices necessary at the proper times in their lives. It starts in highschool, not once they've partied away their 20's. Jobs change as well and it's not an excuse to say "well my dad made a good living putting wigets together". The world has moved on, adapt.
I don't see a whole lot of "compassion" involved in letting people born on 3rd base raise the next generation on welfare ...
We have now several generations of urban poor whose entire culture has been shaped by the welfare state, disincentives to build two-parent families, and a constant subliminal environmental message: that because you are a poor member of a racial minority that you cannot survive without a government handout, and the only way to succeed is to be a sports star, rapper or gangsta (or maybe all three), and the best route to a meaningful life as a woman is to get pregnant before leaving high school.
This was all done with the very best of progressive liberal intentions, rooted in a desire to elmiminate poverty and driven by intense guilt about the inequities of the past. It's surely no accident that the epitome of this "war of poverty" was a US president from Texas, born into rural white poverty in the deep South, elected to Congress during the Great Depression, and thrust into the leadership as a combat hero of World War II.
He meant well...and died long before the "unintended consequences" of his Great Society policies could be appreciated.
Using words like 'heartless' in your accusations mean nothing and are appeals to wayward emotionalism, not logic.
So is insinuating that homeless people are lazy or just playing the system.
Wouldn't it be far more useful to provide education on how to avoid being stuck in a $10/hr job and just let people decide for themselves where they want to sit in society?
Someone will always be stuck in a minimum wage job. KFC won't go away just because the entire world has an MBA, or MBAs will be working at KFC for minimum wage. That is unless the executives choose to make less, so that the front line workers can make more.
Aid for certain classifications of injury is workable, but with stipulations about moving to a new type of work that the injury doesn't inhibit. As a last resort the only thing that I could see working would be a sort of large dormitory style housing project complete with integrated/mandetory schools for the children. I can rationalize myself donating a roof, running water, and a bed, but not anything more. A tiered system along these lines would catch the people with the ambition and will to improve their situation, the rest can freeze according to their own choice.
Thank you for some constructive input.
You're right that low income jobs will not disappear no matter what percentage of the population has a good education. But lets approach this from a slightly different angle. By saying "KFC's not going anywhere, so we'll always need people to hand us our chicken" you are acknowledging that people are going to want their chicken, but who says it needs to be people handing it out? We could easily switch over to a completely automated chicken distribution system run by one or two technicians who would be making better wages than the 'you want fries with that' people. (Anyone else think of Monty Python-esque extrapolations when they see 'automated chicken distribution system' :D). Same goes for many other low wage positions, not all, but we can make a start. Automation inflates wages, lets get creative.
So is insinuating that homeless people are lazy or just playing the system.
Everybody is playing the system.
That's why you want a system with natural energy flows, as opposed to a social engineering patchboard machine responding to the feel-good impulse du jour. Tinkering to creating a niche with an unconditional permanent food source creates unconditional permanent inhabitants.