Hunger and Homelessness

[Laodicean60]

I don't know what state you live in or how their structure their budget, but property taxes

Large pizza no way. I'm not sure where he lives but I've seen a steady rise in property tax and insurance costs.

 

[Laodicean60]

If you have budget problems, you either need to cut spending or raise taxes (usually both).

If I trusted my government on spending and they managed what (no oversight) they spent and controlled waste, I wouldn't mind an increase in taxes.

 

[rjs330]

Why not?

Because charities do not create successful countries.

Says who?

Name one successful country that acts as a charity.

As opposed to… a public service or a public good? That’s exactly how many government services operate. Not every road is a toll road, is it?

Yes because the public services aid in the creation of success for the communities which then create jobs, money wealth goods etc for the populace. The services do not give and get nothing in return for the communities. Without roads people couldn't go to work, food and goods wouldn't be transported to the communities, the jobs created for people that move upon the roadways which in turn pay taxes. There is give me take and the building of an economy in all of this. That fact that you make a statement like that is quite concerning.

So, government isn’t supposed to be a charity but it is supposed to be a startup incubator?

I think you are having difficulties with the difference between charity and a functional thriving economic system which in turn helps create a strong society and country.

Should I dig up the economic multiplier effects of different forms of government spending that show that payments to low income people like SNAP have the best returns? You are demonstrably wrong.

I have little confidence that whatever you dig up will show that the welfare systems as they are create success.

He’s retired, pays no income tax, and spends less on property taxes than you would a pizza (his comparison). That’s literally being a drain on other people.

Then I guess we ought to just put him to sleep. After all he's gone past his usefulness date. He earned nothing for his years of effort.

You seem to really be struggling with the charity vs a productive successful economic system that creates wealth and success for the greatest number of people and creates strong communities.

 

[rjs330]

Man, I made a good chunk of change mowing lawn in my trailer park around that age. I'd go to the store and buy chips and Mr. Pibb and of course fuel.

I didn't do anything that at 9 pm that's for sure. But I was about 13 when I got my first job working a few hours a week cleaning and mowing.

 

[rjs330]

If I trusted my government on spending and they managed what (no oversight) they spent and controlled waste, I wouldn't mind an increase in taxes.

Not until they learn how to budget and not waste my money. Just throwing good money after bad is not the answer.

 

[Laodicean60]

Because charities do not create successful countries.

Neither does hungry people and homelessness. We'll eventually look like a third world country.

 

[Laodicean60]

I have little confidence that whatever you dig up will show that the welfare systems as they are create success.

It's only your opinion that matter? SNAP has a work requirement or is that not good enough for the right.

 

[Laodicean60]

Good luck with either one of those, let alone both.

John Boehner's Congress tried to hilariously "cut the rate of spending"- still an increase, just not what they wanted; President Obama said that it was "taking a chainsaw to the budget", and the press lapped it up.

What is the right doing about spending besides kicking the can, I've heard it to long but here you are beating your tribal drum. If you knew how dangerous the debt is, you'd be in your politician's ear instead of these forums. I guess to be ignorant is bliss for both the left and right.
"cut the rate of spending"- you do realize this was just talk don't you. He was virtue signaling to his tribe.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Neither does hungry people and homelessness. We'll eventually look like a third world country.

I have been to "Third World" countries that were more developed than the parts of Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi I grew up in.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Because charities do not create successful countries.

Many - maybe even most - governments don't, either.

Name one successful country that acts as a charity.

Most of the nations of western Europe and Scandinavia have generous benefits and robust social safety nets while being successful. Is that sufficient for you?

Yes because the public services aid in the creation of success for the communities which then create jobs, money wealth goods etc for the populace. The services do not give and get nothing in return for the communities. Without roads people couldn't go to work, food and goods wouldn't be transported to the communities, the jobs created for people that move upon the roadways which in turn pay taxes. There is give me take and the building of an economy in all of this. That fact that you make a statement like that is quite concerning.

I think you are having difficulties with the difference between charity and a functional thriving economic system which in turn helps create a strong society and country.

I'm not having difficulty separating anything. You're making silly distinctions between "government assistance" and "charity" that allow you to rattle off a bunch of meaningless rhetoric.

Without roads people couldn't go to work

Without food, people couldn't go to work.

food and goods wouldn't be transported to the communities

Without shelter, people wouldn't be able to transport those goods.

[quote[the jobs created for people that move upon the roadways which in turn pay taxes.[/quote]

Without proper healthcare, people wouldn't be able to work those jobs.


The reality is that the overlap between "charity" and "government services" is quite large. There may be certain advantages to one or the other in any given situation, but both seek to help people in need and allow them to lead more productive, independent lives.

I have little confidence that whatever you dig up will show that the welfare systems as they are create success.

How would you define "success"? Reducing poverty? Improving health outcomes? Improving income/wealth later in life?

Then I guess we ought to just put him to sleep. After all he's gone past his usefulness date. He earned nothing for his years of effort.

lol, what kind of rebuttal was that? He bragged about how great his mom was for only ever taking a single welfare check, while simultaneously offering tips on how to retire and live off the system. I'm not saying he should go jump off a cliff; I'm pointing out how his position is hypocritical. If a poor single mother is to be commended for doing it herself, why not expect as much from self-sufficient retirees with no dependents?

You seem to really be struggling with the charity vs a productive successful economic system that creates wealth and success for the greatest number of people and creates strong communities.

I don't think you have any idea what government support is capable of. Show me a successful government that doesn't support its people.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It's only your opinion that matter? SNAP has a work requirement or is that not good enough for the right.

I believe that there should be a work/school requirement, but I also believe that what may be bought on SNAP needs to be more limited than just it have to be food. SNAP should be limited to the basics that means not junk food ( not including canned food and processed food in that I mean like cookies cakes ECT nor should it (in my opinion include high priced meat like streak and shrimp.)

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I mention what I feel part of the problem of the cause of the ever-expanding homelessness problem. You can't compare your blessed situation onto the rest of America. I too am retired, and I have money in the bank and living a blessed life. I reread the article and it's right leaning and bashing Biden but that's not what I'm not trying to do. I've seen homelessness get increasingly worse under both parties. Maybe it stems from our government's ignorance and assumptions like some Americans have.

I won't accept that 100% are lazy or on drugs. I'm curious what portion of opioid addicts became attics due to injury or sugary? I do know persons dealing with emotions are more prone to be addicted, the brains opioid receptors. I wrote a research paper on it in 2018. I also know that doctors prescribed them more freely in the past including the VA.

This does not include me, or should it include any so-called Christians. The ones you have pity for what are you doing for them?

You make it sound so easy; seems you haven't done any critical thing on what keeps those people in the cities they live in.

I know we whine about the problem and that's why nothing ever gets done. I feel in order for us to make suggestions to our politicians we have to educate ourselves to the problems. I suggest us Christian can start buying some of these people cloths so they can look presentable at a job interview.

I agree with a lot of what you say there. But regarding the topic of moving, sure it may be hard. But where did most immigrants to America come from before the 20th century? It was VERY hard for most of them and they left very hard circumstances. And many died on their way here. It's not nearly as hard to leave these neighborhoods in the city. I think people have become soft. And yes, that includes me.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

The pro-lifers have no idea how anything works. Complaining that charity ought to cover it belies a gross ignorance of the magnitude of the problems.



What we need to do differently is distribute wealth differently. I can't seem to find the paper at the moment, but a few years ago, I read about a simulation showing that, even in a perfectly fair system, imperfections in market pricing (i.e. people charging a little less than they could or paying a little more than they have to) will naturally lead to an oligopoly. It doesn't predict which few entities will wind up with most of the money, just that somebody eventually will. If you want to prevent that, you need to implement measures that actively counteract it.



There are ways to restructure the estate tax so that it protects farms and other valuable-but-illiquid businesses from being shuttered while still also not giving away huge benefits to the already-wealthy. The fact that inheritance resets an investment's cost basis is wild.


I don't know what state you live in or how their structure their budget, but property taxes that low aren't enough to cover the services provided to your property. Congraulations, your mom may not have accepted a welfare check, but you're benefiting from a government subsidy somewhere, even if it's not obvious to you.

One way to really bring fairness to the table is to make the government stop giving people money for nothing.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

What job do you recommend for the age group of birth to say 9? I know older kids can mow yards, shovel snow, rake leaves, paper routes (all but extinct) etc... to buy some food, but the younger do what to earn money for food where you are? Or are you just saying the kids deserve to go hungry because their parents won't/don't/can't work? BTW, does your area offer 9-year-olds who mow lawns healthcare that they can afford?

In these cases, necessity is the mother of petty theft/shoplifting at a very young age leading to bigger things later in their lives.

The kids have parents that support them. At least, that is the role of parents. Always has been.

 

[dogs4thewin]

The kids have parents that support them. At least, that is the role of parents. Always has been.

issue is that some parents choose not to or do not do so enough.

 

[dogs4thewin]

One way to really bring fairness to the table is to make the government stop giving people money for nothing.

Depends on what you mean by for nothing some programs are designed for people who HAVE put in the work think SSDI as opposed to SSI. Although as someone who has been on both programs first SSI and then on my late father's SSDI benefits I will say that while both programs could improve SSI NEEDS to improve on how much people actually get for certain.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I agree with a lot of what you say there. But regarding the topic of moving, sure it may be hard. But where did most immigrants to America come from before the 20th century? It was VERY hard for most of them and they left very hard circumstances. And many died on their way here. It's not nearly as hard to leave these neighborhoods in the city. I think people have become soft. And yes, that includes me.

soft maybe, but I would not say that everyone can just up and leave.

 

[Laodicean60]

But where did most immigrants to America come from before the 20th century?

So we are expecting citizens to jump trains? Even though my brother-in-law did that to LA from Juarez but really that's not realistic.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

issue is that some parents choose not to or do not do so enough.

I understand. Not my kids.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

soft maybe, but I would not say that everyone can just up and leave.

Well, those in the old USSR certainly couldn't. Nor can those in North Korea.