Hunger and Homelessness

[JustOneWay]

Uh huh, I got it the first time.

Do not interfere if parents do not have the money to feed their kids. If they want/choose to let their kids starve, then the kids deserve it for being born to those parents. No one should interfere by doing anything to feed the kids.

Indeed. Except it is A-OK to interfere if the parents decide to take those hungry little ones to see a Drag Queen story time event. Please understand the priorities.

/sarcasm

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's already been proven to you that the homeless are largely responsible for their homelessness.

whoa wut? When in the last 9 pages did you do that? The evidence is pretty clear that homelessness is driven largely by housing costs, moreso even than poverty or addiction.

How Housing Costs Drive Levels of Homelessness

A new analysis of rent prices and homelessness in American cities demonstrates the strong connection between the two: homelessness is high in urban areas where rents are high, and homelessness rises when rents rise.

www.pewtrusts.org

 

[dogs4thewin]

Then it's up to a good society to pressure them to do so.

true problem with that line of thought is that in the meantime the children suffer which particularly very young children can do NOTHING about.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I understand. Not my kids.

Well great for you, however not all parents are like that some just do not care; while others are doing the best they can and still come up somewhat short (Those are the ones that I have no problem receiving aid.) Even though I feel that the actual restrictions should still be tight, but I do realize that some people need it and I even realize the tricky problem of what is known as the welfare cliff. What I do not know is the best way to fix the welfare cliff,

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Oh, like some of the migrants at the southern border, gotcha. The question still stands to you expect Americans homeless to jump trains to move to Kentucky?

The ones that ILLEGALLY migrate actually get services from our government. More precisely, from the taxpayers. Regarding jumping trains, I don't think Kentucky would be their "land of opportunity". We don't take kindly to illegal aliens here. Legal ones are a completely different thing.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Well great for you, however not all parents are like that some just do not care; while others are doing the best they can and still come up somewhat short (Those are the ones that I have no problem receiving aid.) Even though I feel that the actual restrictions should still be tight, but I do realize that some people need it and I even realize the tricky problem of what is known as the welfare cliff. What I do not know is the best way to fix the welfare cliff,

I understand that some people make really bad parents. And when they break the law, the government should step in. But not until then. Again, not my kids, and I don't want to be a Karen simply projecting my personal perspective on the actions of others. e.g. if I see a parent spank their child at a grocery store, I'll assume the kid probably needed it. But if I see the parent beating them with a baseball bat or stabbing them, I'll then get involved.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I bet if you laid out your financial situation for us, we could find at least half a dozen government subsidies you're benefiting from. Probably quite a lot more than that if we put in the effort.

Social Security. That's it. And I paid dearly into it. Frankly, if I'd paid that money into a halfway decent investment, I'd have a lot MORE money.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] really. is that your experience with the homeless (not!) or just your fantasy? Reading this makes me feel ashamed you're my brother. Jesus didn't have preconditions on Love you neighbor but wow. I guess it's true the rich are out of touch.

My wife used to see a woman with a very small child begging every morning in front of the building she worked at in downtown Seattle. One day she decided to actually do something and tried to set her up with a job opportunity and day care for her child. They agreed to meet the next day at a particular time. She never saw the woman again.

I used to drive a Church bus where a "green card" mexican woman with six kids would ride the bus to church in the Seattle area. One day she moved to Texas. A couple years later an elderly woman showed up at my house with a van full of that woman and her children. They had pulled an "Uncle Eddie" and she used her last dollar to get them on a bus to Seattle. This woman and her husband had offered to help them out but they could not cope. She was literally trying to drop them off to "live" at my home with my wife and my three daughters. I accepted.

For weeks we tried to help her find a job and finally found one. She worked one day and quit because she wanted to be with her kids. She was an "illegal alien" that was given the green card by the federal government and was receiving over $1000 a month in welfare. The job only paid two hundred more than that. So she CHOSE not to work. BTW, her kids ranged in age from 15 to 3 years of age and all had different fathers. While they lived at our house for six weeks my daughters all came down with head lice, and the two older boys broke our front room plate glass window. We finally got them to a government housing program. The government allowed them to live here, so they could pay for the results of this woman's bad decisions.

I never give money to a person until I know their story, and I don't believe the government should EVER give money to anyone without getting something in return.

I'm careful about who I give to. And it is important to remember that the US is not the ancient middle east. It is a land of opportunity. Still. If one is unable to buy food, it's usually because of the choices they make. Even then one can help such people - but only up to a point. And the government should not be a part of this at all. This touches on my feeling about it:

 

[Reasonably Sane]

You’re arguing to keep things “the way they were” back before we knew better.
Those immigrants in your example, fought to get government assistance for people who came after themselves; the faster immigrants can acclimate to their new society the better for all concerned, isn’t that exactly the “function of government“?

I think we knew better back then. We've forgotten a lot about human nature.

Regarding the "function of government", I see it a bit different than you. I see it as there to protect us from enemies within and without, and from each other when necessary. i.e. safe and free from others to be left to prosper according to our own ability and motivation.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Social Security. That's it. And I paid dearly into it. Frankly, if I'd paid that money into a halfway decent investment, I'd have a lot MORE money.

That’s the only check you get. Subsidies show up in a lot of other ways, often in taxes and fees you don’t pay.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

That’s the only check you get. Subsidies show up in a lot of other ways, often in taxes and fees you don’t pay.

Why should I pay taxes and fees? FWIW, I NEVER see the state allowing me to not pay a tax or fee as the equivalent of giving me money. If a thief chooses not to rob me, that doesn't mean he gave me the money I have on me.

 

[Pommer]

The ones that ILLEGALLY migrate actually get services from our government. More precisely, from the taxpayers. Regarding jumping trains, I don't think Kentucky would be their "land of opportunity". We don't take kindly to illegal aliens here. Legal ones are a completely different thing.

[emphasis mine]
Prove it.

 

[Pommer]

Why should I pay taxes and fees? FWIW, I NEVER see the state allowing me to not pay a tax or fee as the equivalent of giving me money. If a thief chooses not to rob me, that doesn't mean he gave me the money I have on me.

How is you not paying a tax a burden to you?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Why should I pay taxes and fees?

Because the government provides services to you. Taxes are what pay for those services.

FWIW, I NEVER see the state allowing me to not pay a tax or fee as the equivalent of giving me money.

I assume then that you don’t understand how the math works.

If your share of the cost of running the government is $X, and your net outlay to the government every year is something less than $X, then you’re getting a subsidy. Whether that subsidy comes in the form of a welfare check, tax refund, or a reduced tax bill is irrelevant. The math works out the same.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

[emphasis mine]
Prove it.

The woman that entered illegally and had six kids, and lived with my family for six weeks was receiving approximately $1100 a month from the government. I actually drove her to the building and went in with her when she collected one check. Comically it was based on how many children she had. Equally comically, I had three children because it is what I felt I could afford.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

How is you not paying a tax a burden to you?

It's not. I guess I missed the point of your previous post.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Because the government provides services to you. Taxes are what pay for those services.



I assume then that you don’t understand how the math works.

If your share of the cost of running the government is $X, and your net outlay to the government every year is something less than $X, then you’re getting a subsidy. Whether that subsidy comes in the form of a welfare check, tax refund, or a reduced tax bill is irrelevant. The math works out the same.

I pay sales taxes, gas tax, and property tax. I'm all paid up on taxes.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I pay sales taxes, gas tax, and property tax. I'm all paid up on taxes.

You said that your monthly property tax bill is less than the cost of a pizza. That’s not enough to cover the cost of the services provided to you. You may be all paid up, but you’re likely enjoying a subsidy via a reduced tax bill.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

You said that your monthly property tax bill is less than the cost of a pizza. That’s not enough to cover the cost of the services provided to you. You may be all paid up, but you’re likely enjoying a subsidy via a reduced tax bill.

What services? I've not seen a cop in my area in the 12.5 years I've lived here except for the time my neighbor's cattle broke through his fence and ended up on my property. Meanwhile, I pay for water and electricity. I have septic. I paid for all the federal services I'll ever need in my working years, and then some. I pay $60 or so for tabs for each of my four cars and tax on the gas I buy. That covers the roads. I have no children in public school. So what service am I getting and not paying for?

BTW, to put a dollar value on it, for 32 acres, a 13 year old home, a 3 year old shop building and a 40x60 barn, my property taxes are approximately $325 a year. I get about a 25% reduction because I'm over 65. Also, I needed no permit to build the building. This list is one of the reasons I moved here. I could not afford to live at all on SS if I still lived in Seattle. And I actually enjoy a BETTER standard of living here than I did there, regarding my own personal needs. In Seattle, I could walk a block or two to get to a starbucks. Here, I walk a half mile and I'm still on my own property. But my Keurig machine covers the coffee part.

 

[rjs330]

You are convinced in your own mind. In fact I believed in a couple of these myths. It has all started with my tribes fight against welfare some of this is talk in our circles and shouldn't be in a Christan circle.

The 12 Biggest Myths about Homelessness in America

That article is nothing but sympathetic rhetoric with no basis in reality. Right now in the city where I live there are a lot of homeless people. They are all either mentally ill or addicts if some kind. Some have severe personality disorders as well which could have been brought in by the addictions.

Go to ANY homeless camp and walk through it and you will find these things are present.

There ARE those that prefer to be homeless. I've talked to them. Are there a lot of them? No.

Look I've been dealing with the homeless for 40 years now. 75% of homeless have had addiction problems for a long time even before they were homeless.

Keep in mind I am taking about the chronically homeless. A LOT of these statistics that people like to use. Include the temporary homeless. Someone who just lost a job, got evicted or kicked out of their residence by roommates etc. That is NOT who I am talking about.

Many chronically homeless absolutely will deny that they are addicted, when it's obvious they are.

Those are the folks whose choices brought them there. Others the mental issues the personality disorders are also not out of their control quite frequently. There are many of them who have Medicare or other government assistance who refuse to take their medications and some that sell them to others. They will tell you that.

Look don't take my posts as lack of compassion. Actually being honest about what is happening with them is the starting point of being able to help. Because if we are in denial about the causes and problems of it we won't have any real answers as to what to do about it. As is often said you have to admit what the problem is before you can begin to fix it.

I think the article also blamed housing costs. Well there is no doubt that the cost of housing is often high. But look at California and other places that tried to provide housing for the homeless and look what happened. They destroyed their housing. That's not anyone's fault but theirs.

Again, I am talking about the chronically homeless. Most people are only homeless for a short while and are able to get out of it. I lose a job, can't pay my rent and get evicted. I finally get a job, get a new place and move on.

I know a couple of people recently who moved to the coast and we're living out of their car for a period of time. They were homeless. They didn't have any money to rent anything. One of them got a job, round a roommate and now is working and no longer homeless. Another one got a job that is allowing them to stay on the property for now. Those are not the ones I am talking about. Although starting out homeless was their own decision.