What are we going to do about the homeless?

What are these societal views?

I doubt it would have any impact on homelessness. We have great public transport, and yet also having a growing homelessness problem. The city with the biggest wealth divide, has the following transport network .. and this map is only showing trains. There are also buses and trams.

 

Public transportation is a critical factor in homelessness??

That's so messed up I can't even comment on it.

The things these leftists believe...

 

You were the one who claimed the importance of public transit affordable by those in the range of being homeless. And, I agree with you that such transit can open more opportunities.

BUT, as you point out it is not a panacea. The problem of homelessness is more complicated than that.

As for why the US has a large population that doesn't believe in public transit, I'm just not going to answer. It exists. For this discussion, that's really about all that can be said. We do improve transit to some level, but there is serious resistance from the right wing in the USA.

This isn't the only topic concerning those on low income, of course. Another is that, unlike the entire remainder of the free world, the US right wing demands that health care be provided on the basis of ability to pay. After all (sarcasm alert), having tax payers pay more so that the poor get healthcare is evil. So, instead we're left with a bureaucratic tangle of mismatched programs administered by state and local governments intersecting with for profit private insurance companies all taking part in healthcare help - a total rat's nest that is one reason our health care is so much more expensive.

 

I did, but I was referring to people who have the sense not to try to live in a place they can't afford. Those are the people who'll find a way to commute, or simply won't work in the city. Not wanting to do any of that is not an excuse for homelessness .. it's a choice.

As regards public healthcare ... we also have that here, and our homeless numbers are growing.

 

Cities are a major source of employment. Plus, the cities need work done even when the pay is too little to live on anywhere near the city.

What is Melbourne going to do about it's homelessness?

Salt Lake City, Utah found that there are many homeless who can actually pay rent, but are blocked by requirements for first month plus last month plus security deposit.

They found that it can be cheaper just to defray those costs with public funds.

I'd point out that Salt Lake City is a highly conservative area.

 

1) Sure. But that's a personal matter to sort out .. not Govt's responsibility to do the logistics for individuals. If you insist on working in the city, then it's on you to find a way to do it within your means. Either team up with family to reduce costs, or commute. No one is forcing anyone to do these things .. it's all choice.

2) The same as every other Progressive city .. whatever it takes to enable more of the same. Make it very very easy.

3) If they can pay rent, then they can save up for a few months for that security deposit. Choices.

4) "Defraying" means feting the insolvent irrespective of how and why they're insolvent. That's outrageously unjust and unfair.

 

What are we going to do about the homeless?

We don't have any homeless in my area but, in your shoes, I would avoid them. They can be dangerous.

 

And it wouldn't help a damn bit until you change state laws that were changed back in the eighties that make it all but impossible to do an involuntary commitment no matter how mad the hatter might be.

 

Our entire society and economy are completely distorted because of the progressive government push to fix everybody's everything.

All of our problems are either completely created by government or exacerbated by government. Government needs to be reduced in size across the board.

Get the government out of the way, and our economy would eventually recover.

Economies need low level workers. Their circumstances are usually that of a second or third household income.

Many of the lower to moderate level wage jobs are no longer in this country however, as they gave been herded overseas. Our manufacturing base has been completely gutted.

This was done by the Establishment - deliberately. It was done by Republicans and Democrats - both parties carrying water for their Establishment bosses.

----------------------------

America is being systematically and deliberately destroyed from within. Every government remedy is just another nail in the coffin.

 

I wonder how much harm we do as we remove the motivation to do for themselves. Government especially lacks the capacity to know the difference between a hand-up and a hand-out, and create a system of endless dependency instead of recovery to independence. We are feeding the problem far more than the people.

 

Saying "reduced in size" is not helpful. EVERYONE would love small government, if it worked.

You need to state specific features that you would like the government to stop providing.

Manufacturing has moved overseas because we no longer have an advantage in manufacturing like we once had. Every country can now do manufacturing. No changes that could be made here in the US are going to counter that fact. Plus, manufacturing is increasingly automated, and thus does not supply the number of jobs per unit product that it once did.

After the 2008 recession, manufacturing returned to FULL production levels in less than 1 year. But, they did that without hiring back employees. Instead, manufacturers used that as an opportunity to learn how to produce the same level of product with FAR fewer employees. Thus, employment did not rebound for several years.

Now, our economy, our standard of living, our good paying jobs have to come from other sectors, as manufacturing competitiveness is not going to give us the standard of living we want - as it once did.

The new emerging sectors include areas such as automation, information, high tech in general, clean energy, etc.

 

Yes, it's easy to say that.

But, that is a LONG LONG ways from providing actual solutions that apply to the problem.

Let's remember that many of the homeless are working jobs. In Seattle, there is even a sector of homeless who are right out of college and working high income jobs, but who are living in their cars and tents as they save up for down payments on their first home. It's amazing what college "teaches" concerning how to live on nothing.

Let's remember that there are groups of homeless who supply mutual support, with individuals not wanting to move out of the group because of the support from others that they will lose. Thus even with the money to move into an apartment, they choose not to.

Let's remember that we don't supply the inpatient or even street level support for those with limited capacity to live on their own. Thus failure in their housing is a likely outcome, with the street being where they end up. Suggesting supplying LESS to these people as a solution to homelessness or as an encouragement to get a job is obviously ridiculous.

Etc.

So, how about switching to ideas that actually address the issue?

 

1) Immense harm, as intended.

2) That's what they'd like us to think. But if a child knows that indulgence makes brats, Govt must think us incredibly stupid for believing educated adults can't figure it out. IOW it's all deliberate .. it has to be, for that reason alone.

3) That's the plan!

 

And that idea HAS to come from the individual. Since none of the above are forced upon anyone .. and all employment/place of residence is at will .. then only the individual can fix it. Like everything in life, you can either afford it or you can't.

If you can't afford a thing, don't freaking buy it! And more importantly .. don't buy it, then expect someone else to save you from the consequences of your stupid but feely made decision.

 

This line of argument is just plain ridiculous.

Suggesting there must be a nefarious plot to justify helping citizens survive by ensuring food, housing and healthcare is beyond a doubt the most stupid idea ever.

Plus, the USA is predominantly Christian. And, Matthew 25:31 to end says that if Christians, the followers of Jesus, aren't working to help those in need in hospitals, in poor houses, in prisons, then those Christians are going to HELL, right beside Satan.

 

Overall, I don't see where or why the homeless are the responsibility of anyone but themselves.

The only exceptions to that would be in the case of those who experienced terrible diseases, debilitating injuries, birth defects, or one a few other possibilities -- ALL of which must be verifiable -- that make it impossible for them to support themselves. People afflicted in those ways would, and should be eligible for government welfare programs.

 

1) Who said it was nefarious? It's simply business, Dude. Profit. Money. This 'conditioning' aids control of the wealth transfer. Every time you protect someone from the consequences of their poor choices, you disable them. A disabled person has no choice but to transfer all their wealth to you, as their Daddy.

2) Helping people does not include disabling them. Obviously.

 

That's the most vial statement of anti-Christianity I've seen in quite a while!

Impressive!

 

No, welfare isnt the primary cause, though it's poor implementation didn't help things and probably did cause more problem via encouragig dissolution as you say.

The primary cause is capitalism without adequate control and balance. Capitalism is good because it drives competition and innovation, but it does more harm than good if it is allowed to get out of control

The competition should be fair, and the wealthy should not be able to buy politicians or buy legislation that favours them. Companies that have or that border on monopoly need to be broken up into multiple competing companies.

 

You can't take a job if you can't get to the job site...

Isn't that rather obvious?

 

Yes. That is a big part of it. We have programs to help the homeless here in Canada, since people tend to die if homeless in the snow, but many of them don't use such programs because they aren't capable.

When asked for money by a homeless person on the street here two questions go through my mind. First, is this genuine (we get grifters who pretend to be homeless) and second, is this person mentally capable of using the money. I often bring them food instead for the latter reason.

 

Who says they made a poor choice?

How could it POSSIBLY be that ensuring that they stay ALIVE is disabling?

Nothing about this is "simple business".

 

...

Do you think that getting rid of government would bring such jobs back? If so, how? Government inaction due to being in the pocket of these companies is why these jobs left the country in the first place, no?

Government transparency and laws against corporate lobbying is what is needed. Ever notice how rare it is for anybody running for office to make government transparency a key platform policy?

 

This I agree with. Decentralisation is crucial.

 

1) If you choose to work in an expensive city for low wages, but refuse to commute, you've made a poor choice.

2) As a responsible 'parent', you have two choices when your child is hungry because they ate all their meals at once. Either give them your reserves so that TODAY they feel better, or strictly ration your reserves so that all their tomorrows are better. The responsible parent is going to choose temporary discomfort today, to protect the many more tomorrows. Every time. Not only that, but the child learns not to 'live beyond their means', and thus ensures their tomorrows are even better.

3) Of course it is. It's all about profit and control.