supermike80
Footballguy
You are making the classic mistake of believing everyone thinks like you...They don't. Look beyond what your little bubble contains.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Homelessness in industrialized countries (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Maurile Tremblay
- Start date
supermike80
Footballguy
There are few on this board that will argue anything but the advantages..Remember where we are. This is a bit of an echo chamber.
gianmarco
Footballguy
Some statistics on government assistance
Depending on your overall viewpoint, different people will likely come to different conclusions about these numbers.
It is telling, however, how many people who receive assistance only do so for less than a year. It's also telling how little fraud there is overall. Yes, there will always be those who try to game the system (just like everything else), but the programs help a lot of people who truly need it.
This idea that we can't help others for fear of giving a minority something they don't deserve is something I wish would go away.
Depending on your overall viewpoint, different people will likely come to different conclusions about these numbers.
It is telling, however, how many people who receive assistance only do so for less than a year. It's also telling how little fraud there is overall. Yes, there will always be those who try to game the system (just like everything else), but the programs help a lot of people who truly need it.
This idea that we can't help others for fear of giving a minority something they don't deserve is something I wish would go away.
Gawain
Footballguy
Your entire point rests on people not acting rationally in their self interest. You are proposing that people will deliberately cause harm to themselves to gain a benefit that's of less utility than the harm caused. People have won Nobel Prizes showing that your line of thinking is incorrect (Gary Becker springs to mind).
supermike80
Footballguy
And your entire point is believing everyone thinks like you. I don't need a nobel prize to tell you thats incorrect.
supermike80
Footballguy
Shame there are so many people in this country who cannot eat. Again, I am against giving away free homes, but not food...Everyone should be able to eat heregianmarco said:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
@supermike80 I get your point. You're concerned that we might give the homeless a safety net that is so nice that there won't be enough incentive for them to take steps to improvement their situation. The cost of this might also be unfair to your average taxpayer and possibly even economically unsustainable.
On the flip side, however, I think you would agree that it makes sense to have some basic, minimum amount of assistance. We don't want people starving on the streets in subzero weather.
The question then becomes where should we draw this line and should it be more generous than it is now?
On the flip side, however, I think you would agree that it makes sense to have some basic, minimum amount of assistance. We don't want people starving on the streets in subzero weather.
The question then becomes where should we draw this line and should it be more generous than it is now?
supermike80
Footballguy
I was serious and still am. I appreciate what few comments you had that tried to add value, but I disagree with you on them. It's unfortunate and sad you can't accept that someone doesn't agree with an opinion you have----kind of where we are in society these days. I won't shut anyone down for having a different opinion, but unfortunately, that's just the new norm.
Good luck to you and yours.
supermike80
Footballguy
Agreed....Fundamentally I don't want anyone starving in the streets. HUD Does provide housing assistance, a fair amount of it--but there is a lot of problems in the homeless community that go way beyond "needing a hand to get back on their feet." this was principally the argument I was against from the start.
I live in an urban area...pay city taxes for homeless shelters that every night have excess beds...paid through a bond initiative and ongoing property taxes for newly improved open spaces that are peppered with tent cities, trash and needles.Plorfu said:
So, I can't fully use the open spaces I pay for, plus I overpay for shelters that aren't fully utilized
Now you want me to also pay for another black hole money pit - mental illness treatment for people who's addictions prevent them from making proper choices.
Ain't happening.
The idea is to eventually replace the shelters with a new approach that leads to long-term positive outcomes for people, as opposed to a cot for a night.
I'm not necessarily opposed to more public investment for longer-term solutions...but it seems to me we'd want to first see full utilization of providing cots first before investing further. Seems like throwing good money after bad. (I get it that anyone can pull out an example of a shelter that isn't properly run, overflow, etc.)
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I am not sure how you thought that data was telling? 31% of people using it for less than a year isn't shocking in the slightest. If anything it is actually lower than where I thought it would be.gianmarco said:
The fraud number of 8% doesn't show anything. Enforcement is mostly non existent. It is like using the number of littering tickets issued to argue almost nobody litters.
supermike80
Footballguy
Oh but the economic benefits far outweigh the disadvantages..Didn't you read this board?
I understand. And emergency shelter is still necessary for certain people in certain situations. However, the cots don't do anything for the underlying conditions that often lead to homelessness. Even at full utilization, these people still wake up with whatever got them there to begin with. A night on a cot doesn't help the returning vet with PTSD. A night on a cot doesn't help the uninsured suffering from a mental illness. A night on a cot doesn't help the family (and there's a ton of these) that was living paycheck to paycheck and got laid off - these folks really just need a place to shower, iron, eat, and have phone calls/mail sent to while they job hunt.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
This turn that this thread has taken is such a perfect example of the internet that I can't even choose the best dril tweet to capture it. Is it this (nsfw language)? This (same)? This thread (same)? Maybe it's actually this one, when you think about it.
Truly a marvel.
Truly a marvel.
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
I thought it was a fairly straightforward question. You do not support the Housing First initiatives. So what do you want to do about homelessness? Anything?
supermike80
Footballguy
Continuing to do what we are doing is more than fine for me--kindddaaaa thought that was what I was trying to say. .
whoknew
Footballguy
So ... just so I'm clear - there are about 560k homeless in the US. We have evidence that a Housing First may not only help homelessness, but also help these people address their ancillary problems. But you'd prefer to stick with the current system so as not to reward them?
supermike80
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
I'm totally down for helping those that want to help themselves. We've all been there (or if not it's coming). Unfortunately their plight is mixed in with those who fundamentally have no desire to help themselves. Their numbers are not insignificant and they are the ones that disproportionately and selfishly drain public resources and outright abuse the very people trying to help them. That's the financial black hole I'm speaking of and why I personally resist "more mental health services" as a cure-all.
ETA: you are right about the returning vet. that is a pet peeve of mine. the military needs to take care of its own.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Has someone suggested that "more mental health services" would be a cure-all?
Unrelated- have you volunteered at shelters and/or soup kitchens? I don't mean this to be insulting, but I've never spoken to anyone who has actually worked with the homeless on a semi-regular basis at any point in their lives who thinks that "significant numbers" of them "fundamentally have no desire to help themselves" and are happy to "disproportionately and selfishly drain public resources."
Also I would think that anyone, homeless or not, who "abuses the very people trying to help them" is likely to have those mental health issues you oppose treating.
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
Well good. I'm happy I was mistaken from reading your responses.
So you'd prefer to stick with the current system because you think Housing First is too costly? If true, do you have any support for that?
supermike80
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
No I LOVE the guessing..I LOVE how you are trying to hard to pigeon hole so you can POUNCE!!! Ready to go with your prepared answers to anything I say..Its comical.
I say keep the existing system because I don't feel homelessness can be solved in the USA. Put 500 homeless in free housing and another 500 will pop up soon enough. We have too many people on this planet, it's growing exponentially and the amount of land isn't enough(until climate change melts Greenland and the other cold land masses)...there isn't enough room
whoknew
Footballguy
I'm just trying to understand your position because it makes no sense to me.
And now that you have articulated it, it still doesn't make sense.
supermike80
Footballguy
I've volunteered in soup kitchens. I've invited homeless strangers into my home on a cold night and shared my dinner with them. I've offered to pay for a brand new suit when they promised they had an interview the following week and just needed some cash to get through until then. I've written checks to homeless people who've written me a check in return saying their account would be back in balance the following week (of course I knew their check would bounce but I only tried cashing it to see what would happen).
You want me to go on? It doesn't make me an expert but enough to know how I want my taxes spent.
I'm not opposing treating mental health issues. I'm opposing the government taking more of my money for "mental health issues" on people who abuse the system when they already can't spend it properly.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
I've done none of this and I still feel like I am entitled to an opinion...there are lots of other resources available to absorb that might make you educated on the subject.
These comments like that guy posted never ever make any sense. None of these guys have ever been President of the United States, but they sure like to decide whether he is doing a good job or not--I wonder why? They couldn't have ever experienced it. So how would they know?
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew
Footballguy
Yep. Part of making this work would be a way to properly vet participants. There's going to be people and gigantic corporations who game systems all the time, regardless of what it is. And there's nothing on earth that will solve everything on earth. The questions around homelessness, as I see it: Are current systems working? Are the current large scale approaches to homelessness working? What do I mean by "working?" Is "working" just a meal and a bed, or is it systemic change to alleviate the conditions that lead to homelessness to begin with? Are my tax dollars better spent paying for a one-night stay, or investing in programs that treat the whole person/family so they become self-sufficient and ultimately return the favor they received, and more, back to society?
I think moving away from throwing money at temporary fixes that don't drive permanent change into Housing First, or other evidence-based practices, makes sense. I also understand that anecdotal evidence of bad actors holds a lot of sway. I also think it's very cynical (you're not doing this, just saying) to think most people would rather not sustain themselves. There are some, sure, and maybe we end up paying for them, too, but most people have pride and a will to make it on their own.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I wonder what other unfixable problems we should stop trying to fix?
supermike80
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
My point wasn't to question your credentials. I was just wondering where someone could get the idea that there are tons of homeless out there who "fundamentally have no desire to help themselves" and "disproportionately and selfishly drain public resources." I've never gotten that impression, and I've literally never heard it from anyone else who has worked with the homeless a good amount until this very moment. Given that, I assume you can understand my question.
Sorry, I don't understand your position on mental health. Would you favor more government spending to treat mental health among the homeless or not? It seems like a fairly straightforward question. Obviously no program is perfect, public or private, and all are going to experience some amount of waste and even fraud.
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
No worries.
I mentioned earlier that I'm not opposed to more spending...but where I'm stuck is on the waste/fraud/mismanagement question. In my direct and current experience there are three local programs funded by my ever-increasing taxes, that ostensibly address homelessness, that are unequivocally failing: shelters (underutilized but in good shape); social services (job training, mental health, etc.), open space (nice to not have concrete but no one uses it because it's a trash-laden campground).
So in terms of more spending it's just very difficult to be in favor until I can personally observe the existing funds be used more effectively. Or someone who knows what they're doing in charge of those funds. Plorfu has some good ideas in his/her latest post.
dgreen
Footballguy
dgreen
Footballguy
I've heard/read this many, many times over the years: aggressive beggars. What does that look like? I'm 43 and have spent a decent amount of time in large US cities and I can't think of one event I was either involved in or witnessed that I'd personally label as "aggressive" begging.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Hunting them would be wrong. Maybe we can herd them all into North Dakota or Utah and then just ignore them, similar to how we treat Native Americans.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Following you for a block..a guy followed my wife in Detroit after she parked and said you are driving a new Jeep and you can`t give me 5 bucks...not a dollar but 5. Not sure what the unwritten rules of panhandling are.
rockaction
Footballguy
I saw this thread and had to read the OP. Not to blow smoke, but Maurile's been arguing this (if you take seriously what he writes) for years. It's definitely a left-libertarian position and goes to the heart of contract theory and the initial division of property and how that is done. Despite my right-libertarianism and classical liberal leanings, philosophically, this (to me) position has about as tenable a reason and as tenable a situation for increased social welfare from a public utility (by utility I mean the philosophical sense of the word) and dignity sense that there is.
I'll post more when the thoughts come to me.
I'll post more when the thoughts come to me.
rockaction
Footballguy
The homelessness problem from a philosophical perspective, or at least the best that I understand it:
The movement from the State Of Nature, or in the Lockean version of contract theory, The State Of War, is crucial to both a Rousseau-ian and Hobbesian conception of the social and political world -- it is a movement from the moral justification of society based upon a Divine Right Of Kings to a more secular Contract Theory.
The theoretical State of Nature, which Hobbes gave us as "nasty, brutish, and short," was something that humans sought to get away from, and they did this by developing societies and political constructs that suited their survival instinct. The initial consent of the governed as binding is always a thorny issue and one I haven't fully worked out in my own understanding yet, but we are bound by our forefathers' and mothers' decision to move into these social and political entities, away from the individual or tribe, and into cohesive groups of people.
At the heart of this is the initial division of property among the citizens. The famous Lockean dictum is that property should be divided privately, and was, according to those who were in a position to maximize the land and space to be used. Rousseau saw the initial bargain differently.
Next post.
The movement from the State Of Nature, or in the Lockean version of contract theory, The State Of War, is crucial to both a Rousseau-ian and Hobbesian conception of the social and political world -- it is a movement from the moral justification of society based upon a Divine Right Of Kings to a more secular Contract Theory.
The theoretical State of Nature, which Hobbes gave us as "nasty, brutish, and short," was something that humans sought to get away from, and they did this by developing societies and political constructs that suited their survival instinct. The initial consent of the governed as binding is always a thorny issue and one I haven't fully worked out in my own understanding yet, but we are bound by our forefathers' and mothers' decision to move into these social and political entities, away from the individual or tribe, and into cohesive groups of people.
At the heart of this is the initial division of property among the citizens. The famous Lockean dictum is that property should be divided privately, and was, according to those who were in a position to maximize the land and space to be used. Rousseau saw the initial bargain differently.
Next post.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
