Do you believe that everyone deserves housing?

@StarSong ... I just have a different and personal perspective than you in some ways. I merely wished to explain that perspective without offending and as a matter of civil and respectful discussion. At the end of the day I owe you a vote of thanks. Thank You !!! After all, it is Americans and American taxpayers that fund and enable my lifestyle in retirement. Thank you
 

Naturally said:
@StarSong ... I just have a different and personal perspective than you in some ways. I merely wished to explain that perspective without offending and as a matter of civil and respectful discussion. At the end of the day I owe you a vote of thanks. Thank You !!! After all, it is Americans and American taxpayers that fund and enable my lifestyle in retirement. Thank you
Click to expand...
❤️💕You are most sincerely welcome, Naturally. Thank you for your service! My father, uncles, father-in-law, and others I knew served in WWII. I am very proud of them.
 
againstthegrain said:
The young men sent to the sand box straight out of basic had it way different than the career minded such as Naturally, especially if they did multiple tours.

My lost soul of a nephew was KIA in Iraq, he never had a chance.
Click to expand...
I am sorry to hear of the loss of your nephew, againstthegrain. May he rest in peace.
 
Brookswood said:
I think I missed explaining my point. In my area drug users can be offered treatment, but there is no way to compel treatment. Oregon has found that out since they decriminalized a lot of drugs. Portugal has found that out as open drug use becomes more common. Users can start treatment and simply walk out. There is no legal way to compel them to stay. It’s sad and I wish I knew a way to convince them to choose treatment and stick with it.

I believe most homelessness is actually drug and mental problems disguised as a drug problem. Drug usage is a primary disease. (I learned this from drug counselors when I tried to help a relative with a drug usage problem.) That means it’s not secondary and it does not need another problem to encourage it. They don’t use drugs because they are homeless. They are homeless because they use drugs. People don’t have mental issues because they are homeless. They are homeless because they have mental issues. Treatment is needed, but it can’t be compelled. This is sad.
Click to expand...

Oh, I totally get this. The fact is, drug addicts generally, let alone the homeless, aren't walking around begging for treatment. It's a complex problem. Humans are amazing things, we adapt and adopt. While you'd find it a shock to find yourself homeless and on the street, those who have been out there for months and months will have found a way to survive. It becomes there "normal".

When someone is in the depths of an addiction, they're not making good decisions, and may not be able to do so. Let alone those who are too deep into it, with no possible way back due to the effects of their addiction. Simply take a look at what Tranq/Xylazine is doing to people. It is true to say that not everyone can be saved, either because they never accept help, or because they are too far gone. But that shouldn't cause us to not offer it.

More so, caring costs nothing. I mean, to feel an emotional connection at the human level, you know? Hating on them just seems particularly nasty to me.

I've stated it before, but worth saying again. I lost a family member to a drug addiction. We tried to help him several times, in different ways. Let me tell you, at times I could have killed him myself. From stealing our car to bringing drugs into my home, to emptying bank accounts. Been there, done that. It's not nice. But I can't say I ever stopped caring.
 
Brookswood said:
But, there is another reason for moving out of China. Transportation costs are up which negates some of the cost advantage. The new leader is a one man authoritarian show. The Chinese Communist Party is increasingly flexing its muscles to control what business do, and make sure it syncs with Leader‘s goals. Chinese business leaders have mysteriously disappeared for a few months and then returned to the public eye. New laws make foreign business people unsure about being accused of spying or subversion and tossed in a Chinese jail. And, of course, if war breaks out over Taiwan, getting products made and out of China may be a big problem.

There are a lot of reasons besides cost to move production to other countries.
Click to expand...

But a lot of that was going on when Apple decided to go to China in the first place. I honestly don't think Apple give a damn about the people there. Political pressures from outside Apple has caused them to change and move to Vietnam and India. That and lowering costs.

There are those who would applaud them and call it capitalism doing it's job. 🤷
 
ElCastor said:
I believe that has already been tried in socialist/communist countries like China, North Korea, and Russia. something you may yearn for, but I would certainly wish to avoid.
Click to expand...

Free everything for everyone? No, that can't work. But socialized medicine can work. Free everything for everyone is a straw man, it's not real. China doesn't give away everything for free, neither does North Korea or Russia.

But mostly what I wanted to say is, like a lot of people here, I spent a good amount of time working with, and for, successful people. Go-getters. There are always such people, people with ambition. You can't paint a populace with a broad brush.
 
JBR said:
VitntageBetter, I applaud your opening post for providing the opportunity for people to share their viewpoints.

Given the discussion that has gone on in this thread, I feel like asking you how you see something that seems to me a fundamental dimension of the issue. Besides financing, providing roof, mattress, food, showers, and toilets requires some sort of set-up, some sort of accepted norms. Some (I won't say all) of the residents of tent encampments will not accept "rules", for which reason they reject help.

Seems to me living together with other people in a situation more adequate than a tent camp, and of a scale that a society would provide, will require some combination of not just unspoken guidelines, but rules (and even abiding by laws). So how do we manage?
Click to expand...
Again, I see someone lumping "the homeless" into the same human pot - "NONE of them want to abide by any rules."

That is simply not true. Plenty of homeless Seniors, for example, have no issue with rules.

Then you have homeless addicts who yes, may have an issue with "no drug use" in the home. Ironically, any wealthily person can rent out any AirBNB in the Hollywood Hills, procure $100,000 in illegal drugs easily on the streets of L.A. or via the Dark Web, and they and their buddies can break all the laws of society they want in their party rental home.

Society says to the poor man addict: "We're subsidizing your rent, so no drug use for you!" But society says to the AirBNB party house renter, "Go ahead and feed the drug trade. It's OK. We like you because we're not paying part of your rent."

But the wealthy partier is still causing harm to society. He might be exposing someone to drugs for the first time at his party. Might have called over a few prositutues also (another crime). Might have plenty of underage people there drinking. He might have bought a bad batch of drugs and a few people OD. And he might be disturbing the peace.

But society does NOTHING to him, usually, because he's a good capitalist!

Addicts need treatment and housing. But your first requirement is rules. Not rules for the RICH MAN who rents his AirBNB party house. Just rules for the poor schmuck who dares to ask society for help.

No one is above the law/rules BUT the rich. Everyone knows that's how the system really works - for housing, college, legal cases, etc., etc.
 
VintageBetter said:
Again, I see someone lumping "the homeless" into the same human pot - "NONE of them want to abide by any rules."

That is simply not true. Plenty of homeless Seniors, for example, have no issue with rules.

Then you have homeless addicts who yes, may have an issue with "no drug use" in the home. Ironically, any wealthily person can rent out any AirBNB in the Hollywood Hills, procure $100,000 in illegal drugs easily on the streets of L.A. or via the Dark Web, and they and their buddies can break all the laws of society they want in their party rental home.

Society says to the poor man addict: "We're subsidizing your rent, so no drug use for you!" But society says to the AirBNB party house renter, "Go ahead and feed the drug trade. It's OK. We like you because we're not paying part of your rent."

But the wealthy partier is still causing harm to society. He might be exposing someone to drugs for the first time at his party. Might have called over a few prositutues also (another crime). Might have plenty of underage people there drinking. He might have bought a bad batch of drugs and a few people OD. And he might be disturbing the peace.

But society does NOTHING to him, usually, because he's a good capitalist!

Addicts need treatment and housing. But your first requirement is rules. Not rules for the RICH MAN who rents his AirBNB party house. Just rules for the poor schmuck who dares to ask society for help.

No one is above the law/rules BUT the rich. Everyone knows that's how the system really works - for housing, college, legal cases, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

I don't get this desire to demonize the homeless, suggesting they're lazy, weak, and an inconvenience. Who the heck demonizes people at the very lowest rung of the ladder? Who takes the time to pour scorn on people with nothing, in the throes of an illness? Heck, I see people who proclaim to be good Christians attacking these people and belittling them. It sure is a sick world.
 
seadoug said:
Very true. As I understand it, there are various reasons. Some of the homeless have pets, which the shelters don't accept. Some are on drugs that wouldn't pass muster at a shelter or they don't care to abide by the shelter curfews.

There was a homeless woman sitting in her own urine outside my dry cleaners. I gave her a $20 because I felt so sorry for her. I was then told by the manager of the dry cleaners that the police had offered to take her to a shelter but she refused. She didn't have a pet with her, so...
Click to expand...
It is rather obvious to all that she is mentally ill, right? The Reagan Administration closed down all the mental hospitals in the 1980s but no new system ever replaced them in many states. Where do so many of them live now? On the streets.

Ask America to build any new weapon you can conceive of, and the gov't. will throw $2 billion at that in a WEEK. No problem. Instant funding.

But geez, ask America to build some mental convalecent care centers for permanent, supportive housing for the severely mentally ill, and the polticians will STALL for 100 years saying, "Homelessness is a complicated problem."

I would like to be paid $1.00 for each time some politician said, "Homelessness is complicated." I'd surely have $10,000 by now.

:LOL: - every time they say that talking point they are basically admitting, "We're just TOO STUPID to fix it." So then I yell at the 📺, "HIRE some SMART people then. You admit you're very stupid, so hire some smart people."
 
gruntlabor said:
:) With respect: Of course everyone deserves. Everyone deserves a Maserati too, if they want one. Anything else is just wrong. But the question is 'Who owes it to them?' Everyone talks about 'deserve', no-one talks about 'who pays'. And please remember that we all die, some younger than others, and that there is injustice everywhere, like pain, and lack of love, and that our National Debt is pushing $35 trillion. First should come the children, then the helpless, and last in line EVER should be the able-bodied, my opinion.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with your priority list. I can agree - house the families with kids FIRST, because the lasting trauma of homelessness some kids' experience can stay with them for a lifetime.

Then the most mentally ill and the physically disabled who will never be able to hold a job. Fine. Then maybe Seniors because so few employers will hire them and because they have put in their 47+ years of working. And then, finally, affordable housing of some kind (FEMA trailers and tiny homes are fine; motel rooms are fine) for the able-bodied. Even addicts, because it's a disease that needs support to cure.

Every alcoholic I have ever known, and I have only known three, has quit because they had a TON of emotional support either from 12 Step Groups, employers, or family. Sometimes all of the above. One of the keys to a cure is SUPPORT - not throwing them out in the streets.
 
@JBR Paco Dennis is merely repeating the same talking point that CA politicians have parroted for 20 years. "We've can't solve it overnight. It's soooo comlicated."

As I said before, "You admit you're surely too stupid to fix it Paco, so hire some smart people."
 
VaughanJB said:
I don't get this desire to demonize the homeless, suggesting they're lazy, weak, and an inconvenience. Who the heck demonizes people at the very lowest rung of the ladder? Who takes the time to pour scorn on people with nothing, in the throes of an illness? Heck, I see people who proclaim to be good Christians attacking these people and belittling them. It sure is a sick world.
Click to expand...
I really do not think that is the case with most folks .... I know for sure it is not with me. But as i have said before , we cannot continue to just [enable] each and every one of the homeless. I'll attempt to shorten a long story, I know two local women that truly became [involved] tried to help, putting in time, money & effort. What they found out was simply that if many of the homeless are required to [in a nutshell] give up their vices, [alcohol & tobacco] .... they are not interested in help [housing].

I am not picking on these folks but ..... the truth just simply is that many of them choose not to comply , fit in with mainstream society , they do not wish to work and fend for themselves.

And for those that do suffer mentally , IMO reopen the asylums .... at least they were fed , warm and off the street. And yes i do think the rest of us should pay for that, if for no other reason we should be so very grateful that we are not needing the same.
 
VintageBetter said:
Again, I see someone lumping "the homeless" into the same human pot - "NONE of them want to abide by any rules."

That is simply not true. Plenty of homeless Seniors, for example, have no issue with rules.

Then you have homeless addicts who yes, may have an issue with "no drug use" in the home. Ironically, any wealthily person can rent out any AirBNB in the Hollywood Hills, procure $100,000 in illegal drugs easily on the streets of L.A. or via the Dark Web, and they and their buddies can break all the laws of society they want in their party rental home.

Society says to the poor man addict: "We're subsidizing your rent, so no drug use for you!" But society says to the AirBNB party house renter, "Go ahead and feed the drug trade. It's OK. We like you because we're not paying part of your rent."

But the wealthy partier is still causing harm to society. He might be exposing someone to drugs for the first time at his party. Might have called over a few prositutues also (another crime). Might have plenty of underage people there drinking. He might have bought a bad batch of drugs and a few people OD. And he might be disturbing the peace.

But society does NOTHING to him, usually, because he's a good capitalist!

Addicts need treatment and housing. But your first requirement is rules. Not rules for the RICH MAN who rents his AirBNB party house. Just rules for the poor schmuck who dares to ask society for help.

No one is above the law/rules BUT the rich. Everyone knows that's how the system really works - for housing, college, legal cases, etc., etc.
Click to expand...
:) There will always be rich, just as there will always be poor.
**Just say no. --Nancy Reagan**
 
rgp said:
I really do not think that is the case with most folks .... I know for sure it is not with me. But as i have said before , we cannot continue to just [enable] each and every one of the homeless. I'll attempt to shorten a long story, I know two local women that truly became [involved] tried to help, putting in time, money & effort. What they found out was simply that if many of the homeless are required to [in a nutshell] give up their vices, [alcohol & tobacco] .... they are not interested in help [housing].

I am not picking on these folks but ..... the truth just simply is that many of them choose not to comply , fit in with mainstream society , they do not wish to work and fend for themselves.
Click to expand...

I think I replied to this point some posts back, so won't repeat myself here.

No, not everyone wants the same thing.
No, not everyone can be saved.
Yes, some of the homeless get by through the proceeds of crime.
Yes, the homeless community is riddled with drugs, and addiction.

But for me, that's the problem to be tackled, not an excuse to not bother, or to point fingers. No-one said it was an easy problem to solve. But as others have intimated, a lot of people are very concerned about money being spent on homeless Americans, but don't seem to create such a big fuss over how the rest of the federal budget is spent.

Why, as a nation, help these people? Because you can.
 
@gruntlabor The Bible says, "The poor will be with you always" but it also spends quite a few pages and sent the Son of God here to say, "Don't treat one another like dog poop." I am paraphrasing.

Right now, and for many decades, America has treated the poor like dog poop. Even Congress basically says, "Scrape those poor people off your shoes before you come in here!!!! They STINK!"

The Bible also says, on one of its pages filled with advice on how to treat one another, "Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." Prov. 14:31.

"He who shuts his ear to the cry of the poor Will also cry himself and not be answered." Prov. 21:13

So, all these "Good" Christians running America are basically showing God contempt via public policy decisions.
 
VintageBetter said:
@gruntlabor The Bible says, "The poor will be with you always" but it also spends quite a few pages and sent the Son of God here to say, "Don't treat one another like dog poop." I am paraphrasing.

Right now, and for many decades, America has treated the poor like dog poop. Even Congress basically says, "Scrape those poor people off your shoes before you come in here!!!! They STINK!"

The Bible also says, on one of its pages filled with advice on how to treat one another, "Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." Prov. 14:31.

"He who shuts his ear to the cry of the poor Will also cry himself and not be answered." Prov. 21:13

So, all these "Good" Christians running America are basically showing God contempt via public policy decisions.
Click to expand...
:) With respect and please try to forgive my bluntness, I believe you are hysterical.
 
againstthegrain said:
I call them CINOs - Christians In Name Only.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's the lack of self-awareness that is most surprising. I mean, if you're shrugging your shoulders saying things like, "oh well, no-one said life was fair", then you're missing something in scripture, imo. And that's coming from a non-believer. It's fair enough to have an opinion on something that isn't totally charitable, but man it makes claims of a belief in Jesus Christ ring hollow, and is fuel enough for me to know a belief isn't useful.
 
StarSong said:
Yet we continue to glorify war, promoting the fallacy to young kids that if they join up and go fight they'll come home and be lauded as heroes, rather than the stark reality: they'll come home and be honored for a moment during sports events and on certain holidays, but the rest of the year they likely be dealing with the PTSD and brokenness that comes from participating in killing or maiming people or seeing your buddies killed or maimed.

Not to mention that while they were serving, their peers moved forward with their lives.
Click to expand...
My father fought in WWII and was wounded going into Germany in 1945. I was born in 1950. Although my dad shared his life experiences with me over the years, he never mentioned being honored when he came home. He got his silver star and purple heart in the hospital.

He worked his whole life supporting our family. He lived a long happy life. No PTSD, brokenness, etc., etc. From my life experience, few who fought in WWII and Korea came home damaged. Many were wounded, but they healed as best they could and got on with their lives putting the past behind them.
 


Back
Top