patrick.net

Incidently as I've mentioned before, the solution of course is to allow open homeless encampments on the lawns of the members of the 9th circuit court of appeals.

RE investors.

Wealth inequality with no real safety net. A real safety net would be a system of division of property so that every American has a piece of land which to own, use, sell, lease or trade. Obviously some people would have smaller pieces of land and others would have larger based on the value of the land with the goal of approximate equality in the initial division. During the course of time, the wise/diligent/lucky would no doubt turn their property into profit, and others would squander their property and probably end up in debt. But the cycle would be broken by the system so that the next generation would have opportunity to start over. Every 50 years there would be a Jubilee and the land would return to original owner or their descendents. It is the system practiced in ancient Middle East during Talmudic times. Under this system, every 50 years presents a renewed opportunity to break the cycle of poverty.

There will be no problems after MAGA is implemented.
We are headed to the greatest time in American history.
If anyone has a few minutes,FMTT!

PeopleUnited says

Wealth inequality with no real safety net. A real safety net would be a system of division of property so that every American has a piece of land which to own, use, sell, lease or trade. Obviously some people would have smaller pieces of land and others would have larger based on the value of the land with the goal of approximate equality in the initial division. During the course of time, the wise/diligent/lucky would no doubt turn their property into profit, and others would squander their property and probably end up in debt. But the cycle would be broken by the system so that the next generation would have opportunity to start over. Every 50 years there would be a Jubilee and the land would return to original owner or their descendents. It is the system practiced in ancient Middle East during Talmudic times. Under this system, every 50 years presents a renewed opportunity to break the cycle of poverty.

You really don't understand why people are homeless. Poverty has nothing to do with it.

Fucking White Male says

You really don't understand why people are homeless. Poverty has nothing to do with it.

Yes. Most people, if they found themselves homeless, would quickly rectify the problem. Y moving until they found resources. The homeless are a different sort who don't identify the same way with "home," thinking of it more as a place they belong rather than a place of shelter. So they will stick around an area that's become hostile to them (because of many different factors(cost of living, drug use, joblessness, criminal history, poor choices, addictions)). It seems that addictions play the largest roles. Addicts just need their drug of choice to be content, not four walls and a roof. In a reasonable climate, a tent or cardboard box is sufficient shelter to enable their lifestyle.

So yah it seems like more than half are addicts, another quarter are mentally ill, another 20% are grungy hustlers, and 10% are transitional, moving on up the social ladder.

PeopleUnited says

the wise/diligent/lucky would no doubt turn their property into profit, and others would squander their property and probably end up in debt.

Pretty much the way it is today, I don't see any problem with it.

Quigley says

In a reasonable climate

Maybe not a lot of homelessness in Minnesota or North Dakota?

Stupid laws allowing the homeless to camp anywhere.
Cheap booze.
Lazy losers.

Not enough free shit and massive government bureaucracies to administer the free shit. Free shit allows all the poor homeless people to be good peepuls.

Better yet, the government bureaucracies can squander all the free shit on themselves because the homeless are fucked, anyway.

It is silly to make generalizations, or sweeping statements such as "You know nothing..." Which are clearly untrue and only serve to make yourself look like a fool.
Fucking White Male says

Poverty has nothing to do with it.

Clearly there are various circumstances that can result in various forms of temporary homelessness and there are also people who choose homelessness as a lifestyle. There are also those who achieve homelessness via circumstances outside of their control. There are people who achieve homelessness due to their own choices/addictions. One can make the argument that it is a choice not to change those circumstances either before or after becoming homeless. Never the less, poverty certainly plays a role. It would be a rare thing to have wealth/income and still be homeless. A person who owns their home, and has the money to pay their bills is not homeless.

It has been said that when you got nothing, you have got nothing to lose. Give every person some land and all of a sudden many if not most of them will choose to be responsible and take care of that land or put it to good use by renting it out. That is just common sense.

Part of the problem with the current globalization is not so much that we have multinational corporations, it is that these corporations are so big and the wealthy are so rich that we are perhaps only one generation away from a true dystopia where the means of production is entirely controlled by a small minority and you either work for them or they will tell you you are not needed. George Orwell's 1984 comes to mind. It isn't just that they control the media. They control the land, they control the food, they control the housing, they control the health care system.

The only way to avoid this is to give more power, more land, more control to the individual. And that is going to mean that the wealthy are going to have to start losing or at least sharing more.

Georgism would help a bit with some of the systemic issues. But most of these people choose this way of life because it works with their addictions.
If I were governor, I'd be rounding them up each week, identifying and sorting them by ability, putting the addicts in the drunk tank for a month, connecting the temporarily disadvantaged with government subsidied housing and jobs, and bussing the rest to pick crops while living on site in barracks. That's where the addicts will be going as well after they detox.
Call it the "back to nature" plan.

Clearly the problem is to much kindness and good weather.

I love giving money to homeless people so they don't go without. That is, without alcohol, drugs and cigarettes.

indigenous says

Section 8 housing causing a shortage in housing because people use more space than they would if they had to pay for it. Which keeps the pricing higher. This is what happens with rent control.

Zoning laws, rent controls, and minimum house/apartment requirements. Which is essentially a total sales limit, a price ceiling, and a price floor.

Overall, high housing costs created by all the government intervention.

Truth - we have caused homelessness by government malfeasance, and malinvestment.

Are you Libertarian or Republican - if I might ask?

the pesky gun control laws

Entitlemented says

Are you Libertarian or Republican - if I might ask?

The prior we are on the same page.

Too much verbiage. The problem is simple, when you pay people to be homeless you get homeless. People in government are paid to keep up the charade.

I was only wondering what flavor of public transfer we are talking about.

indigenous says

Too much verbiage. The problem is simple, when you pay people to be homeless you get homeless. People in government are paid to keep up the charade.

I was only wondering what flavor of public transfer we are talking about.

Many people who are homeless chose to be homeless or made choices that resulted in homelessness. However, few homeless people are paid NOT to put a roof over their heads. I agree that what you subsidize you get more of, however unless we are going to allow homeless people to also go hungry and naked I don't see how you are going to fix the problem by eliminating any form of private or public assistance to feed, cloth and sometime yes even house the poor souls who don't have a roof, meal or pair of pants.

Mexico and Brazil just let people squat in home made shacks made of plywood.

We are going to have to allow this at some point, in many places, if the problem gets worse.

Under no circumstances will housing EVER become affordable - the bankers proved this is not an outcome on the list of possible outcomes.

So when we go full brazil/favela housing will have two classes - the brown poor favela dwellers and if you dont want to live in a shack you get a loan and pay the full 'market price' of the house where the police will patrol.

True!

The powers that be have their power mostly because workers must obey them or lose their house. Usually it's like this: you have to obey your boss, or you get fired and cannot pay your mortgage. You don't have savings because you put it all in the downpayment, but still have a big mortgage. And when you do obey your boss, you're actually working for the shareholders. And most of the shareholders are the 1%.

So to make housing cheap would be to take away power from the powerful. Workers would not have to obey bosses. That would be freedom, not slavery. Freedom for workers is loss for the wealthy. So cheap housing = freedom = impossible because the rich don't want that.

Kinda rambling, but you get the picture.

PeopleUnited says

indigenous says

Too much verbiage. The problem is simple, when you pay people to be homeless you get homeless. People in government are paid to keep up the charade.

I was only wondering what flavor of public transfer we are talking about.

Many people who are homeless chose to be homeless or made choices that resulted in homelessness. However, few homeless people are paid NOT to put a roof over their heads. I agree that what you subsidize you get more of, however unless we are going to allow homeless people to also go hungry and naked I don't see how you are going to fix the problem by eliminating any form of private or public assistance to feed, cloth and sometime yes even house the poor souls who don't have a roof, meal or pair of pants.

It is nearly entirely a result of drug/alcohol abuse and mental illness. Now what came first..the drug abuse or the mental illness...thats much more of a chicken or egg thing.

The bottom line remains that as there are fewer criminal consequences for homelessness, there are also fewer motivations for dealing with drug addiction and mental illness.

Furthermore, if my 18 year old step daughter can outperform 30-40 year old adults at work, which did in fact happen, the problem is not just one of income inequality, but rather one of merit and performance. Which is why lefty bleeding hearts are a bunch of dum dums. And yes I'm being serious. Mostly because you used a whole bunch of words to say stuff that isn't actually true.

That's true too.

Just walk around the Tenderloin in SF. Most of those homeless people are clearly addicts or mentally ill or both.

Drugs, alcohol and insane housing costs.

Fucking White Male says

Which is why lefty bleeding hearts are a bunch of dum dums. And yes I'm being serious.

Exactly.

But so is anyone who would leave a fellow human being out in the cold with no food or clothing.

Fucking White Male says

The bottom line remains that as there are fewer criminal consequences for homelessness, there are also fewer motivations for dealing with drug addiction and mental illness.

Perhaps we should lock up homeless people for being homeless? Brilliant.

Oh, and lock people up for not getting sober too. As if prisons weren't full enough already. Yes these people need help but are you going to pay for rehab?

PeopleUnited says

Fucking White Male says

Which is why lefty bleeding hearts are a bunch of dum dums. And yes I'm being serious.

Exactly.

But so is anyone who would leave a fellow human being out in the cold with no food or clothing.

Some people are beyond any help. Nothing any of us can do.

rando says

True!

The powers that be have their power mostly because workers must obey them or lose their house. Usually it's like this: you have to obey your boss, or you get fired and cannot pay your mortgage. You don't have savings because you put it all in the downpayment, but still have a big mortgage. And when you do obey your boss, you're actually working for the shareholders. And most of the shareholders are the 1%.

So to make housing cheap would be to take away power from the powerful. Workers would not have to obey bosses. That would be freedom, not slavery. Freedom for workers is loss for the wealthy. So cheap housing = freedom = impossible because the rich don't want that.

Kinda rambling, but you get the picture.

This is so true. Working class hero is something to be!
www.youtube.com/embed/6VsCKbcSNZ8?ecver=1

www.youtube.com/embed/6VsCKbcSNZ8?ecver=1

FortWayne says

But so is anyone who would leave a fellow human being out in the cold with no food or clothing.

Some people are beyond any help. Nothing any of us can do.

No matter what you do, they will come back.

FortWayne says

PeopleUnited says

Fucking White Male says

Which is why lefty bleeding hearts are a bunch of dum dums. And yes I'm being serious.

Exactly.

But so is anyone who would leave a fellow human being out in the cold with no food or clothing.

Some people are beyond any help. Nothing any of us can do.

Matthew 25:31-46

The Son of Man Will Judge the Nations
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy[a] angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him,[b] saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Strategist says

FortWayne says

But so is anyone who would leave a fellow human being out in the cold with no food or clothing.

Some people are beyond any help. Nothing any of us can do.

No matter what you do, they will come back.

Yes, they will.

PockyClipsNow says

Mexico and Brazil just let people squat in home made shacks made of plywood.

We are going to have to allow this at some point, in many places, if the problem gets worse.

Under no circumstances will housing EVER become affordable - the bankers proved this is not an outcome on the list of possible outcomes.

So when we go full brazil/favela housing will have two classes - the brown poor favela dwellers and if you dont want to live in a shack you get a loan and pay the full 'market price' of the house where the police will patrol.

Probably true. Perhaps in the next 20 years. That is the scary part.

In January 2015, 564,708 people were homeless on a given night in the United States.
Of that number, 206,286 were people in families, and
358,422 were individuals.
About 15 percent of the homeless population - 83,170 - are considered "chronically homeless” individuals.
About 2 percent - 13,105 - are considered "chronically homeless” people in families.
About 8 percent of homeless people- 47,725 - are veterans.

Surely some can be reformed into working.

Again this covers it nicely.

www.youtube.com/embed/WJq-sl3LDFw

indigenous says

In January 2015, 564,708 people were homeless on a given night in the United States.

Of that number, 206,286 were people in families, and

I don't understand how whole families can be homeless when we have:
Welfare
Section 8 housing
Food Stamps
Churches
Charity Organizations

How do illegals manage to get everything that is offered, while the homeless don't? I just don't get it.

This will give you a background on the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill in California through the 60's and 70's and then how it became nationwide under Reagan in the 1980's, and how this is the backbone of the high numbers of homelessness we find in our current times.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/

"Until the 1980s, most people in the United States were unaware that the deinstitutionalization of patients from state mental hospitals was going terribly wrong. Some were aware that homicides and other untoward things were happening in California, but such things were to be expected, because it was, after all, California. President Carter’s Commission on Mental Health issued its 1978 report and recommended doing more of the same things—more CMHCs, more prevention of mental illness, and more federal spending. The report gave no indication of a pending crisis. The majority of patients who had been discharged from state hospitals in the 1960s and 1970s had gone to their own homes, nursing homes, or board-and-care homes; they were, therefore, out of sight and out of mind...

...During the 1980s, an additional 40,000 beds in state mental hospitals were shut down. The patients being sent to community facilities were no longer those who were moderately well-functioning or elderly; rather, they included the more difficult, chronic patients from the hospitals’ back wards. These patients were often younger than patients previously discharged, less likely to respond to medication, and less likely to be aware of their need for medication. In 1988 the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) issued estimates of where patients with chronic mental illness were living. Approximately 120,000 were said to be still hospitalized; 381,000 were in nursing homes; between 175,000 and 300,000 were living in board-and-care homes; and between 125,000 and 300,000 were thought to be homeless. These broad estimates for those living in board-and-care homes and on the streets suggested that neither NIMH nor anyone else really knew how many there were..."

1988 was almost 30 years ago. That is not current information.

You have to take into account that NIMH has a vested interest in diagnosing everyone as batshit crazy, look at how many people are prescribed anti anxiety meds.

Strategist says

How do illegals manage to get everything that is offered, while the homeless don't? I just don't get it.

The number of families would probably be the 200k number divided by 3 or 4?

The mutts in government have an incentive to claim as many as possible, which may mean the family is homeless one night a year?

In the video Stossel points out that a large part of the problem is with single mothers who get pushed to the front of the line. Which is understandable but also an incentive for the woman to stay single. This is a result of LBJ and the Great Society, effectively eugenics on blacks. LBJ was a known racist.

With the price of housing being what it is it, exacerbates the problem as well. Anyone who thinks the rise in the cost of housing is organic let me know, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

The problem is also worse in states with more benefits so the homeless situation is worse in those states.

I read where Houston has lessened the homeless problem by a dearth of centralized planning.

California's rise in the cost of real estate has been driven by centralized regulation and restrictions. Yeah there has been an increase in demand by the various industries, but the real driver in the increase has been the hubris of the planners.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/houston-homelessness-declines_n_7561640.html

Wednesday. "It's incredible," Marilyn Brown, president and CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless, told the Houston Chronicle.

indigenous says

1988 was almost 30 years ago. That is not current information

You asked about the root. Homelessness didn't begin 5 years ago. This article goes into the tremendous increase of homelessness in the 1980's and the issues with the lack of funding and resources for the actual mentally ill, not the anxious but functioning populace. Reagan, despite being the President (and a very average actor), was not a God, and his presidency was not perfect, despite his current glorification. Carter also had his part in this, so it's possible to still put the blame on the democrats if that works better for you.