What should the government do about homelessness?

@averagejoe1 said
Ahhh, our resident Marxist lays it out there.

Well we haven't heard a free market idea that would work. Earl proposed deporting the homeless, of which over 10% are US Veterans. Great plan.

Build more houses is a solid idea. It's been mentioned on this forum before that an average house sitting on an average lot makes more money in a week than a full time job does. This is because the housing market is purposefully skewed to reduce inventory, jacking up housing prices to reeee-diculous levels and shutting many people out.

Build more housing. Lots more housing. If the government has to do it, because developers won't, then so be it.

@averagejoe1 said
If I follow your thinking, logically, tell us how it would’ve happened back in, say, 1899, if we applied your logic? I think you are saying that there should have been some restrictions, so that housing does not get out of hand, which sounds very socialist to me. Are you a socialist?

‘Having people with money to afford houses,,’, your statement gives me the creeps. Ca ...[text shortened]... z, everyone, we got another live one here. You take him, Mott, why Wajoma and I have our hands full.

It's okay to take my text out of context if that gives you a thrill, I'm okay with that.
No idea why you're going on about 1899. Before my time.
Restrict housing? No!
restrict selling social housing off, yes. Good old maggie, she had ideas but she didn't think them through.
Yes I am.
What should the government do about rich people?! Nothing, it's okay to have rich people.

Let me put it a different way:
I don't think the homeless situation is helped with short term thinking. And temporary housing is by definition a short term plan.
Capitalists have capitalised on the short term plan.
Another plan would be to build social housing. But that takes planning and it means accepting people will move to the area if only one council plans it, so it needs to be central government making a mandate. Well they did they said for each development site there needs to be some affordable housing amongst the profitable builds. However 1st it wasn't enough of a provision and 2nd the capitalists have found a way around it*. But I'm just talking about the UK. You're in gun roulette country, right?

*https://neweconomics.org/2022/02/how-private-developers-get-out-of-building-affordable-housing

@earl-of-trumps said
The real problem stems from society's insistence on not involving the homeless in solving their own individual problems.

#1. The mentally indigent. They have to be institutionalized as they were before the 80's.

#2. The drug/alcohol dependent can be placed in rehab and be given a job and an apartment when they get out of rehab.

#3. The rest are arrest ...[text shortened]... dology *forces* the homeless people to act on their own behalf, something that *horrifies* the left.

What's the difference between institutionalizing the homeless and just giving them a home?

Insane asylums are much, much, much more expensive per person.

@averagejoe1 said
Yeah, everybody knows about this article that you keep trying to quote, which you are quoting incorrectly as it applies to housing. Maybe nobody knows what it means, but it sure does not mean that I can tell my yard man that you know a place where he can live for free. Now you will come back and say “oh no he would have to pay rent”. Which means you have given us a lot of wasted debate time.

It’s the UN declaration of human RIGHTS, dumb arse.

@shavixmir said
It’s the UN declaration of human RIGHTS, dumb arse.

Now you're WAY above his pay grade.

He's only a Republican. He's doesn't give a crap about human rights.

@averagejoe1 said
Ahhh, our resident Marxist lays it out there.

Not everything can be boiled down to profit motive.

@shavixmir said
It’s the UN declaration of human RIGHTS, dumb arse.

And where in the UN declaration of human wrongs does it say I can eat myself to death with ice cream?

It doesn't say I have that right, but I do have that right.

Also it makes no mention of 'decency' or 'indecency' that was you making stuff up as a cover for your ignorance.

Also it doesn't define a house, so on the one hand it says you have a right to a house but no mention of what a house is, could be a pup tent on a filthy inner city footpath, a card board box under a bridge, an RV with no wheels or a mansion.

Also it doesn't say someone/anyone has to provide a house, not a goobermint, not a city council, nothing. So the UN charter of human wrongs, like you, says nothing.

And right down at the root of it, you've got nothing because you refuse to address what a 'right' is.

@suzianne said
Now you're WAY above his pay grade.

He's only a Republican. He's doesn't give a crap about human rights.

Question for suzi, let's see if she has more balls or knowledge than the pseud known as shag doody for brains:

What is a right?
Can you have a right that violates the rights of another?

Edits:

"The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question "Who decides what is right or wrong?" is wrong.

Nobody decides - nature does not decide, it merely is. Man does not decide in issues of knowledge, he merely observes what is."

Ayn Rand

@wildgrass said
Well we haven't heard a free market idea that would work. Earl proposed deporting the homeless, of which over 10% are US Veterans. Great plan.

Build more houses is a solid idea. It's been mentioned on this forum before that an average house sitting on an average lot makes more money in a week than a full time job does. This is because the housing market is purposefully s ...[text shortened]... housing. Lots more housing. If the government has to do it, because developers won't, then so be it.

Give us a prospectus, I would love how you think that would work. I know that you really do not mention much about who pays for it with the care and maintenance..,oohhh, the tenants do that!, and things of that nature. Who would pay taxes on all this land.? what would you do with the losers iand the vagrants who tear the damn place up. Get serious. Oh, I guess there would be about 100 agencies handling this. Who would absorb that cost? You did mention money once in your post, saying that “ a house makes more money than a full-time job.”
What in the hell? Oh, in case you come after me for the money, would you please give me a break, relieve my paying for the planned parenthood facilities, or do I pay for all of it. Just a question.
Doesn’t seem fair, I work 50 years to make all this money that I set aside for my retirement and my grandchildren, and I am a worried, worried, worried that you were going to try to come and get it from me.
Hey, did you hear that Black Lives Matter has lost $100 million and did nothing, not even any scholarship programs? And Suzanne is ranting and raving about Woke, as if they do a damn thing. What is wrong with you people.

@yo-its-me said
It's okay to take my text out of context if that gives you a thrill, I'm okay with that.
No idea why you're going on about 1899. Before my time.
Restrict housing? No!
restrict selling social housing off, yes. Good old maggie, she had ideas but she didn't think them through.
Yes I am.
What should the government do about rich people?! Nothing, it's okay to have rich peop ...[text shortened]... ?

*https://neweconomics.org/2022/02/how-private-developers-get-out-of-building-affordable-housing

BOO!

@wajoma said
Question for suzi, let's see if she has more balls or knowledge than the pseud known as shag doody for brains:

What is a right?
Can you have a right that violates the rights of another?

Edits:

"The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question "Who decides what is right or wrong?" is wrong.

Nobody decides - nature does not decide, it merely is. Man does not decide in issues of knowledge, he merely observes what is."

Ayn Rand

The beauty of Rand…. she recognized the attempts of those who would try to control others. Is there any liberal here who will step up and say that you think that you should control people? Socialists need not answer.

@wajoma said
And where in the UN declaration of human wrongs does it say I can eat myself to death with ice cream?

It doesn't say I have that right, but I do have that right.

Also it makes no mention of 'decency' or 'indecency' that was you making stuff up as a cover for your ignorance.

Also it doesn't define a house, so on the one hand it says you have a right to a house but no m ...[text shortened]... nd right down at the root of it, you've got nothing because you refuse to address what a 'right' is.

You really are as thick as 💩, aren’t you.

That’s rhetorical, by the way.

@averagejoe1 said
The beauty of Rand…. she recognized the attempts of those who would try to control others. Is there any liberal here who will step up and say that you think that you should control people? Socialists need not answer.

No. You don’t want socialists swatting Rand down like the diseased, teet of social security sucking, bitch she was.

A disgusting little hypocrite who’s reasoning is so debunked and absurd that only a hand full of Americans (and obviously 1 koala rapist) even know anything about her.

@shavixmir said
You really are as thick as 💩, aren’t you.

That’s rhetorical, by the way.

The long list of points you're to dumb too be able to respond to grows.

And it begins with: The Pseud known as shag doody for brains, what is a right?

@wajoma said
Question for suzi, let's see if she has more balls or knowledge than the pseud known as shag doody for brains:

What is a right?
Can you have a right that violates the rights of another?

Edits:

"The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question "Who decides what is right or wrong?" is wrong.

Nobody decides - nature does not decide, it merely is. Man does not decide in issues of knowledge, he merely observes what is."

Ayn Rand

Rand is full of it, as always. Promoting the selfish aspects of man is self-serving. She should get zero air-time.

Put down the Randian BS, educate yourself and read some Locke. Man has certain natural rights that are inalienable. No matter what selfish Rand says.