Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Enacting a policy that, essentially, says: "fuck the homeless" is irrational. In terms of the US, since homeless Americans are still Americans, it's our nation's job to get them back on their feet and back to work – or to get medical help, or to go to school, etc.

At 4/16/07 06:58 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: if the government cant make a profit out of it, then it is illigal.

Oh right, I forgot all about all the profit the government makes through murder and rape and theft.

Hehe. The only people who profit from murder are the defense contractors.

yes as u say that it the goven ments fault but the people that make these rule are evel and posseset by the devil not theat i am very reigios i think that those law are shit and i think they should be complain you should like send a letter to somwhere and get it changed

K, I've read enough.

Unless I see some weak-assed senior citizen on the streets, I'm more often than not going to give rats turd to any homeless bum on the streets. Because by majority, that's exactly what they are.

But Nylo, it's hard for them to go from the bottom up. It feels impossible to make progress with no education or social skills!

Tell that to Julio Cortez, who can't speak one word of decent fucking english, yet manages to get his ass up every morning at the crack of dawn to pick vegetables. Or that middle-school janitor we all had who not only had to clean up, but PUT up with, our shit every day after school. They may not exactly be on the cover of next month's Fortune 500 magazine, but dammit they're contributing to society. They're not wasting their life on the corner of a street.

It's moral sin to deny charity when it is due. But worse to grant charity when it isn't, for your naivity has caused a ripple effect.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you Mathew.

At 4/22/07 01:52 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Enacting a policy that, essentially, says: "fuck the homeless" is irrational. In terms of the US, since homeless Americans are still Americans, it's our nation's job to get them back on their feet and back to work – or to get medical help, or to go to school, etc.

It's an individuals job for thier self betterment, not the government.

Or even then, the people of the country and not the government.

At 4/22/07 01:52 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Enacting a policy that, essentially, says: "fuck the homeless" is irrational. In terms of the US, since homeless Americans are still Americans, it's our nation's job to get them back on their feet and back to work – or to get medical help, or to go to school, etc.

No its not. I have no responsibility to someone I have never met and the government has no responsibility spending my money to help that someone I have never met.

This is not 1984, the government is not a social engineering project, people have to live and die with the choices they made in life. Tough shit but that is the way it is, you either measure up or you die. Its called life. The government can level the playing field but it is not the responsibility of the government to pull you up by the boot straps, that is your INDIVIDUAL responsibility to yourself. And if you cant be damned to do something to better yourself in a wold with as many opportunities as ours is, you are a wortless individual who deserves no pity or concern.

crazy...

At 4/22/07 04:05 PM, crazerfish50 wrote:

At 4/22/07 03:55 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

No its not. I have no responsibility to someone I have never met and the government has no responsibility spending my money to help that someone I have never met.

This is not 1984, the government is not a social engineering project, people have to live and die with the choices they made in life. Tough shit but that is the way it is, you either measure up or you die. Its called life.

IT'S CALLED GOOD WILL!!

Forced good will*, if the government spends my money to help people that should help themselves.

At 4/22/07 07:06 PM, JakeHero wrote:

Forced good will*, if the government spends my money to help people that should help themselves.

Oh no, the government is spending money to help its own citizens. Really, why don't those lazy homeless people just become CEOs? With the money they don't have? Oh...

It takes money to make money.

At 4/22/07 03:55 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

This is not 1984, the government is not a social engineering project, people have to live and die with the choices they made in life.

Yeah, why didn't those lazy poor people choose to be born into a rich family where they had money to go to college? Gosh I don't know what's wrong with these people...

At 4/22/07 08:36 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Oh no, the government is spending money to help its own citizens.

It's not the government's job to squander my tax dollars on bums because they spend all their money on their next fix.

Really, why don't those lazy homeless people just become CEOs? With the money they don't have? Oh...

Mostly, it's their fault. And for the few that are mentally ill there are institution that will treat them free of charge, but most of them just waste their money on hedonism, as I stated above, and therefore, deserve no handouts.

It takes money to make money.

Yes, but throwing money at a problem will not only not fix it, but waste resources at the tax payer's expense. You'll readily confirming my view of you being a faux libertarian. If I remember, libertarians believe in smaller government and "everyone leaves everyone else alone" and not one that has free reign to spend our money as it pleases.

At 4/22/07 09:19 PM, JakeHero wrote: It's not the government's job to squander my tax dollars on bums because they spend all their money on their next fix.

Not all homeless people are addicted to drugs, you know that's just a stereotype. And even the ones that are- the government is helping to create that problem with the needless drug prohibition. By making drugs illegal they make more criminals by getting people involved with gangs and the mafia, and they support organized crime by giving them another way to make money (selling illegal drugs). It makes it harder for people to get help because of the social stigma, and that creates poor and homeless people.

Really, why don't those lazy homeless people just become CEOs? With the money they don't have? Oh...

Mostly, it's their fault. And for the few that are mentally ill there are institution that will treat them free of charge, but most of them just waste their money on hedonism, as I stated above, and therefore, deserve no handouts.

Their fault they weren't born into a richer family? To get out of their addictions they're gonna need some help most of the time.

It takes money to make money.

Yes, but throwing money at a problem will not only not fix it, but waste resources at the tax payer's expense. You'll readily confirming my view of you being a faux libertarian. If I remember, libertarians believe in smaller government and "everyone leaves everyone else alone" and not one that has free reign to spend our money as it pleases.

Throwing money at the problem? How is offering social help services throwing money at the problem? Helping people recover from addictions and poverty is not merely throwing money at the problem. Plus, it is not a waste of money. If you just let all these people suffer we will simply spend that money treating their injuries in a hospital and burying them when they die. It is in our interests to help the impoverished because eventually it'll bite us back.

It is the government's job to help its own citizens. Libertarianism does not prohibit helping people who CONSENT to being helped. Libertarianism is about protecting individual freedoms. And I am not going to say I am a pure libertarian. Most of the time it is foolish to devote yourself to an "ism". Either way I believe in protecting individual liberties while providing help to those who need it, because government's job is to help its citizens while not acting as a parent who punishes individuals for hurting themselves, but only providing assistance when it is wanted. That's why I believe in legalization of drugs, prostitution, abortion, etc.

Small government isn't jailing people for doing drugs, by the way.

At 4/22/07 10:19 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 4/22/07 09:19 PM, JakeHero wrote:

It makes it harder for people to get help because of the social stigma, and that creates poor and homeless people.

So then it was the result of thier bad choices and inaction then?

Their fault they weren't born into a richer family? To get out of their addictions they're gonna need some help most of the time.

Because obviously you can't succeed unless you were born rich in this country. So how do you explain all the rags to riches stories, or even poor people still working jobs and other means of a profession

It is the government's job to help its own citizens. Libertarianism does not prohibit helping people who CONSENT to being helped. Libertarianism is about protecting individual freedoms. And I am not going to say I am a pure libertarian. Most of the time it is foolish to devote yourself to an "ism". Either way I believe in protecting individual liberties while providing help to those who need it, because government's job is to help its citizens while not acting as a parent who punishes individuals for hurting themselves, but only providing assistance when it is wanted. That's why I believe in legalization of drugs, prostitution, abortion, etc.

It's the governments job to protect it's people's rights and thier freedoms, It isn't thier job to safeguard someone that either landed in obscurity and poverty from thier own lack of intelligence, poor choices in life and errors.

It's shouldn't be the burden of the people to help support someone that can't support themselves.

At 4/22/07 10:38 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/22/07 10:19 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 4/22/07 09:19 PM, JakeHero wrote:

It makes it harder for people to get help because of the social stigma, and that creates poor and homeless people.

So then it was the result of thier bad choices and inaction then?

Not always, no.

Their fault they weren't born into a richer family? To get out of their addictions they're gonna need some help most of the time.

Because obviously you can't succeed unless you were born rich in this country. So how do you explain all the rags to riches stories, or even poor people still working jobs and other means of a profession

Sometimes people get lucky, yeah, but people act as if everyone has the same chance, which they do not.

It is the government's job to help its own citizens. Libertarianism does not prohibit helping people who CONSENT to being helped. Libertarianism is about protecting individual freedoms. And I am not going to say I am a pure libertarian. Most of the time it is foolish to devote yourself to an "ism". Either way I believe in protecting individual liberties while providing help to those who need it, because government's job is to help its citizens while not acting as a parent who punishes individuals for hurting themselves, but only providing assistance when it is wanted. That's why I believe in legalization of drugs, prostitution, abortion, etc.

It's the governments job to protect it's people's rights and thier freedoms, It isn't thier job to safeguard someone that either landed in obscurity and poverty from thier own lack of intelligence, poor choices in life and errors.

Okay, let's say someone works for a company, and is a good worker and has a home and steady job and good standard of living, okay? Then some guys higher up commit massive corporate fraud which tears the entire company, causing everyone to lose their jobs and benefits, which eventually drives the guy into homelessness. Is that a result of his own bad decisions?

At 4/22/07 10:46 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 4/22/07 10:38 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/22/07 10:19 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 4/22/07 09:19 PM, JakeHero wrote:

Not always, no.

There's never an always. Some suffer from some sort of mental problems and conditions and were probally abandoned by thier family. Right?

Sometimes people get lucky, yeah, but people act as if everyone has the same chance, which they do not.

No one has the same choice. Not everyone is going to become a lawyer, doctor or businessman. Not everyone is meant to go to college. But being a repairman, mechanic, plumber or any othe job isn't that bad or undesirable either.

Is that a result of his own bad decisions?

That was the result of the business world and the risks that someone takes in the business world.

One must alwasy prepare for the unexpected. If a pension plan was agreed upon when that man was hired or installed, and if that company made legally binding contracts for benifits and retierments then the government can on those few cases, interfere due to the legality of the contract.

But the real question is: What kind of business was it? How large was it? Was it a corporation, a multinational chain or did it operate within State and or Federal limits?

There's all sorts of legal laws and precedents that could be argued for this, so making a standard set all principale for these situations is illogical and useless. One must evaluate each case as it comes and making a little sad sob story doesn't change the issue at hand that a government all needs to do what it is obliged to do by the law.

At 4/22/07 10:46 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Okay, let's say someone works for a company, and is a good worker and has a home and steady job and good standard of living, okay?

Then he should get another job. If he is as good a workers as you claim he will have plenty of opportunities to get a new job, probably a better one since he has more experience now and has more doors open to pursue his new job in. If he ends up homeless after this he frankly deserves it.

BTW, misleading vivideness.

At 4/22/07 10:19 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: It is the government's job to help its own citizens.

You really consider yourself a libertarian and you believe that?

That may sound all nice but thats all it is, a soundbite. It doesnt really mean anything concrete and only a fool would disagree with it on face value. Its like one of those oxymoronic policies or laws that are passed because what kind of commie would disagree with the "Department of Homeland Security?" I certainly want homeland security.

But as is common with soundbites like that, it ignores reality. The Department of Homeland Security is a bloated beaurcracy that was entirely un-needed. There is nothing patriotic about the Patriot Act. Operation Iraqi Freedom was not about Iraqis, it was about Saddam and weapons. And the government does not have the responsibility to help its citizens. The only responsibility the government holds is in survival, not how to best baby their citizenry throughout their life.

People, you all need to live and do things yourself instead of looking to the government to fix all the worlds woes and problems. If you want to fix homelessnes, do it yourself, dont force people to pay money for an agenda and policy they dont agree with.

At 4/22/07 07:06 PM, JakeHero wrote: Forced good will*, if the government spends my money to help people that should help themselves.

Over one third of the homeless in the U.S. have some form of serious mental illness. Many of them actually aren't able to help themselves.

At 4/23/07 04:30 AM, Sigma-Lambda wrote:

At 4/22/07 07:06 PM, JakeHero wrote: Forced good will*, if the government spends my money to help people that should help themselves.

Over one third of the homeless in the U.S. have some form of serious mental illness.

Statisics please, I'm not denying this claim, but I'd like factual evidence behind it, that being said, just about anything constitutes as a mental illness in today's society.

Many of them actually aren't able to help themselves.

I addressed this in a later post. I believe the extend of what I said was "They're institutes that will treat and care for the mentally ill(if it's a genuine mental illness) free of charge."

It seems out of a plethora of posts you always respond to mine. Do you have some sort of affinity with me, Sigma? If so then I'm flattered.

Providing jobs to make the homeless self-sustaining members of society is a moral imperative. Perhaps if our government invested in education and in providing jobs, we might be able to alleviate some of the poverty that exists in the US.

At 4/23/07 12:58 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 4/22/07 10:46 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Okay, let's say someone works for a company, and is a good worker and has a home and steady job and good standard of living, okay?

Then he should get another job. If he is as good a workers as you claim he will have plenty of opportunities to get a new job, probably a better one since he has more experience now and has more doors open to pursue his new job in. If he ends up homeless after this he frankly deserves it.

BTW, misleading vivideness.

Fair enough, a lot of that is relevant, but the main point is sometimes people get cheated out of their job with none of it being a result of his own poor mistakes. The point is that the blame does not always rest on the poor themselves. Jobs aren't flying off Dr. Tran's grill like hickory smoked horse buttholes. Metaphorically speaking.

At 4/22/07 10:19 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: It is the government's job to help its own citizens.

You really consider yourself a libertarian and you believe that?

I am most likely not a pure libertarian, of course, it is foolish most of the time to devote yourself to any "ism." However I don't see anything with that statement that conflicts with libertarianism except that it is a little unclear. Rather it should say that it is government's job to help its own citizens when the citizens consent to such help. If you don't want to be helped you don't have to be. Wikipedia defines libertarianism as "a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid harming others by abusing their liberty." Sounds good to me. If you're trying to say that the govt. using tax dollars for social programs that help the impoverished is violating citizens' rights, I would disagree because in my view that is one of the purposes of government- to ensure the standard of living and keep its country from being an impoverished hell. Taxes are there to fund the tasks of government and I do not see this as an abuse of these funds.

That may sound all nice but thats all it is, a soundbite. It doesnt really mean anything concrete and only a fool would disagree with it on face value. Its like one of those oxymoronic policies or laws that are passed because what kind of commie would disagree with the "Department of Homeland Security?" I certainly want homeland security.

But as is common with soundbites like that, it ignores reality. The Department of Homeland Security is a bloated beaurcracy that was entirely un-needed.

There is nothing patriotic about the Patriot Act.

Agreed.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was not about Iraqis, it was about Saddam and weapons.

Saddam and oil, rather.

And the government does not have the responsibility to help its citizens.The only responsibility the government holds is in survival, not how to best baby their citizenry throughout their life.

The govt.'s job isn't to be our mommy and punish us when we do drugs and hurt ourselves, but in order for a country to survive and be powerful it does not help to lower your HDI and keep your citizens in rags.

People, you all need to live and do things yourself instead of looking to the government to fix all the worlds woes and problems. If you want to fix homelessnes, do it yourself, dont force people to pay money for an agenda and policy they dont agree with.

Majority rule with minority rights. Even if the majority of people disagree with something that doesn't mean minority rights do not still stand. If most people said that guns should be illegal hopefully gun rights would still be protected under the Second Amendment. The people can't fix homelessness if the government does nothing to ensure that its people have a decent standard of living. Governments are here to insure that people have their liberties protected, and if people have no resources in this world they have no liberty.

At 4/23/07 05:37 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Providing jobs to make the homeless self-sustaining members of society is a moral imperative.

Do it yourself then if you think it is such a "moral imperative." Dont force me to.

Perhaps if our government invested in education and in providing jobs, we might be able to alleviate some of the poverty that exists in the US.

We spend some of the most per pupil and the most overall. And education spending has been steadily rising under Bush, just as funding for nearly every program has risen.

This is almost more than all our military expenditures combined. Remember, the Iraq War spending is factored into this.

Throwing more money is not the solution. The solution is reforming our corrupt system and allow some actual choice in schools. If that means voucher programs or just attaching a flat $10,000 to a student to go to whatever public school they want, that is what we need. What we dont need is the current government monopoly on education that we have that fosters absolutely no competition.

At 4/23/07 05:30 PM, JakeHero wrote: Statisics please, I'm not denying this claim, but I'd like factual evidence behind it, that being said, just about anything constitutes as a mental illness in today's society.

http://coe.west.asu.edu/homeless/mental.htm
Ok, it's more around 20 to 25 percent, but that's not that much different. And it's only counting serious mental illness, i.e. schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder, dissociative personality disorder, and the like. People with minor problems weren't tallied.

I addressed this in a later post. I believe the extend of what I said was "They're institutes that will treat and care for the mentally ill(if it's a genuine mental illness) free of charge."

These people don't know they have a mental illness. I've met people with schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder, it's not like they know they have a problem. I know it seems logical to you that if you heard voices you'd assume you had a serious problem, but the minds of people who actually have these illnesses don't work like that. It's an extremely complicated issue.

At 4/23/07 06:14 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 4/23/07 05:37 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Providing jobs to make the homeless self-sustaining members of society is a moral imperative.

Do it yourself then if you think it is such a "moral imperative." Dont force me to.

Perhaps if our government invested in education and in providing jobs, we might be able to alleviate some of the poverty that exists in the US.

We spend some of the most per pupil and the most overall. And education spending has been steadily rising under Bush, just as funding for nearly every program has risen.

This is almost more than all our military expenditures combined. Remember, the Iraq War spending is factored into this.

Throwing more money is not the solution. The solution is reforming our corrupt system and allow some actual choice in schools. If that means voucher programs or just attaching a flat $10,000 to a student to go to whatever public school they want, that is what we need. What we dont need is the current government monopoly on education that we have that fosters absolutely no competition.

Speaking of education, we'd have lower drop-out rates and we'd have less crime if so many students did not live in impoverished areas and were not impoverished themseves. Crime breeds in many low-income areas where people feel that they have no other choice. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that crime is right, I'm just saying that in many areas, crime is breeded by poverty. And how many students can afford $10,000 to go to school? o_O

And it's not as if private schools don't exist. They're just not as popular because... they cost money, and a lotta people are already struggling to make ends meet as it is. I am all for allowing private schools, its just that they haven't caught on because many people can't afford them. And that might, as you said, be a result of the government monopoly on education.. below college-level anyways. I dunno if the solution is totally getting rid of public education. Having an educated populace is important to a strong economy.

At 4/23/07 06:23 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: And how many students can afford $10,000 to go to school? o_O

That is roughly what public shcools recieve per student. If you just attached that money to the student and let them go where they want, it would fix a hell of a lot of problems we have now and wouldnt stick these poor kids in shitty neighboorhoods and shitty schools they dont have a choice to go to or not go to. What we need is choice.

I am all for allowing private schools, its just that they haven't caught on because many people can't afford them.

That is what vouchers are for. And no, I believe in public education. It just needs a gigantic reform if we want to make our schools competitive in comparison to schools in other nations.

I agree with basically everything he says.

At 4/22/07 03:55 PM, Demosthenez wrote: This is not 1984, the government is not a social engineering project, people have to live and die with the choices they made in life. Tough shit but that is the way it is, you either measure up or you die. Its called life.

That was so well put, it may have just made my nipples hard.

At 4/23/07 06:14 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

Do it yourself then if you think it is such a "moral imperative." Dont force me to.

If you've read Adam Smith, who, as we all know, is the demigod of Capitalism (rightfully, I might add), you'd know that even he advocated social spending.

We spend some of the most per pupil and the most overall. And education spending has been steadily rising under Bush, just as funding for nearly every program has risen.

Nearly every program? Oh, what about Head Start?

What we dont need is the current government monopoly on education that we have that fosters absolutely no competition.

Services like education and postal systems shouldn't need competition. The government's job is to make them competitive with the rest of the world. Look at Europe – they seem to have decent education systems, but they don't have all the private institutions of education (in terms of lower AND higher education) that we have. They don't need private lower education because they have great systems in place already.

At 4/23/07 10:22 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Services like education and postal systems shouldn't need competition. The government's job is to make them competitive with the rest of the world. Look at Europe – they seem to have decent education systems, but they don't have all the private institutions of education (in terms of lower AND higher education) that we have. They don't need private lower education because they have great systems in place already.

Funny you should bring that up.

The Belgian students didn't perform better because they're smarter than American students. They performed better because their schools are better. At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.

American schools don't teach as well as schools in other countries because they are government monopolies, and monopolies don't have much incentive to compete. In Belgium, by contrast, the money is attached to the kids — it's a kind of voucher system. Government funds education — at many different kinds of schools — but if a school can't attract students, it goes out of business.

Belgian school principal Kaat Vandensavel told us she works hard to impress parents.

She told us, "If we don't offer them what they want for their child, they won't come to our school." She constantly improves the teaching, saying, "You can't afford 10 teachers out of 160 that don't do their work, because the clients will know, and won't come to you again."

"That's normal in Western Europe," Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby told me. "If schools don't perform well, a parent would never be trapped in that school in the same way you could be trapped in the U.S."

Last week Florida's Supreme Court shut down "opportunity scholarships," Florida's small attempt at competition. Public money can't be spent on private schools, said the court, because the state constitution commands the funding only of "uniform . . . high-quality" schools. Government schools are neither uniform nor high-quality, and without competition, no new teaching plan or No Child Left Behind law will get the monopoly to serve its customers well.

The longer kids stay in American schools, the worse they do in international competition. They do worse than kids from poorer countries that spend much less money on education, ranking behind not only Belgium but also Poland, the Czech Republic and South Korea.

This should come as no surprise if you remember that public education in the United States is a government monopoly. Don't like your public school? Tough. The school is terrible? Tough. Your taxes fund that school regardless of whether it's good or bad. That's why government monopolies routinely fail their customers.

Straight from the Stossel article I linked to earlier.