Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/28/03 10:18 AM, Slizor wrote: In countries where the Government is given a bigger role in helping the poor there is less poverty, there is less crime, there is more social mobility, in short a better society.

We've done that in the U.S. since the 1930s and much more starting in the 1960s.

In the years since social welfare started, crime has increased, not decreased and there are more poor and homeless than ever.

We've had "The Great Society", we've had welfare, and medficare and social security. All these programs cost us enormous amounts of money, but when are they ever going to reduce the percentage of poor people? So far, they haven't.

Just wanted to butt in and say one thing about welfare programs for those of you that give a damn. The spending done by the government for these programs helps the economy even though it creates deficit spending due to the differential between revenue and spending. The thing is, when the economy is bad, more people qualify for welfare/unemployment/equivilent programs. Our spending goes down during a resesion, but these programs create a pad so that it doesnt get as bad as it could without this spending. Its creates a small rebound effect that helps us to recover.This is the main reason for the existence of these programs

At 7/24/03 11:27 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 7/24/03 11:17 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Homeless millions: symptoms.
Capitalism: disease.

Cure the disease, not the symptoms.

Well, we'll just ask President Bush to get rid of American Capitalism.

Let's get rid of elections, too! =D

Heh... capitalism may not be a utopia, but it's the best thing we've got.
Symptoms: Homeless Millions, Starving Millions
Disease: Communism

I'd rather live under a quasi-corrupt and quasi-productive Capitalist government than any other government in the world. That's my blind patriotism, right there. You've seen it all now.

At 7/29/03 04:42 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: I'd rather live under a quasi-corrupt and quasi-productive Capitalist government than any other government in the world.

Agreed. Without a pure utopia ready and waiting, I'll take our corrupt system and leaders over any other system.

In the years since social welfare started, crime has increased, not decreased and there are more poor and homeless than ever.

You wouldn't actually by equating the two would you?

All these programs cost us enormous amounts of money, but when are they ever going to reduce the percentage of poor people? So far, they haven't.

Now I must say you have a natural advantage when it comes to the US as you live there. However I would like to see some evidence showing that it hasn't reduced the amount of poor people. Problems would still present themselves even if you did have said evidence. The US is a very poor example of Federal (and probably state too) Welfare schemes. If we are to judge the effectiveness of welfare we would have to look at a country with a good welfare system.

Ooh, I had a wee look on the net http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jul2000/milw-j05.shtml

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/no.html#Econ

If you look at Norway's poverty figures you know what it says? N/A. Not applicable....they have no poverty. I also like the Household percentage share....But it's better represented in a graph
http://www.lcurve.org/

BWS: You think the only reason for Welfare is Keynesian Ripples? A very American take there.

At 7/24/03 10:39 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: This is to continue the poorly named "Shooting hobos legal" thread.

Ok, to get the ball floating, let's take this in steps.
First, what is currently being done across the world for them, and which method is best? How can we improve upon it? Change it? What is the ideal solution to homelessness (a viable one, please).

I believe that the homeless/jobless should be allowed to take jobs with the government building and maintaining government facilities. The pay would be fairly low, but they would learn skills that they could use to get better jobs later on.
It's my belief that they should offer the homeless jobs, but if they dont take them, they shouldn't expect to eat.

Slizor:
No, but this is what I think. Our government dont give a fuck, end. They do care about the big picture and thats why they allow for such measures. It is a good way to pad the economy during resesionary phases. They could care less about someone starving, but trust me, they give a half dozen rats asses if THEY suffer during a resesion.

And there is an advantage to our system that other countries dont have. When the government distributes goods/services, so that their arent poor people, there are a few negitive outcomes. First, there is no incentive/place for entrepenures. The government also has a very hard time, a nearly immposible time, trying to allocate its capital in the most efficient way.

K, K, here is an idea about what to do about the homeless.

Get them together in a big cluster and drop a bomb on them. J/K man, don't go crazy.

Really though, i believe the government should get them to work for them. The job should be to get a network of windmills across the plane to split water molecules, yes in other words hydrogen power. As well as this, they should have pipelines bringing this hydrogen to a central power making facility, reducing costs of making hydrogen power. This will also reduce the need for Nuclear energy and oil. Anyways, the oil is going to run out in my lifetime, so I don't want to be royally fucked when this happens. So plz Bush or Hillary Clinton (put side note #1 here) , do this!

Side Note # 1: Since the odds of green party getting into office is slim, I'm hoping she(hillary) gets into office, but I'm still voting Green

They can win honor and glory by fighting to the death in the arena. If they take a fall, then they can get a share in the betting profits.

Drunken gamblers, loan sharks, homeless, everyone wins!

And there is an advantage to our system that other countries dont have. When the government distributes goods/services, so that their arent poor people, there are a few negitive outcomes. First, there is no incentive/place for entrepenures.

There is definately a place....we're talking about a mixed economy here. But the incentive? People can still get rich in a mixed economy, in fact they are more likely to get rich in a mixed economy as theyare supported by Adult Education Plans, the dole if they hit on hard times, many things. When I can be arsed I'll get some information about American social moility compared to other countries (it's in one of my many many books.)

The government also has a very hard time, a nearly immposible time, trying to allocate its capital in the most efficient way.

True, but the inefficent way also helps. Money is never "lost" (except when you physically lose it, or destroy it.) Say it's a terrible bureocracy (I don't care how it's spelt) then it just means that they subsidise the paper industry :)

Hobo's are a serious problem because a lot of them are social misfits who have run away from bad parents or lost a job to a shit executive decision which kept the executive his/her job and lost the hobos. All they want is to get back into society. It is a tuff break in life. I'm glad it has never happened to me.
On a lighter note how about a joke?
What do you call ten hobos on the bottom of the ocean?
Problem
What do you call all the hobos on the bottom of the ocean?
Solution
But seriously homeless people do deserve a chance. In ENgland they have a special newspaper called the BIG Issue and homeless people sell the newspapers in order to save up for money to buy homes owned by special companies that help homeless get back into society.
I say good luck to them all, and all my prayers!!!

At 7/31/03 11:19 AM, Slizor wrote:

And there is an advantage to our system that other countries dont have. When the government distributes goods/services, so that their arent poor people, there are a few negitive outcomes. First, there is no incentive/place for entrepenures.

There is definately a place....we're talking about a mixed economy here. But the incentive? People can still get rich in a mixed economy, in fact they are more likely to get rich in a mixed economy as theyare supported by Adult Education Plans, the dole if they hit on hard times, many things. When I can be arsed I'll get some information about American social moility compared to other countries (it's in one of my many many books.)

In a mixed economy yes, of course they can. More likely though, Im not sure if I agree on that. Anyways, what I meant was that countries in which income is evenly distributed leads to much much less entrepenurial action; unless its by the govt, which is in control of all the capital. But yes, a mixed econ, sure, youre right.

The government also has a very hard time, a nearly immposible time, trying to allocate its capital in the most efficient way.

True, but the inefficent way also helps. Money is never "lost" (except when you physically lose it, or destroy it.) Say it's a terrible bureocracy (I don't care how it's spelt) then it just means that they subsidise the paper industry :)

This is actually an interesting topic. In the US, due to our banking policy, money is created out of thin air and destroyed just as easily through monetary policy. This is done through open market operations by the Federal Reserve, which is not tightly controled by our government. What I meant above was that it allocates capital less eficiently than the public sector does; capital isnt just money either (maybe thats where the misunderstanding arises, if there is one).

Is there a huge difference in opinions in every country on homeless?

For example; in ENgland people are split in half about them. Most people understand their situation, and then others just want them dead. Is that the same in your country?

At 8/1/03 10:29 AM, el_torro wrote: Is there a huge difference in opinions in every country on homeless?

For example; in ENgland people are split in half about them. Most people understand their situation, and then others just want them dead. Is that the same in your country?

I'd say that, given our current situation, more people are prone to not caring about the situation. But that's just me, and from a small poll of random people on MSN again.

At 8/1/03 10:29 AM, el_torro wrote: Is there a huge difference in opinions in every country on homeless?

For example; in ENgland people are split in half about them. Most people understand their situation, and then others just want them dead. Is that the same in your country?

I think that it, on average, is nearly the same everywhere. Wherever you go in the world, humans still have compasion because its ingrained in us. Youll find mixed opinions everywhere.

At 7/27/03 05:27 PM, alejandro1 wrote:

At 7/27/03 04:03 PM, Rancorman wrote:

And encourage people not to work? I think that tax money would be better off in other programs, maybe a prescription drug program to help pay for outrageously high drug prices.

Oh, man! That would just be stupendous. That would be something I'd need in a big way. I don't have medical insurance right now (What's that, PJ? Need your wisdom teeth out? Ha! Fuck off, freeloader!) and I have been homeless before.

Homelessness isn't caused by stupidity all the time. There are plenty of places and cases where you can be out of work, looking for a job, with no friends and no place to go. I won't deny that plenty of people prefer the street to work (from broken spirits to just laziness), but many homeless people are in fact denied oppurtunity. Homeless people in the big cities of the US probably would have it easy enough in several instances (Yes, park benches aren't all that bad), but people in rural areas don't have the luxury to subside on the excess of thousands. They lose their home, and have no family or friends to go to/can't afford to get to them because they're so far away/other family & friends can't support them/etc., they're fucked, and could be for quite some time.

Coming from the experience of it, a lot of homeless people are just looking for a handout. But, there are just as many who want not to be homeless or have lost hope in ending it.

Word.

At 7/24/03 10:39 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: This is to continue the poorly named "Shooting hobos legal" thread.

Two words: Social Capitalism. Even the distribution of wealth. Not everyone is into labor or has a desire for money. Some people's skills are not rewarded by society (such as artists, writers, political activists, etc.) these people are no less deserving of life, and neither are their families. To thrive as a society, we should specialize with those who have strengths in areas helping out those who have weaknesses in those areas.

At 7/24/03 11:23 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: We've recently been attempting, in the United States at least, and Indiana specifically, to reach out to the homeless and see if we can find them some job training and things of the like through...ah, the name of the mission eludes me for the moment. However, as was said in the other thread, some homeless people, given the chance to work, would decline. This was the major problem in my Prototype Homeless Plan I was running over for Mock Congress. Yep, I'm one of those nerds. ANYWAY, the situation is complicated because, recently, a lot of jobs have been laid off, and I honestly believe that some of the people out on the street would rather be there than suffer through the long lines to get checks from unemployment.

Most homeless people don't qualify for unemployment. I've been homeless off and on since I was 15, and at no time during the time I was homeless was I eligible. Thanks to welfare reform, I also wasn't eligible for food stamps, and my criminal record made it hard to get work. And yes I do take responsibility for my criminal record, but if you want people to reform, then you can't put up so many barriers that prevent them from going the legal path. If you need money and the only way you can do it is to slip back into crime, you're on the road to recidivism.

At 7/24/03 11:25 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Well, i like the rehab method. Most homeless pople are on drugs, and they need to get off thembefore they can hold down a job. They then need an education, and get to work and help the economy.

That's not even close to being true. There are a lot of drug users that are homeless, just like any other cross section of society. But it's not most, and I would say not even half unless you include alcohol, and most teens are more abusive of alcohol than most homeless people.

Two words: Social Capitalism. Even the distribution of wealth. Not everyone is into labor or has a desire for money. Some people's skills are not rewarded by society (such as artists, writers, political activists, etc.) these people are no less deserving of life, and neither are their families. To thrive as a society, we should specialize with those who have strengths in areas helping out those who have weaknesses in those areas.

Artists and writers aren't rewarded by society? Have you happened to see the figures that Hollywood pulls in each year? Or your favorite musician?

They may be no less deserving of life, but plenty of people who work harder than others are going to resent sharing their wealth with everybody. If I'm a strong inflence on the economy, I sure as hell don't want my hard work going to support Joe Welfare Recipient so that he's making as much as I am. Fuck THAT!

Not everybody has a desire for money, true, but everyone who works has a desire to keep what they've earned.

At 7/24/03 01:19 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Sleeping on a park bench isn't all that bad, when you have a shitload of Salvation Army blankets to do it on, and a belly full of free food and cheap booze bought with someone else's money. I used to know a guy who would hitch hike down to the florida keys every winter, and back to CA every summer. I wish I could live a life like that, gratis the pity of suckers.

If you think it sounds so fun, why don't you try it for awhile. It is actually fun for about 2 weeks. When the novelty and the sense of "freedom" is there. Then it sinks in that you may not eat for awhile. You lose any sense of pride after your first day of spanging. And I will admit you can eat pretty well on the streets, but not everyone is as fortunate as others. I personally was pretty well fed with a couple of exceptions, because I'm social and I make friends easily. Others were nowhere near as lucky. A lot of people have no social skills, should they starve to death then? A lot of people are so depressed they don't want to get up and move each day, are they worthy of death? Just because they are depressed? And don't give me this shit about job corps or any of that shit, you want to talk about loss of freedom. Try going to one of those places, it's damn near like prison, and I would know. I wouldn't willingly go back to prison. Not even if I was making money doing it. There are worse things than being homeless, doesn't mean that being homeless isn't shitty. Don't be such an ignorant inconsiderate prick. You haven't lived their lives, you don't know what they've been through, or what they have and have not tried. And it's remarkable to witness how all the things you thought were true about society just fade away when you're on the streets and you get to see the social services system up close and personal.

Ahh-

Very, very true. It's when you and your brother wait behind the bakery at 6:00 to steal the bag of day-old donuts that are being thrown out do you realize how shitty it can be.

Especially if the bakery owner calls the cops on you for loitering and tresspassing (It's a small town, that Rio Vista, folks. They got nothing better to do).

Or when you're elbow-deep in human waste cleaning god knows what from a sewer pipe for minimum wage because you have nowhere else to go besides your shitty, overpriced, roach-infested apartment, and goddammit, the rent has to be paid, or it's back to dodging knife-fights while trying to sleep in the parking lot for you (Boy, I sure do miss living in San Jose!).

Being homeless isn't always a parade, certainly, and people who always assume it is need to be shot, and have their places taken by the good people on the bottom rung of the latter.

However-

As I said before, there are plenty of people who prefer the life of not working and taking handouts and welfare who spit on all of the lower class' reputations, and they are the cause of such animosity to the homeless.

At 7/24/03 06:40 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: I agree with that. People should do some work for a living, but we sahouldn't forsake help to the homeless. It's the unemployed that get me pissed off. I'm not taling about the people that have just been made redundant but some people will sit on the dole for years on end, never get a job and just suck of taxpayers money.

Some people aren't laborers. Some people have mental blocks that prevent them from working in jobs they hate. And a lot of them would end up even worse if they tried jobs they hate, and made some money for nothing. The whole idea of working til the day you die and never accomplishing anything is just as much of a trap. I think people should really find jobs that fit the areas they enjoy, and then specialize. Which is what humans are best at. That's what civilization is all about. If people are forced to do things that are outside of their nature, then there are problems. That's why I like social capitalism. Because nobody is poor. Everybody is entitled to at least enough money to feed themselves and their family. And they will generally work for luxury. And contrary to popular belief, most people will not sit and do nothing, because it's just as depressing. If given the chance, most people will try to start a career in a field they have an interest and an expertise in. Having enough money to live off of without having to worry about quitting your job, encourages entreprenuership and specialization. The more specialized workers we have the more efficient the labor force becomes, and the better the economy. Also a social capitalist system allows people with jobs that may or may not be respected by the general populace to live comfortably. I mean most people who we look back at as great artists or revolutionaries, were dirt poor and unfavored during their lifetimes, it was only after they were dead that they had respect. So I think these people are just as important to our world as anyone else. We all have a part to play.

At 7/25/03 08:48 AM, misterx2000 wrote:

At 7/25/03 08:31 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: A work placement program, a free training program, anything. Otherwise, we're telling millions of people that "Too bad. You had your chance, now you're dead."

I was about to say the training program idea. It lets them back into mainstream society and creates workers!

I think training should be available to all who want it. Free education would lead to more specialization and a more efficient economy. It would also allow people to easily get training in a career of their choice, instead of having to settle for menial labor that is outside of their field.

At 7/27/03 04:03 PM, Rancorman wrote: We should forget tax cuts that only make our economy worse and use some of that tax money to improve welfare.

Precisely. We need to tax the ultrarich. The people who make 10 billion dollars a year will not notice a difference in lifestyle between 1 billion and 10 billion dollars of additional wealth in a year. But that 9 billion dollars can feed a lot of homeless people. In addition, we should legalize and tax drugs. This would allow quality control and a lot of additional income. Plus it would free up 80% of our law enforcement costs, and allow us to redirect that money into education and poverty reduction.

At 7/27/03 05:27 PM, alejandro1 wrote: And encourage people not to work? I think that tax money would be better off in other programs, maybe a prescription drug program to help pay for outrageously high drug prices.

Every time I've been jobless for long enough, I made work for myself to do, whether I got paid for it or not was a different story, but I think most people want to be doing something. You can only get so much stimulation of video games, and with low income levels it cuts down on your munchies :P

At 7/29/03 12:26 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 7/28/03 10:18 AM, Slizor wrote: In countries where the Government is given a bigger role in helping the poor there is less poverty, there is less crime, there is more social mobility, in short a better society.

We've done that in the U.S. since the 1930s and much more starting in the 1960s.

In the years since social welfare started, crime has increased, not decreased and there are more poor and homeless than ever.

We've had "The Great Society", we've had welfare, and medficare and social security. All these programs cost us enormous amounts of money, but when are they ever going to reduce the percentage of poor people? So far, they haven't.

That's because we do it half ass, and the government is more concerned with appearing like they are aiding the problem than in actually doing anything to alleviate the pain. They spend more money on social workers who do jack shit than they do on actual funding of destitute people. They spend more money doing useless surveys on amount of homeless people, when not a single homeless person I know ever saw those people or could have been recorded. It's bullshit. We have been saying that we're doing it, but we aren't doing shit. The welfare system is set up so that if you need welfare, you can't get it. I mean homeless people in most states aren't eligible for food stamps. Many of the places we tried to go to wouldn't help us because we didn't have an address. For instance community action in San Diego turned us down because we didn't have an address, so we didn't have anywhere to take the food. In Utah I couldn't get any assistance simply because I wasn't a member of the Mormon church. I got turned down at both the food pantry and at the community action when I tried to get help getting a ticket home. Back here in Minot, I can't get food stamps because I don't work at least 20 hours a week, and I can't get on any other welfare programs for the same reasons. Nevermind the fact that I work over 60 hours in most weeks (I'm on vacation at the moment) running four non profit corporations. Luckily my experience at being homeless allows me to survive on next to nothing, and I'm currently living with a friend, and we have a mutual arrangement worked out where I get most of my expenses taken care of. Like I said, I've been more fortunate than most. Anyway, bottom line: the US has tons of welfare programs, and noone who needs them can use them.

At 7/29/03 04:07 AM, TheShrike wrote: Let's get rid of elections, too! =D

Heh... capitalism may not be a utopia, but it's the best thing we've got.
Symptoms: Homeless Millions, Starving Millions
Disease: Communism

Although I'm not a communist politically (I am ideologically), you can't prove that those are symptoms of communism. Communism has yet to take over anywhere where the economy wasn't already falling, and the society wasn't already decadent. Socialism (much of which I disagree with) has only reached it's goal of command in situations of desperation, these are not ideal for switching social structures. Communism is actually more of a symptom than a disease in these scenerios.

At 7/29/03 04:42 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: I'd rather live under a quasi-corrupt and quasi-productive Capitalist government than any other government in the world. That's my blind patriotism, right there. You've seen it all now.

I'm a patriot, but I'm not a blind patriot. "we are the real you, what you were meant to be, we are the spirit of the flag, not your patriotic hypocrisy". I believe in the Constitution, and the foundation of America, but I don't agree with the government leaders in most cases, we need to take money out of politics, and I believe we need to make a ton of reforms within the political structure. We need to get in a scenerio where when it comes to election times people can vote on candidates that represent them, not the lesser of two evils. A very small portion of the population (a very rich one generally) actually is being represented by these people, and that destroys the entire spirit of what America stands for.