# A Journey Through a Land of Extreme Poverty:



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Welcome to America. "The UN’s Philip Alston is an expert on deprivation – and he wants to know why 41m Americans are living in poverty. The Guardian joined him on a special two-week mission into the dark heart of the world’s richest nation."

"We are in Los Angeles, in the heart of one of America’s wealthiest cities, and General Dogon, dressed in black, is our tour guide. Alongside him strolls another tall man, grey-haired and sprucely decked out in jeans and suit jacket. Professor Philip Alston is an Australian academic with a formal title: UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.

General Dogon, himself a veteran of these Skid Row streets, strides along, stepping over a dead rat without comment and skirting round a body wrapped in a worn orange blanket lying on the sidewalk."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extreme-poverty-un-special-rapporteur

Sigh. This was a terrible read, but try to get through it.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Interesting. I wouldn't call it a 'terrible read' although I could do without the one-sided political statements given that this problem has continued unabated over the course of multiple administrations of both flavors for a very long time. It is a subject I have found troubling for a long time and serves to remind me that I would likely be more liberal than I am in the event I believed that something workable could be fashioned to work in the hands of government. I find it distressing that only a precious few churches give a flip, especially given that among private entities, they are often the best equipped to act to good effect.

All said and done, my biggest concern is that of finding effective solutions that are sustainable over the long term as opposed to feel-good government intervention that assuages the consciences of generally left of center voters while not effectively addressing the problem. The problems in California say much about this particular problem in my reckoning. Surely to goodness there must be a workable solution somewhere in between saying 'not my circus, not my monkeys' and 'doing something' in the name of doing something whether it is effective or not, or sustainably cost-effective or not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> *why* 41m Americans are living in poverty.


Many of them have mental problems and don't want any help.
Living "in poverty" here is still a step above living in most third world countries.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paying people to be poor tends to create more poor people.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many of them have mental problems and don't want any help.
> Living "in poverty" here is still a step above living in most third world countries.


If they had proper mental health treatment there wouldn't be so many on the streets because they would accept help. It's a vicious circle and mental health care in the US just sucks. Bare minimum meds to stabilize and send them out without a bit of structured treatment. We as a people and country are better than this.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> If they had proper mental health treatment there wouldn't be so many on the streets because they would accept help.


Many could get it by simply asking for help.



Irish Pixie said:


> Bare minimum meds to stabilize and send them out without a bit of structured treatment.


You can't lock them all away until they are "cured", and you can't force them to take their medications. All things considered, there are relatively few in that situation compared to the number of crazy people who have just a little more wealth.

There are no simple answers.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many could get it by simply asking for help.
> 
> You can't lock them all away until they are "cured", and you can't force them to take their medications. All things considered, there are relatively few in that situation compared to the number of crazy people who have just a little more wealth.
> 
> There are no simple answers.


Respectfully, you don't understand the nature of most mental illnesses, it's just not as simple as them asking for help. Their condition could make them paranoid, hearing voices, withdrawn, and many other things. On medication most make much better choices, but they need continued followup and treatment to stay "well". 

You can lock them away and force meds with a court order, it isn't even that difficult. Nope, there are over a hundred thousand mentally ill homeless people in poverty, the official statistic is 20-25%.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Paying people to be poor tends to create more poor people.


This is true. I am not exactly sure how to go about it, but the type of solution I would envision would involve enough local control to prevent blind ineffectiveness in the course of throwing money at the wall, and would encourage self-improvement by not having an all-or-nothing threshold where people get the rug jerked out from under them for trying to do for themselves as much as they can. At the same time, it must be sustainable in all ways including not bankrupting the government or becoming excessively burdensome to the tax base.



Irish Pixie said:


> If they had proper mental health treatment there wouldn't be so many on the streets because they would accept help. It's a vicious circle and mental health care in the US just sucks. Bare minimum meds to stabilize and send them out without a bit of structured treatment. We as a people and country are better than this.


It seems like a situation that reinforces the notion that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. How would you go about putting a solution into practice?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Respectfully, you don't understand the nature of most mental illnesses, it's *just not as simple* as them asking for help.





Irish Pixie said:


> You can lock them away and force meds *with a court order*, it isn't even that difficult.


I understand you can't force it on them unless they commit a crime or try to harm themselves.
If it were simple, there wouldn't be a problem at all.



Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, there are over *a hundred thousand* mentally ill homeless people in poverty, the official statistic is 20-25%.


Only 100,000 in a country of over 325 million.
Sounds like we're actually doing well considering the alternatives.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I understand you can't force it on them unless they commit a crime or try to harm themselves.
> If it were simple, there wouldn't be a problem at all.
> 
> 
> ...


No, no crime has to be committed, just a judge and court order. That's meds by mouth and injection. They can't be committed involuntarily to a locked down facility without being a danger to themselves or others, it's called a 72 hour hold.

No, we're not, that's over a 100k US citizens (and that's only the severely mentally ill) that aren't being treated like human beings. The mentally ill are as American as you and I but due to their disability they live like animals, they are preyed upon by every manner of scumbug, and they die in the street. What is your version of an alternative?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

IndyDave said:


> This is true. I am not exactly sure how to go about it, but the type of solution I would envision would involve enough local control to prevent blind ineffectiveness in the course of throwing money at the wall, and would encourage self-improvement by not having an all-or-nothing threshold where people get the rug jerked out from under them for trying to do for themselves as much as they can. At the same time, it must be sustainable in all ways including not bankrupting the government or becoming excessively burdensome to the tax base.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like a situation that reinforces the notion that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. How would you go about putting a solution into practice?


Yes, it's much better to have someone on meds, and in continuing treatment. The system was at least adequate until Reagan emptied the psych facility in CA and the rest of the country figured out how much money it "saved".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, no crime has to be committed, *just a judge and court order*.


That's not how the process works.



Irish Pixie said:


> They can't be committed involuntarily to a locked down facility without being a danger to themselves or others, it's called a 72 hour hold.


They can't be held at all without probable cause.



Irish Pixie said:


> No, we're not, that's over a 100k US citizens (and that's only the severely mentally ill) that *aren't being treated like human beings.*


They're being treated exactly like human beings with rights to privacy.
They are being left alone until they break a law.



Irish Pixie said:


> What is your version of an alternative?


What makes you think there *is* an alternative to something that has gone on as long as the species has been around? 
You're looking for something that doesn't exist in the real world.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, it's much better to have someone on meds, and in continuing treatment. The system was at least adequate until Reagan emptied the psych facility in CA and the rest of the country figured out how much money it "saved".


I had forgotten about that, even though I witnessed the effects first-hand, albeit several years after it came to Indiana. In Indianapolis, the older DOC (a job I should have quit the day before I started, but that's another story for another time) staff shared with me, they closed Central State and the patients moved a few miles up the road to be inmates. I agree with your putting 'saved' in quotes. I rather doubt that the DOC was any less expensive per person than a state hospital, and then there is the secondary cost of the mischief caused by people who should not have been left unsupervised/untreated in public.

It also saddens me given my own beliefs that if institutions based, well, on belief collectively did what they are supposed to do per the doctrines they supposedly embrace, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but I am going to stop there before moving toward the edge of getting the thread closed or moved.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not how the process works.
> 
> 
> They can't be held at all without probable cause.
> ...


That is how the process works in New York, and there are variations of it across the nation. If a patient is in a facility and won't take their meds it goes to judge and he or she issues a court order to administer the medication. It happens every day, in every state in the country.

A 72 hour hold allows a facility to hold a mentally ill patient that is a danger to themselves or others involuntarily.

The mentally ill are not treated like human beings, in some cases they aren't even treated like animals- some rescue would pick them up and treat them. We are better than the way are mentally ill are treated.

I'm not going to argue with you, I know what I'm talking about, I don't think you do.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> That is how the process works in New York, and there are variations of it across the nation. If a patient is in a facility and won't take their meds it goes to judge and he or she issues a court order to administer the medication. It happens every day, in every in the country.
> 
> A 72 hour hold allows a facility to hold a mentally ill patient that is a danger to themselves or others involuntarily.
> 
> ...


Same basic situation in Indiana. I don't know about any other states specifically but I understand that most are basically similar.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> *if a patient is in a facility* and won't take their meds it goes to judge and he or she issues a court order to administer the medication. It happens every day, in every in the country.


If they are "in a facility" they are already getting help.
You started out talking about the "homeless" on the streets who weren't getting help at all.



Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not going to argue with you,* I know what I'm talking about, I don't think you do*.


I don't think you know what I'm talking about either, so at least we end in agreement.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If they are "in a facility" they are already getting help.
> You started out talking about the "homeless" on the streets who weren't getting help at all.
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what I'm talking about either, so at least we end in agreement.


If a person is involuntarily committed, it is generally for 72 hours if that person is deemed by a judge to be harmful to self or others, i.e., suicidal, homicidal, or likely to engage in dangerous and reckless acts endangering self or other with or without homicidal intent. After that person is locked up, in the event of refusing medication, a judge may subsequently order involuntary medication.

IP and I may have disparate views on a number of topics, but she is correct about this process, and I agree with her that allowing this kind of suffering, especially with the abundance of frivolous uses of our tax dollars, is completely unacceptable. My only question is that of finding an effective way of addressing the problem, and then refining it to the most effective way. I do not see a valid argument that there either is no problem or that we should not seek a solution.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> If a person is involuntarily committed, it is generally for 72 hours if that person is deemed by a judge to be harmful to self or others, i.e., suicidal, homicidal, or likely to engage in dangerous and reckless acts endangering self or other with or without homicidal intent. After that person is locked up, in the event of refusing medication, a judge may subsequently order involuntary medication.


They don't take random people off the street for involuntary commitment.

Either a crime has to be committed, or someone has to go to a magistrate and file the commitment papers to begin the process.

It's not "just a judge and a court order"



IndyDave said:


> *After that person is locked up*, in the event of refusing medication, a judge may subsequently order involuntary medication.


Again, this discussion started off being about homeless people *on the street*, not someone already "in a facility". You can't move the goalposts.



IndyDave said:


> I do not see a valid argument that there either is no problem or that we should not seek a solution.


I've said neither of those things.
I said it's always been a problem and there are no simple answers.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't take random people off the street for involuntary commitment.
> 
> Either a crime has to be committed, or someone has to go to a magistrate and file the commitment papers to begin the process.
> 
> ...


You aren't following. No crime has to be committed. You start talking/acting in a way indicative of being suicidal or homicidal, someone reports it, they can roll you up and keep you up to 72 hours pending judicial review, which may extend your stay. As soon as you become a guest at the Padded Cell Bed and Breakfast, a court order can be obtained to involuntarily medicate you. It is sequential, not an 'either/or' proposition. The goalposts have not been moved. First you are confined, second you are medicated, all starting on the street in one series of events.

This statement


> What makes you think there *is* an alternative to something that has gone on as long as the species has been around?
> You're looking for something that doesn't exist in the real world.


gave the impression of being indicative that you were arguing against the validity and need to address the problem. I will agree that there are no simple answers, otherwise we would be discussing specific solutions right now.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

We suffer from "classified shelters"
Big shelter in town backed by government funding, city state.....with private donations provides meals and shelter.....For certain people.
Abused mothers, children, adult families down on their luck....but nothing for the true homeless with all sorts of social, drugs,....and mental problems.

Did have a shelter that took everyone provide a warm place on cold nights, no beds just chairs....
One meal a day.... if someone drought it in......Most days were covered, meals in the evening.

But did provide an address (for gov checks) and phone number, showers and a laundry.

These people had drug alcohol and mental problems.....but had a "home"
Most didn't stay there...just used the facilities.
This was closed as in "not in my neighborhood"

These people were not allowed to be close to "children'...so were not allowed at the subsidized shelter. ...which you need a bus to get there.

Many of these hard core ..do not want help...and would rather be left alone ......
You can not force folks to "get help".....

This is a big problem....but also speaks to politics and laws......... with charity being having a peacker order.
Name of the game is ...the warm fuzzies shelters... but ...shelter and care being discriminated against


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> *You aren't following.* No crime has to be committed. You start talking/acting in a way indicative of being suicidal or homicidal,* someone reports it*, they can roll you up and keep you up to 72 hours pending judicial review, which may extend your stay


If "*someone* reports it" then it's not "just a judge and a court order".
I said more than once there has to be a crime, *or* they have to be a danger to themselves or others.

It's you who isn't "following"



Bearfootfarm said:


> I understand you can't force it on them *unless they commit a crime or try to harm themselves*.





Bearfootfarm said:


> *Either a crime has to be committed, or someone has to go to a magistrate and file the commitment papers* to begin the process.


You're telling me I'm "wrong" while repeating exactly what I've said all along.



IndyDave said:


> The goalposts have not been moved.


Yes, they have.

This started out as being about homeless people *on the street* seeking help on their own, then changed to "just a judge and a court order" could force them, then morphed to "someone in a facility" and all that happened before you came in. 



Irish Pixie said:


> If they had proper mental health treatment there wouldn't be so many *on the streets* because they would accept help.
> It's a vicious circle and mental health care in the US just sucks.
> *
> Bare minimum meds to stabilize and send them out without a bit of structured treatment*.





> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> No, no crime has to be committed, *just a judge and court order*.


After that it *changed* to people in custody.



IndyDave said:


> *gave the impression* of being indicative that you were arguing against the validity and need to address the problem.


I have no control over your misconceptions.
Go back and read it slowly and chronologically and it should make more sense.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Perhaps the best solution was the old solution..., roundem up and herd them all back into institutions where they can be properly cared for.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

I wonder just how many would use churches for help but for the price.

We were really in need of a baby sitter at one point when I was sent to the day shift for a while. Tell Kare that church down on the corner of there and was there has a day care sign out front with daily rates.
Our daughter was 12 then and the son 9, good kids would rather read a book than watch TV and were pretty open minded to things people said.

How ever after just one week there we pulled the kids out and I took a vacation so I could care for them and search for a more suitable sitter.

Our kids resented the brain washing that those church people were doing for at least 4 hours per day while they were there.

We do not pray at every meal or every snack, we do not have time set aside to pray nor tell bible stories.

I can see why the home less do not want to be around those folks too.
I would rather sleep in a hog stye than listen to all that stuff and beholden to them

 Al


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> If they had proper mental health treatment there wouldn't be so many on the streets because they would accept help. It's a vicious circle and mental health care in the US just sucks. Bare minimum meds to stabilize and send them out without a bit of structured treatment. We as a people and country are better than this.


Not everyone will take help if it's offered. I say this from a place of experience. My middle brother has been homeless off and on for years . 

There are many programs out there for people who want to pull themselves out of a bad situation. My brother was in one where after a year of staying at a shelter and working they got him and apartment , payed his first months rent and got him set up with services. The contingency of this program was he had to basically stay clean of alcohol and drugs . Well he went through the program but after several months of living on his own he just stopped working and ended up on the street again. He's T1 diabetic. So we always worry . My parents have helped him countless times. Tried getting him into online courses, let him live here, bought him new clothes, a laptop and .moped to get to and from his part time job they said he had to keep. He blew that too and left with his moped and stuff. Probably sold the laptop. We've all given him $. 

It's a tough situation. But I can't say it's our govt fault. Especially since homelessness and poverty have been around for awhile. It's not a new thing.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> That is how the process works in New York, and there are variations of it across the nation. If a patient is in a facility and won't take their meds it goes to judge and he or she issues a court order to administer the medication. It happens every day, in every state in the country.
> 
> A 72 hour hold allows a facility to hold a mentally ill patient that is a danger to themselves or others involuntarily.
> 
> ...


So is your solution that you round up mentally I'll people against their will and hold them and force them to take medication?

How would you know who is and isn't legitimately mentally I'll?

Would you forcibly take people off the streets and have them tested then shipped off to institutions? What do you do with the homeless that aren't mentally I'll and actually prefer living on the street?


Eta: per your comment it seems the person in question would have to already be in a facility , diagnosed and prescribed meds before the court order to force the meds to be taken.

And how do you deem a person as a danger to themselves or others for a 72 hours hold if some act wasn't committed to give someone in authority a cause to believe that.

It would be pretty scary if the govt we're just able to pick anyone off the street . What is the criteria for this? If they won't come themselves how do you go about rounding them up and forcing help on them?


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

alleyyooper said:


> I wonder just how many would use churches for help but for the price.
> 
> We were really in need of a baby sitter at one point when I was sent to the day shift for a while. Tell Kare that church down on the corner of there and was there has a day care sign out front with daily rates.
> Our daughter was 12 then and the son 9, good kids would rather read a book than watch TV and were pretty open minded to things people said.
> ...


Alot of shelters and programs are run by churches or religious based charity. And yes like you said, some. would rather not follow their rules ( which are based on their religioius beliefs)


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Paying people to be poor tends to create more poor people.


I would suspect that depends on how much you pay them


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

dmm1976 said:


> Alot of shelters and programs are run by churches or religious based charity. And yes like you said, some. would rather not follow their rules ( which are based on their religioius beliefs)


It’s like anything Else do you have to decide whether the price is worth the product.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I would suspect that depends on how much you pay them


I like the idea of the universal basic income. I forget the exact numbers but it was something like 13k per us citizen (regardless of income )per year. But in turn whole departments of social services would be shut down. I know zuckerburg and some others were talking it up. 

Sounds great to me. That would give my family 52 k a year . 

But then I'm sure this would end up with a population explosion.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dmm1976 said:


> So is your solution that you round up mentally I'll people against their will and hold them and force them to take medication?
> 
> How would you know who is and isn't legitimately mentally I'll?
> 
> ...


I'm not going to comment on your anecdotal story about your brother, you know more about his situation that I do. But you didn't mention mental illness only drug abuse and a medical condition, so I wonder how it fits into the discussion. The mentally ill, especially the severely mentally ill, often don't realize they can ask for help until someone takes them to get it. It sounds like your brother is a rather typical manipulative addict.

I never said that people would be forcibly taken off the street for no reason, do you and other posters think they hunt on the streets with a tranq gun like Marlin Perkins? Look! That one is dirty and disheveled, choot it! I really thought the following would be common sense, but here goes- the 72 hour hold comes when someone's family calls the police or the local mental health department and states that Horace is having delusions, hearing voices, violent, etc. or LEOs find a person that is obviously having issues, a restaurant/store indicates that a person is talking to people who aren't there, etc. They are brought to a mental health care facility, interviewed, and two Drs decide if they need further treatment. Once there, they can refuse to take meds, and that's when the judge and court order comes in. 

Most, if not all, mentally ill homeless people have been in treatment and were at least in better mental heath at some point, if the treatment with oversight had been continued they could be productive members of society. Having a mental illness is no different than a medical one, both require treatment. The treatment, and especially continued oversight is what is desperately needed. 

Did you read the article I linked? What did you think of it?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

By most indicators, the US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries. It spends more on national defense than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, France and Japan combined.
US healthcare expenditures per capita are double the OECD average and much higher than in all other countries. But there are many fewer doctors and hospital beds per person than the OECD average.
US infant mortality rates in 2013 were the highest in the developed world.
Americans can expect to live shorter and sicker lives, compared to people living in any other rich democracy, and the “health gap” between the US and its peer countries continues to grow.
US inequality levels are far higher than those in most European countries
Neglected tropical diseases, including Zika, are increasingly common in the USA. It has been estimated that 12 million Americans live with a neglected parasitic infection. A 2017 report documents the prevalence of hookworm in Lowndes County, Alabama.
The US has the highest prevalence of obesity in the developed world.
In terms of access to water and sanitation the US ranks 36th in the world.
America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, ahead of Turkmenistan, El Salvador, Cuba, Thailand and the Russian Federation. Its rate is nearly five times the OECD average.
The youth poverty rate in the United States is the highest across the OECD with one quarter of youth living in poverty compared to less than 14% across the OECD.
The Stanford Center on Inequality and Poverty ranks the most well-off countries in terms of labor markets, poverty, safety net, wealth inequality, and economic mobility. The US comes in last of the top 10 most well-off countries, and 18th amongst the top 21.
In the OECD the US ranks 35th out of 37 in terms of poverty and inequality. 
According to the World Income Inequality Database, the US has the highest Gini rate (measuring inequality) of all Western Countries 
The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality characterizes the US as “a clear and constant outlier in the child poverty league”. US child poverty rates are the highest amongst the six richest countries – Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden and Norway.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...eme-poverty-america-un-special-monitor-report

Some conclusions from the UN report.

In case anyone is interested in the whole report 

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22533&LangID=E

Hard not to think the richest country the world has ever known couldn’t do better.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

The correct terminology is " Danger to self or others". There does not have to have a crime involved.
Then a 72 hour hold for psychiatric evaluation by a psychiatrist. Not a psychologist or ....

Yes, street living escalated when they emptied mental institutions. Today, with liberalism and the protection of the individual, things have gone to the absurd. People with mental issues have the same "rights" as those who have clear reasoning. In "doing good" in general, the public has decided it's better to have food kitchens, feed children 3 meals a day, etc, etc. without a thought to long range unintended consequences - perpetrating the issue by supporting those behaviors. . We cannot forget those few who are of sound mind who choose that lifestyle.
I am not talking about the people who are temporarily homeless due to job loss, etc. There are supports available for those who wish. Many overcrowded and underfunded, but they are there.
All one has to do is go to third world countries and see living conditions there to understand the poorest of the poor in America has it a thousand times better than those in other parts of the world.

An interesting topic at this time of the year when "giving to those 'less fortunate' " is at an all time high.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Respectfully, you don't understand the nature of most mental illnesses, it's just not as simple as them asking for help. Their condition could make them paranoid, hearing voices, withdrawn, and many other things. On medication most make much better choices, but they need continued followup and treatment to stay "well".
> 
> You can lock them away and force meds with a court order, it isn't even that difficult. *Nope, there are over a hundred thousand mentally ill homeless people in poverty, the official statistic is 20-25%.*


Do you know any homeless people not in poverty? Or maybe any wealthy homeless people? So what your statistic is really saying that 75-80% of those mentally ill homeless people have money but chose to be homeless? That statement doesn’t make sense at all!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Wolf mom said:


> The correct terminology is " Danger to self or others". There does not have to have a crime involved.
> Then a 72 hour hold for psychiatric evaluation by a psychiatrist. Not a psychologist or ....
> 
> Yes, street living escalated when they emptied mental institutions. Today, with liberalism and the protection of the individual, things have gone to the absurd. People with mental issues have the same "rights" as those who have clear reasoning. In "doing good" in general, the public has decided it's better to have food kitchens, feed children 3 meals a day, etc, etc. without a thought to long range unintended consequences - perpetrating the issue by supporting those behaviors. . We cannot forget those few who are of sound mind who choose that lifestyle.
> ...


An interesting aside about your last statement. I saw a report last night quoting numerous charities worried about the effect the new tax code will have on giving. The assumption being that the increased standard deduction will decrease the number of people who itemize things like charitable giving leading to a decrease in such giving.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not going to comment on your anecdotal story about your brother, you know more about his situation that I do. But you didn't mention mental illness only drug abuse and a medical condition, so I wonder how it fits into the discussion. The mentally ill, especially the severely mentally ill, often don't realize they can ask for help until someone takes them to get it. It sounds like your brother is a rather typical manipulative addict.
> 
> I never said that people would be forcibly taken off the street for no reason, do you and other posters think they hunt on the streets with a tranq gun like Marlin Perkins? Look! That one is dirty and disheveled, choot it! I really thought the following would be common sense, but here goes-* the 72 hour hold comes when someone's family calls the police or the local mental health department and states that Horace is having delusions, hearing voices, violent, etc. or LEOs find a person that is obviously having issues, a restaurant/store indicates that a person is talking to people who aren't there, etc*. They are brought to a mental health care facility, interviewed, and two Drs decide if they need further treatment. Once there, they can refuse to take meds, and that's when the judge and court order comes in.
> 
> ...


And therefore take more than a court order. Something has been reported. BFF said all that from the beginning and you and others said he was wrong until it came out of your mouth. If they aren’t causing any harm and don’t want the help that’s not my problem or any other taxpayers problem. It’s not my fault they don’t know how to milk the system like all the other deadbeats.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I would suspect that depends on how much you pay them


Currently we seem to be paying them fairly well. Enough so that they can do better than they would by taking jobs.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mental illness can inflict anyone, at any societal level, at any age, at any time, may the odds be ever in you (collective) and your family's favor. I wonder how some will handle being a "deadbeat" or having a "deadbeat" child or parent with dementia or schizophrenia?

I don't understand the complete lack of compassion in some people.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Tough Love is not _not_ being compassionate.

Sometimes you have to put the responsibility where it belongs. Mmoetc posted along list of transgressions belonging to the US. Many are misplaced. As an example, Children's care belongs with their parents - not the US. Feeding a child 3 or 2 meals a day is not helping the problem. It is perpetrating the idea that parents can depend upon others to care for their children, relieving them of the responsibility. This is only one example. 
The whole mental health, health and school system needs revamping. Morals and work ethics need to be taught in schools - parents can't/won't today. (Not those here or this discussion wouldn't be occurring)

What's that old adage, "Feed a person a fish and you feed him for today. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life". That is not only about food but about all things a person needs to be a functioning adult. The US is sadly remiss in this.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I can guarantee rounding up the mentally deficient homeless would only be a drop in the bucket. Less than 10% probably. I have an intimate knowledge of" skid row". Most homeless are abusers or people who want to be left alone. The rest are mentally impaired or people of grid running from the law. But the latter falls under wants to be left alone. 

You can't just take an abuser off the street, clean them up and expect they will not go back to it. They have to really want to get clean. There is a homeless shelter in town and had been for decades. They just got donations to expand. If you go there you still have to be clean while you are there. They will help you find a job and feed you. Out by 8am and in by 6pm. No exceptions. You break the rules you are out for a whole month. It works because people have to realize there are consequences to every action. They weed out the mental ones and get them help. Yes we still have homeless people but not as many as other places. They have helped thousands if not more. 

There are solutions but it has to be a give and take. We also need to realize there are just some people that can't be helped no matter what we do.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

dmm1976 said:


> I like the idea of the universal basic income. I forget the exact numbers but it was something like 13k per us citizen (regardless of income )per year. But in turn whole departments of social services would be shut down. I know zuckerburg and some others were talking it up.
> 
> Sounds great to me. That would give my family 52 k a year .
> 
> But then I'm sure this would end up with a population explosion.


IMO....Bad idea.
Sounds like Socialism .........Nanny state?...remove incentive....?

And being talked up by zuckerberg (your words,I hadn't heard that)....with all the money in the world....
If he (and others) are serious..they most likely be able to afford to support a whole lot of people.

This has really worked out too well....as generations of welfare recipients have become professionals.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> I can guarantee rounding up the mentally deficient homeless would only be a drop in the bucket. Less than 10% probably. I have an intimate knowledge of" skid row". Most homeless are abusers or people who want to be left alone. The rest are mentally impaired or people of grid running from the law. But the latter falls under wants to be left alone.
> 
> You can't just take an abuser off the street, clean them up and expect they will not go back to it. They have to really want to get clean. There is a homeless shelter in town and had been for decades. They just got donations to expand. If you go there you still have to be clean while you are there. They will help you find a job and feed you. Out by 8am and in by 6pm. No exceptions. You break the rules you are out for a whole month. It works because people have to realize there are consequences to every action. They weed out the mental ones and get them help. Yes we still have homeless people but not as many as other places. They have helped thousands if not more.
> 
> There are solutions but it has to be a give and take. We also need to realize there are just some people that can't be helped no matter what we do.


By mentally deficient do you mean those whose intelligence is less than normal, or those with mental illness? I agree that many homeless (not mentally ill and homeless) do not want help and know where to find if they do, it's those that don't have the capacity due to a mental illness that need treatment, and after stabilization continued treatment to stay as well as they can be. The stats for severely mentally ill homeless is currently estimated to be 20-25%. 

Did you read the article? What did you think of it?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many could get it by simply asking for help.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are right, no easy answers and no one size fits all.
I worked in a special prison unit with mentally ill inmates. They were all medication compliant. The goal of transition to General Population was seldom met. People have relapses.
I also lived and worked in an area of rural poverty. Seasonal employment and skirting by on welfare or whatever becomes a way of life. A steady good paying job becomes a long shot. Minor disabilities loom large as barriers to employment.
Recently, I have lived near and worked in Detroit. This urban city went from being the highest wage per capita in the US, in the 1960s to a rapid slide into the largest city ever to file for bankruptcy. Murder, arson and poverty are in the nation's top ten. The anti-White riots started the flight of residents and employers. The continued violence insures a continuation of that trend.
There is an anti-education culture and working for someone discouraged. Self employment abounds. That ranges from operating your own lawn care to selling crack at a playground to chopping up cars.
300 buildings are demolished each week. Vast areas of meadows are opening up, while thousands of burned and stripped homes mar every inner city neighborhood.
This decade, billions have been invested in downtown Detroit. This week, groundbreaking on a 500 foot tall skyscraper began, a billion dollar construction project. There were protest by those that object to out of town White investors taking over their city.
Last year, the State leased Detroit's Belle Isle and poured millions to restoring it, after decades of abuse. The majority of Detroiters objected to the plan, based again on the intrusion of outside influence. The bankruptcy forced the city to accept the lease.
The local Salvation Army provides thousands of meals (daily) and shelter for hundreds of the poor. This exists due to the generous donations from people in the suburbs. A number of trucks distribute coffee, hot chocolate and meat sandwiches every day. Some that receive are poor, some not. But all hungry. The list of helping hands is long.
As a condition to development in Detroit, investors were required to employ 50% Detroiters. This required free skilled trade training classes. The drop out rate was astronomical.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> By mentally deficient do you mean those whose intelligence is less than normal, or those with mental illness? I agree that many homeless (not mentally ill and homeless) do not want help and know where to find if they do, it's those that don't have the capacity due to a mental illness that need treatment, and after stabilization continued treatment to stay as well as they can be. The stats for severely mentally ill homeless is currently estimated to be 20-25%.
> 
> Did you read the article? What did you think of it?


By mentally deficient I mean having a deficiency that causes then to not be able to function (drastically) as well as someone with their full faculties. Those stats don't mean as much to me because they count addiction as having a mental illness. Addiction is a compulsive behavior that tends to override natural impulses that will cause normal thinking people to do something they know is harmful to themselves or others. That's not my definition but the industry standard. It's what my wife went to college for so I learned by being around it. I'm not sure I agree with it either. 

So if you include the addicts then yes those stats are probably about right. But I have seen many addicts " heal themselves". Therefore I don't consider it an illness _necessarily_. 

Yes I did read the article. I thought that I commented on how to fix the problem fairly straightforward. Did you read the rest of my post and if so what do you think of that solution?


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

*Inequality Is Rising Across the Globe — and Skyrocketing in the U.S.*
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...s-rising-globally-and-soaring-in-the-u-s.html

Playing the "mental Illness and Laziness card" Is utterly pathetic. Talk about dragging out Stereotyped Blaming and slapping a label on millions of people ! Many of those who were "borderline" middle class have dropped to below that level and have a company pull a layoff or shift itself offshore these people can become poor overnight as they are maxed out on credit, living pay check to pay check just scratching by and one hit can turn their worlds upside down... everyone knows someone who's taken that hit at some point... If you don't, you either don't get out enough or your blind and can't see or hear it.

Bigger concern should be as inequality continues and more people are shoved down, there will be a nasty feedback loop and that appears to be more & more likely as things continue and that will not result in "good times for all". Maybe that is the point of some, create a situation that demands troops on the street and absolute control by the state for "National Security" but will US Troops fire on civilians trying to get jobs, food, shelter and a safe place to raise their families, not likely. AI Bots don't care, maybe another reason why AI and military applications thereof is so high on the priority list... Many civie's in the states are armed, some better armed than the military even and that worries the Establishment a great deal, if civil conflict hits the states, it is going to be one giant fugly mess like none have seen in a very very long time.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many of them have mental problems and don't want any help.
> Living "in poverty" here is still a step above living in most third world countries.


Many of them have mental problems and *DO* want help. Nobody enjoys sleeping on the streets. Many of the homeless avoid the shelters because they feel the shelters are not safe, and they may be right.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...s-rising-globally-and-soaring-in-the-u-s.html
Pretty liberal mag and extreme conclusion posted....


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Terri said:


> Many of them have mental problems and *DO* want help. Nobody enjoys sleeping on the streets. Many of the homeless avoid the shelters because they feel the shelters are not safe, and they may be right.


Especially families. A charity in our city has a program to get families out of shelters and into apartments. My husband and I pay the rent on one of those apartments every month so a family can have a safe haven to get back on it's feet. Im guessing most cities have them...a great way to help.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

As the number of poor grows and the wealth of the few expands and those few hold sway over the lawmakers, we return to the historical, worldwide norm of a huge class of very poor and a select few in control. A country with a big middle class is an anomaly.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

The Catholic Church did not become one of the worlds wealthiest organizations by giving to the poor.
As I travel along Woodward Avenue, it is mostly burned out buildings, overgrown parking lots, Liquor Stores and Churches. Google Earth can show you.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not going to comment on your anecdotal story about your brother, you know more about his situation that I do. But you didn't mention mental illness only drug abuse and a medical condition, so I wonder how it fits into the discussion. The mentally ill, especially the severely mentally ill, often don't realize they can ask for help until someone takes them to get it. It sounds like your brother is a rather typical manipulative addict.
> 
> I never said that people would be forcibly taken off the street for no reason, do you and other posters think they hunt on the streets with a tranq gun like Marlin Perkins? Look! That one is dirty and disheveled, choot it! I really thought the following would be common sense, but here goes- the 72 hour hold comes when someone's family calls the police or the local mental health department and states that Horace is having delusions, hearing voices, violent, etc. or LEOs find a person that is obviously having issues, a restaurant/store indicates that a person is talking to people who aren't there, etc. They are brought to a mental health care facility, interviewed, and two Drs decide if they need further treatment. Once there, they can refuse to take meds, and that's when the judge and court order comes in.
> 
> ...


I agree we need much better mental health system. For the patient's benefit as well as society in general. I was the victim of assault and battery by a homeless psychiatric patient turned out of the treatment center back in the 80's in Bowdoin Station in Boston. Its our job as a society to take these people in and help them and protect society in general.


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

Wolf mom said:


> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...s-rising-globally-and-soaring-in-the-u-s.html
> Pretty liberal mag and extreme conclusion posted....


That Mag only picked it up, they did not write it nor it's conclusions.

Go for a walk through South Side Chicago, Lower East St-Louis or any number of other areas with a depressed economy, high unemployment and low end... 

BTW PEOPLE: There are Home-Steaders / Cabineer's on HERE because they made a choice for independence from external sources, others are here because it is the only way they can feed themselves & their families by subsistence and they are fortunate enough to have a little piece of ground to do so. Are they "Mentally Challenged or Lazy" and gaming the system ? DOES ANYONE REALIZE HOW OFFENSIVE these statements are to MANY your fellow "Homesteaders" who are not in the Wealthy Classes ? Likely 50% or more of the folks here, on this forum would be considered on the borderline of poverty.

I'm not Rich but I'm not dirt poor, just a notch above dirt poor. My military disability peanut pension is a FARCE and would not cover rent in a city let alone afford me food as well etc... Smart enough to buy a good (small) piece of top land, build a small efficient homestead and generate my own power needs, Next Spring the greenhouse and final stages are done and that's all benefitting me & mine. I made the best choice for me and mine... NOT everyone has those options or are fortunate enough to be able to do so.

FYI: Look at this and think.
*See richest, poorest U.S. cities and counties based on new Census data*
Posted September 20, 2017 at 07:00 AM | Updated September 20, 2017 at 11:47 AM
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/see_richest_poorest_us_cities.html

Don't parrot Bafflegab, use your own Critical Thinking and consider what is in front of you, down the street and across town / state / country.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Ok we lived in the South was going to go to work was told I was a Fool, this is the Poor South go on Welfare.

The city next to us has tried many things with Homeless and Pan Handlers. Gather them up, throw them in Jail disrupt them. Destroy their Camps and latest give them work. City found they were just peeing in the wind, these people did not want to change.

I've seen here So Called Homeless live in the woods here during the Summer, have the River provide for them and if they needed money just cook some Meth.

My Granddaughters Mom lives in a dump with a guy on parole. She will work just enough to get Welfare off her and get Tax Refund off our Granddaughter. They have been doing many Illegal things but the Law isn't wanting to lock him in Prison and not wanting to separate our Granddaughter from her Mom. Things are just too PC. 

The article is very one sided, yes there is many Homeless but had a Man call me the other day, he was Homeless but he can't get a Job because he is on Drugs and in turn don't have the money to pay Rent. Plus I wouldn't rent him a place because when he left it would cost a bunch getting the place back up to where it would be rentable again.

big rockpile


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Seems like there is a clear path to poverty and an equally clear path away from it.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Las Vegas eliminated their homeless or poor with bus tickets. They'd put you on a bus and send you anywhere you wanted to go. Cheaper than feeding, jail or court costs. Don't know if they still do that. But it worked.
The homeless I knew traveled with the seasons.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

haypoint said:


> Las Vegas eliminated their homeless or poor with bus tickets. They'd put you on a bus and send you anywhere you wanted to go. Cheaper than feeding, jail or court costs. Don't know if they still do that. But it worked.
> The homeless I knew traveled with the seasons.


This has been a common ploy with a number of localities, but at the end of the day foisting one's local problem onto some other locality is not a solution, merely a redistribution of the problem.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Currently we seem to be paying them fairly well. Enough so that they can do better than they would by taking jobs.


 Your situation might be different but I think that my state is well-known as a welfare land of plenty but even with that I don’t know any one on welfare who isn’t doing their best to get off of it. The problem is many of them have some sort of problem that regulates them to jobs that leave them in poverty, Still collecting welfare.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

haypoint said:


> View attachment 63730
> 
> Seems like there is a clear path to poverty and an equally clear path away from it.


 Where is Saint Lewis Mo ?
I don’t think I would trust the conclusion anymore than the spelling


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> Your situation might be different but I think that my state is well-known as a welfare land of plenty but even with that I don’t know any one on welfare who isn’t doing their best to get off of it. The problem is many of them have some sort of problem that regulates them to jobs that leave them in poverty, Still collecting welfare.


One of the bigger problems with assistance that I see is that the cutoff point is well below the income a person needs to make a living unless that person has an army of children. If a person is making a quarter of what he/she needs to survive and receives enough benefits to make up the difference how does this person get off the plantation when the benefits are taken away altogether at half the income necessary to survive?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

What a load of crap.

With all the government poverty programs and all the charities in US, there is NO way 1 in 8 people is in poverty regardless of what the Census Bureau said.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Which?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't understand the complete *lack of compassion* in some people.


One can be totally compassionate but still realize it's beyond their control.
I do my part by not being one of the homeless mentally ill.
I am mentally ill at home.
If everyone did that there would be no problem.


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many of them have mental problems and don't want any help.
> Living "in poverty" here is still a step above living in most third world countries.


41 million people is a lot of people...how many do you think are mental cases?
We have street people, but it is rather chilly here...everybody gets a monthly chit (not much, but it is better than nothing). 
And everyone gets medical care...problem we have, is some use our hospitals as a 'take a break' hotels. They are admitted, spend a week in bed, then magically get better enough to hit the streets looking for a fix.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

melli said:


> 41 million people is a lot of people...how many do you think are mental cases?


I think most people, homeless or not, are "mental cases" in one way or another.
The majority simply manage to keep it well hidden from everyone but themselves.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I'm generally a helpful guy. I grew up with an understanding that it wouldn't take much to slide into a spiral of poverty. I fought against that. I was unaware of safety nets and took every situation that I could to turn a buck
I have many times crossed paths with people down on their luck. No skills, no job, no friends or family. It seemed that if I'd be generous, ease the burden, create an opportunity for them. In most of these cases it wasn't a rough patch they were going through. They had adopted a lifestyle of finding sympathetic people, like me, and draining as much as they could before moving on. They had burned all their family, betrayed all their friends and were gliding through life on the generosity and labors of others. "Work is for fools." could be their motto.
I've seen people that just can't keep a job. Always something that doesn't suit them. Then there is always an excuse to not go to work. "My toe hurts", "I thought I was having a panic attack", " My car's battery is dead and it'll take a week to get another battery." They see their job in a more casual way. Then, of course, they get fired.
If I don't want to struggle to earn money to spend it on a room with a bed, who are you to set me up with a job that enables me to have shelter? Don't put your living styles on me. Like taking Native Americans and getting them out of their traditional garb and dressing them to look like us. Why do you get to decide I must get an education?


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

Interesting....half the folks think here think they are bums with addiction issues. 
I used to think that way...that is, get off your behind and get to work. I guess getting old has made me soft. I say give them a monthly stipend...enough so they are not robbing someone. Simple economics and good karma. Sure, many will milk it, and they do...so what. I don't have to sleep with a bad conscience. And as far as taxes go, welfare is a drop in the bucket. 
It does worry me that many folks are having to visit food banks to make ends meet...or that our millennials are couch surfing, or living in RVs/tents. Even when I was young, plugging away at a min pay job, at least I could afford a rental and a car. Then I got lucky and got a union paying job to put me through school...fat chance of that happening now. Heck, near the end of school I was living well...lol
Now they are saddled with huge student debt loads that will never leave them...no wonder we have an ever increasing divide between have nots and haves.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

melli said:


> Interesting....half the folks think here think they are bums with addiction issues.
> I used to think that way...that is, get off your behind and get to work. I guess getting old has made me soft. I say give them a monthly stipend...enough so they are not robbing someone. Simple economics and good karma. Sure, many will milk it, and they do...so what. I don't have to sleep with a bad conscience. And as far as taxes go, welfare is a drop in the bucket.
> It does worry me that many folks are having to visit food banks to make ends meet...or that our millennials are couch surfing, or living in RVs/tents. Even when I was young, plugging away at a min pay job, at least I could afford a rental and a car. Then I got lucky and got a union paying job to put me through school...fat chance of that happening now. Heck, near the end of school I was living well...lol
> Now they are saddled with huge student debt loads that will never leave them...no wonder we have an ever increasing divide between have nots and haves.


You have raised several good points. I would suggest that a good adjustment to one's perspective is to stop and consider how close one may be to homelessness himself or herself in the event of something going seriously wrong in their lives, like losing that good job that is not readily replaceable, leading to no or greatly reduced income, being struck with a personal tragedy which inhibits effective functioning, like losing a spouse, for example, and not recovering within the three to five days that most employers afford. When I was in school, I had a history/psychology teacher (I don't remember which class was the platform for raising the subject) explain that the average American was, if I remember correctly, 3 paychecks from homelessness.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

melli said:


> I say give them a monthly stipend.


Whose money are you going to use?
How will that help their mental problems?



melli said:


> It does worry me that many folks are having to visit food banks to make ends meet...or that our millennials are couch surfing, or living in RVs/tents.


What has that "worrying" done to change anything other than your own stress levels?



melli said:


> Now they are saddled with huge student debt loads that will never leave them...no wonder we have *an ever increasing divide between have nots and haves*.


It's not increasing.
There have always been the haves and the have nots.
It's been the way of the world for the whole of human existence.

Nothing is going to change that.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I have a friend that has spent the past 40 years jumping from job to job, town to town, looking for the next opportunity. She drove truck for awhile, numerous factories, cleaning motels. But she was also an alcoholic and often depended on the sympathy of others to get her through. That life has taken its toll on her health. Finally, she got off the booze. She lived a few years in a run down camper in an old empty barn, in exchange for help with chores and dog sitting. Now she is drawing a small social security check. She lives in a motor home, financed through her daughter. She was in Michigan for the summer, parking for free at friend's driveway and now parked in the AZ desert, for free. But she's one major repair away from homelessness.

I see churches and communities with food give away. Cars line up to get food. Every situation is different, but if you can drive your $40,000 vehicle to pick up free food, are you needy or just spending your grocery money on ipads, cable tv and hair salons?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

haypoint said:


> I have a friend that has spent the past 40 years jumping from job to job, town to town, looking for the next opportunity. She drove truck for awhile, numerous factories, cleaning motels. But she was also an alcoholic and often depended on the sympathy of others to get her through. That life has taken its toll on her health. Finally, she got off the booze. She lived a few years in a run down camper in an old empty barn, in exchange for help with chores and dog sitting. Now she is drawing a small social security check. She lives in a motor home, financed through her daughter. She was in Michigan for the summer, parking for free at friend's driveway and now parked in the AZ desert, for free. But she's one major repair away from homelessness.
> 
> I see churches and communities with food give away. Cars line up to get food. Every situation is different, but if you can drive your $40,000 vehicle to pick up free food, are you needy or just spending your grocery money on ipads, cable tv and hair salons?


It is very true that people often do much to manufacture their own misfortunes, and dealing with it at a personal level can be difficult. It is also nearly impossible to prevent abuses like selling SNAP benefits for, say 50¢ on the dollar for cash unless you keep the recipients in a controlled environment even though it is illegal and supposedly extremely difficult to use this money for anything but food.

I will also grant you that protecting the stupid from themselves is generally a fool's errand.

The problem for me is that of how one can accept allowing people to suffer unnecessarily, allowing children to suffer even if the root cause is the grocery money going up mom's nose rather than into the refrigerator, or just general inability to manage one's own affairs in a reasonably effective manner. Then you have to deal with the implications of those who truly are in circumstances that simply are not conducive to making it on their own. We have evolved as a society in a way that does not encourage and often penalizes people from surviving as they could manage generally by way of government interference. For me, the moment of revelation was several years ago when the police shut down a little girl's lemonade stand (!) because it was a business operating in violation of local ordinances.

At a personal level, I find this a more complex issue than most others, especially given that my brand of Christian belief overlaps with charity, albeit often applied in different ways than the traditional secular liberal approach. In one example a few years back, there was a family which had a number of self-manufactured issues in addition to unfortunate circumstances. Among other problems, they couldn't afford heating oil and from what I gather the township trustee was getting pretty tired of them for reasons I can speculate but not know. Someone else gave them a wood stove. I bought them a chainsaw. Problem solved. I like this type of solution better than simply throwing money, but I do have a problem with doing absolutely nothing as much as I have a problem with acting blindly at the expense of others. The problem I see with my approach is that for most people the 'puppies and kittens' effect sets in where people's voluntary personal charity is often guided by cuteness and the warm fuzzy feeling rather than assessment of need. On one hand, I can understand people being more sympathetic with children than with adults they see as having done much to create their own misfortune. On the other, the actual purpose cannot be achieved by helping only those who make you say "awww".


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> I will also grant you that protecting the stupid from themselves is generally a fool's errand.


Giving a person food or money for food often doesn't solve anything. To insure the person or their children get the food requires constant oversight.
Right now we have a popular member of HT that is struggling with his finances. Partly his fault, partly the cards he was dealt. One day, he says good-by, he was faced with home heat or internet, chose heat. His daughter offered to help by paying for his internet. A couple days later he is buying parts for his grain planting equipment. Poor choice? Good plan? Anyone's business? Does society have an obligation to fund poor choices?
If our main concern is the proper care of children and we cannot insure how the money is spent, placing children into Church or State operated orphanages solves that concern. Not sure if we need to fund the lives and lifestyles of able bodied people. The most economical method to insure food, shelter and safety to able bodied homeless is the re-establishing County Farms. For the mentally ill in group homes or living on the street, State operated Mental institutions that provided food, housing and operated economically by employing these patients as to their abilities.
Any parent that becomes able to care for their children would, of course be able to rejoin their family. Generally, the loss of their children to a orphanage would serve as an incentive to become self supporting. For the parents that are not motivated, perhaps their children would be better off in an orphanage.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

haypoint said:


> Giving a person food or money for food often doesn't solve anything. To insure the person or their children get the food requires constant oversight.
> Right now we have a popular member of HT that is struggling with his finances. Partly his fault, partly the cards he was dealt. One day, he says good-by, he was faced with home heat or internet, chose heat. His daughter offered to help by paying for his internet. A couple days later he is buying parts for his grain planning equipment. Poor choice? Good plan? Anyone's business? Does society have an obligation to fund poor choices?
> If our main concern is the proper care of children and we cannot insure how the money is spent, placing children into Church or State operated orphanages solves that concern. Not sure if we need to fund the lives and lifestyles of able bodied people. The most economical method to insure food, shelter and safety to able bodied homeless is the re-establishing County Farms. For the mentally ill in group homes or living on the street, State operated Mental institutions that provided food, housing and operated economically by employing these patients as to their abilities.
> Any parent that becomes able to care for their children would, of course be able to rejoin their family. Generally, the loss of their children to a orphanage would serve as an incentive to become self supporting. For the parents that are not motivated, perhaps their children would be better off in an orphanage.


You raise a number of good points. You could also add to this that if a solution can effectively be supplied, for 5 people, you will likely have 6 different and mutually exclusive answers. You could also address the lack of constitutional authority to do anything, which weighs heavily on me. On the other hand, I would have to concede two points here: First, we don't generally follow the Constitution anyway, and second, the Constitution was designed for the governance of a people much different from today's society generally lacking the virtues of our forbears.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

haypoint said:


> Cars line up to get food. Every situation is different, but if you can drive your $40,000 vehicle to pick up free food, are you needy or just spending your grocery money on ipads, cable tv and hair salons?


Appearances can be deceptive. My neighbor lined up for "free food" in a pretty good car: The problem for her was that her husband had just walked out, taking with him all the money plus his paycheck, leaving her with empty cupboards and 3 small kids to feed. She went to the food pantry until she could get on food stamps, nice car and all. Sure she could have sold the car but then how could she have looked for work? There is no bus route where we live.

There was a recession on, so she sucked it up and relied on whatever would keep her kids fed until she found work 6 months later. Yes he paid child support but it barely paid the house payment, let alone for food.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Terri said:


> Appearances can be deceptive. My neighbor lined up for "free food" in a pretty good car: The problem for her was that her husband had just walked out, taking with him all the money plus his paycheck, leaving her with empty cupboards and 3 small kids to feed. She went to the food pantry until she could get on food stamps, nice car and all. Sure she could have sold the car but then how could she have looked for work? There is no bus route where we live.
> 
> There was a recession on, so she sucked it up and relied on whatever would keep her kids fed until she found work 6 months later. Yes he paid child support but it barely paid the house payment, let alone for food.


Yes the devil is in the details. But I didn't mean to imply that once in awhile I saw a new car in the lineup for free food, it was common, like every other car.
In Flint, for a variety of reasons, free bottled water is handed out at many locations on a daily basis. Everyone loads up and homes are filled with free water. Some sell it to people of other cities. Human nature to take free stuff.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

Out at our "Place" down the road a ways, lived a guy, with a donkey, goat and dog.....in a blue school bus in the river bottom.
Don't know what the deal was...but he didn't own the land,... but some say he was squatting, some say his family let him live there...and supported him to keep him out of the way.....Not sure.

Was a "different kinda guy' and didn't seem to be all there to a lot of people.
So did he have mental problems? Did he just couldn't deal with people? Was he not able to work?
Or just chose the life style....

His bus flooded in the rivers 100 year flood,...for a couple of years...so built a yurt on the up hill side of the road....and live there for a couple of years.

There is a lot more to this story....but when offered some of our big batch of hunting camp chilli , he declined..."I'm a vegan".

Then again ...one year was real cold and snowy....there had been no signs of life in and around his bus.....so the sheriff went looking for him.
He and his animals were gone.

He returned a couple of months later...and when asked "what happened"....He said, "I just decided to go to Hawaii....so I boarded the animals and went for a couple of months."

My guess is that he just lived that lifestyle because he wanted to...mental problems(?) but functioning.....
Would anyone suggest he be picked up for forced "Help" ?
Just some thing to keep in mind as try to impose our values and ways on those that don't want "Help"


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

haypoint said:


> Giving a person food or money for food often doesn't solve anything. To insure the person or their children get the food requires constant oversight.
> Right now we have a popular member of HT that is struggling with his finances. Partly his fault, partly the cards he was dealt. One day, he says good-by, he was faced with home heat or internet, chose heat. His daughter offered to help by paying for his internet. A couple days later he is buying parts for his grain planning equipment. Poor choice? Good plan? Anyone's business? Does society have an obligation to fund poor choices?
> If our main concern is the proper care of children and we cannot insure how the money is spent, placing children into Church or State operated orphanages solves that concern. Not sure if we need to fund the lives and lifestyles of able bodied people. The most economical method to insure food, shelter and safety to able bodied homeless is the re-establishing County Farms. For the mentally ill in group homes or living on the street, State operated Mental institutions that provided food, housing and operated economically by employing these patients as to their abilities.
> Any parent that becomes able to care for their children would, of course be able to rejoin their family. Generally, the loss of their children to a orphanage would serve as an incentive to become self supporting. For the parents that are not motivated, perhaps their children would be better off in an orphanage.


Giving food and money to those in poverty does solve a lot. It will keep many, if not most, off the streets. It will keep many from resorting to the merry-go-round of our justice system. It will give those who were born into poverty a chance to not only have a normal childhood, but move on from it, once they leave the nest. 
I get there will always be a percentage who choose live off the teet of the taxpayer...but doing nothing guarantees it. Not long ago we looked at the cost to the taxpayer...it was down the list, in terms of total outlay. 
When I was young, I took a trip to India. At the time, one of last places on earth I wanted to visit, but circumstances had me visiting/vacationing there. What an eye opener. At the time, that place had no social safety net at all. Here I was, in a 4-5 star hotel (surreal hotel suite at a bargain rate relative to our income), and across the street was a shanty town that stretch into the horizon. It took my breathe away to see the absolute squalor these folks lived in. Recently, I saw slumdog millionaire. The part where they disfigure kids so they become 'more efficient' beggars is no joke...it is real. Here I was, strolling down the streets of Madras (now Chennai), and these disfigured kids were strewn about. It takes a special kind of person to walk by without taking notice of their plight. 
Poverty is growing on both sides of border...and here, we do give a monthly check and free health care. Problem is, the check has not kept pace with reality (cost of living). Vancouver is one of the most expensive places to live in the world. And finding an affordable place to stay is getting worse. Just read how one poverty hotel got hit with 400+ bylaw infractions for safety issues. 
I'm sorry, but I don't want to see our cities having shanty towns. Very rare does a person ever leave them. And worse, especially nowadays, it is gobbling up our young folk...those, for whatever reason, made a wrong turn or didn't have the backstop of able parents. Socioeconomic studies have shown time and time again, that poverty begets poverty, wealthy begets wealthy. Even wealthy screw-ups can make poor choices after poor choices, yet over time can right the ship with enough detox visits. Same cannot be said for those on edge of poverty or those in it. 
Back in my parents age, pretty much anyone could pull themselves out of poverty by getting a job. In my age, it was an education that did it. Nowadays, neither is enough.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You raise a number of good points. You could also add to this that if a solution can effectively be supplied, for 5 people, you will likely have 6 different and mutually exclusive answers. You could also address the lack of constitutional authority to do anything, which weighs heavily on me. On the other hand, I would have to concede two points here: First, we don't generally follow the Constitution anyway, and second, the Constitution was designed for the governance of a people much different from today's society generally lacking the virtues of our forbears.


Nothing in the Constitution about the multi-billion dollar Welfare Program either. Doling out free stuff to strangers is fraught with problems. You'd have to oversee every detail of their lives to insure your help was properly applied.
Long ago, a woman with child was cared for by the Church. But often there were strings attached. She'd need to attend church. She would often be given food the church members donated/selected. She may be offered babysitting or house cleaning jobs. She was cared for. But, as soon as she had men overnight or began doing drugs, the help stopped. This directed moral behavior. Perhaps prevented a succession of dependents. I know a few that would chaff at the thought of Churches controlling the poor.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

melli said:


> Giving food and money to those in poverty does solve a lot


Food can be a medium of exchange for drugs.


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

haypoint said:


> Food can be a medium of exchange for drugs.


There will always be downsides. Those downsides pale in comparison to the upsides. 
Someone ripping off your car you use to go to work in, so they can feed their addiction sounds worse than a junkie using food to buy a fix.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Giving people something for nothing never works, give them something to do to earn their keep and then they become proud of what they have. 
Free; housing, food, clothes are worth every penny the recipient paid for them.

Give people a hand up, not a hand out.

Say all you want about FDR, but he understood that programs like the WPA and the CCC gave people dignity while giving them money, and it provided public projects.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

We have spilled a lot of characters on the screen discussing what does not or will not work. Do we have any thoughts about what will work? Mention of the CCC stood out to me by virtue of one of its original albeit unadvertised goals, which was to keep young people prone to rioting and hooliganism so far out in the forest that they didn't have an opportunity to get into any trouble. That in itself seems rich with possibility for the present.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

$22,000,000,000,000. If my ciphering is correct, that's twenty-two trillion dollars. That's a lot of money.

http://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> $22,000,000,000,000. If my ciphering is correct, that's twenty-two trillion dollars. That's a lot of money.
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years


Yep, that's a lot of money.... But at least we've solved the poverty problem!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

And what I gather from the five pages of posts is: the gist is that "it's not my problem, these people want to have untreated health (medical and mental) issues and live on the streets." It's too hard, too costly, and time consuming to actually help fellow human beings, right? 

Self medication can quickly turn the mentally ill into addicts, and it's rarely the other way around, the person starts off as mentally ill and seeks relief in drugs and/or alcohol.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> And what I gather from the five pages of posts is: the gist is that "it's not my problem, these people want to have untreated health (medical and mental) issues and live on the streets." It's too hard, too costly, and time consuming to actually help fellow human beings, right?


We all see what we want to see.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> We all see what we want to see.


Why did you feel the need to not quote the final sentence of my post? It was the most important to the subject.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> And what I gather from the five pages of posts is: the gist is that "it's not my problem, these people want to have untreated health (medical and mental) issues and live on the streets." It's too hard, too costly, and time consuming to actually help fellow human beings, right?
> 
> Self medication can quickly turn the mentally ill into addicts, and it's rarely the other way around, the person starts off as mentally ill and seeks relief in drugs and/or alcohol.


No that's not the " gist" at all. Only a few have assumed that stance. I watched 60 minutes last night for the first time in several decades. On it was an ex DEA agent that claimed he had proof enough to convict a major pharmaceutical company for illegally distributing drugs. Several high ranking DEA officials confirmed it as well as a NH senator/congresswoman. (Can't remember which as I was in the kitchen at that time). Many pharmacies/doctor's are in on it. Congress made them back off. 

This morning I found science magazine's that agree with that even though they are dated way before the investigation was made public. 

So you see there has to be some accountability to those responsible for this epidemic before much of anything can be done. Otherwise, it's like trying to fill a laundry basket with water. You'll only end up with about a 1/2" on the bottom.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I would add that the narcan available to just about anything with fingers to administer it is another ploy for corporate dominance. And just as dangerous.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> No that's not the " gist" at all. Only a few have assumed that stance. I watched 60 minutes last night for the first time in several decades. On it was an ex DEA agent that claimed he had proof enough to convict a major pharmaceutical company for illegally distributing drugs. Several high ranking DEA officials confirmed it as well as a NH senator/congresswoman. (Can't remember which as I was in the kitchen at that time). Many pharmacies/doctor's are in on it. Congress made them back off.
> 
> This morning I found science magazine's that agree with that even though they are dated way before the investigation was made public.
> 
> So you see there has to be some accountability to those responsible for this epidemic before much of anything can be done. Otherwise, it's like trying to fill a laundry basket with water. You'll only end up with about a 1/2" on the bottom.


I skimmed the same article, and I'm appalled that the pharmaceutical companies are only getting a slap on the wrist. They are finally starting to charge some doctors/clinics, but I'm afraid it's too little too late. Many of the people legitimately prescribed opioids are now on heroin, or dead. 

It's my opinion that the gist of this thread is "it's not my problem, these people want to have untreated health (medical and mental) issues and live on the streets." Perhaps you don't feel that way, I certainly don't, but many many other posters do.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I skimmed the same article, and I'm appalled that the pharmaceutical companies are only getting a slap on the wrist. They are finally starting to charge some doctors/clinics, but I'm afraid it's too little too late. Many of the people legitimately prescribed opioids are now on heroin, or dead.
> 
> It's my opinion that the gist of this thread is "it's not my problem, these people want to have untreated health (medical and mental) issues and live on the streets." Perhaps you don't feel that way, I certainly don't, but many many other posters do.


On the show last night they also said that so far 42 (I think) AG's in various states are beginning the process of filling suit. Like they did with big tobacco. We'll see how that works out.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why did you feel the need to not quote the final sentence of my post? It was the most important to the subject.


Because you had 2 separate thoughts in your post, one I want to reply to, one I did not.
No one is required to comment on everything you post.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> Because you had 2 separate thoughts in your post, one I want to reply to, one I did not.
> No one is required to comment on everything you post.


You're completely right, yet you chose the personal rather than salient... Just an observation.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

IndyDave said:


> We have spilled a lot of characters on the screen discussing what does not or will not work. Do we have any thoughts about what will work? Mention of the CCC stood out to me by virtue of one of its original albeit unadvertised goals, which was to keep young people prone to rioting and hooliganism so far out in the forest that they didn't have an opportunity to get into any trouble. That in itself seems rich with possibility for the present.



I'll just give my two cents


The mentally ill-the true mentally ill who can't take care of themselves, should be hospitalized in humane concitions
The meantally ill, who can take care of themselves but occassinally slip into illness. Need support services to ensure they keep up with treatment and access to programs when they do have relapses
The mentaly ill who are generally doing weell need access to support systems to ensure they stay that way
Ones who find themselves impoversished through unforesseable circumstances-sudden job losses, death in family-nee resources to build new life-i.e. sufficent UI
Constant impoverished-need job training, work fare etc for those who are capable
Young mothers who are impoverished need solid resources so that their young baby/child are able to be raised to hopefully be a productive member of society. Generally I would see that the mother would be supported for firstyear-18 months. After that training, workfare with daycare provide.
So I generally on compassion for ones who truly cannot function in a "normal" manner and a bit of the "tough love" approach for others. Obviously this is a very generalized system.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're completely right, yet you chose the personal rather than salient... Just an observation.


To you perhaps, but like I said, we see what we want to see.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

haypoint said:


> I see churches and communities with food give away. Cars line up to get food. Every situation is different, but if you can drive your $40,000 vehicle to pick up free food, are you needy or just spending your grocery money on ipads, cable tv and hair salons?


I worked at a food pantry in Indianapolis but a while and I saw a lot of those high dollar cars pull up and people come inside for food.
For a long time it made me mad but after a while I got to know those people. The story for most of them is they have borrowed a car from someone who believes in them. In other cases that car is forced on them. Yeah I know that sounds really weird but one lady I knew who usually drove a $200 POS would show up from time to time in a new Lincoln so I asked her about it. It turns out she is a full time maid to a wealthy family (80+hours a week)lives with them
And earns something $100 a week. When they are gone they require her to drive the new Lincoln so that their dogs get out of the house and don’t have to ride in her nasty little car.

She hates it because she has to pay for the gas and it uses a lot.
I also know illegal immigrant with children in almost exact same situation.
Another woman was divorced and got a nice house and Mercedes that she gets to use for the rest of her life. She can’t sell them and she can’t afford to buy something else it just wouldn’t make any sense to do so,so while she wears a nice mink coat and always is very well-dressed she works at Walmart and barely keep up with the bills. 
I’m sure there are other reasons people drive new cars while living in poverty but those just happened to be the stories I myself am acquainted with.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

There are 342,000,000 Americans that are just one EMP or one CME from being in the same situation.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I skimmed the same article, and I'm appalled that the pharmaceutical companies are only getting a slap on the wrist. They are finally starting to charge some doctors/clinics, but I'm afraid it's too little too late. Many of the people legitimately prescribed opioids are now on heroin, or dead.
> 
> It's my opinion that the gist of this thread is "it's not my problem, these people want to have untreated health (medical and mental) issues and live on the streets." Perhaps you don't feel that way, I certainly don't, but many many other posters do.


Well, my primary residence is in Los Angeles, lived here almost 60 years. About 5-6 years a go our homeless population was around 4-5 thousand. Now it's somewhere above 60 thousand. I deal with them everyday. They were invited here by the promise of "free" stuff by our politicians, and they got it to the tune of more than 2 billion in new taxes. Businesses like mine have left or are leaving in droves because of the business climate here is so unfriendly. Most don't want any help because they found that they can make more in one day than they can earn in a week at a real job, where they would have to "conform". Their perfectly happy taking whatever they can get from the tax payers, standing on the freeway off ramps, in front of stores, just walking around asking for money.(they never take food or jobs by the way) We have a cottage industry that does nothing but direct folks to what "free" services are available! So, i believe them when they tell me they like it this way. And all of them already get free medical care through medical even illegal aliens! Oh, and the er trip is free too! ymmv


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I think most of us agree that just giving money to the poor and homeless isn't solving much. Some are critical of people that shrug their shoulders and turn away from this problem.
For everyone that wants more money caring and feeding and sheltering the poor, start by taking on into your home. You could insure the food was healthy and not sold for drugs. You could supervise their behavior, insuring they stayed off drugs, etc. Keep those awful Churches out of it and gets that evil big government from messing things up. You could serve as an example fore the rest of us.
While you are at it, if you prefer open borders, seek out an illegal alien family and put them in your spare room or rent them an apartment. Sort of putting your actions where your mouth is.
Next, get a family of Syrian refugees to move in and you make them welcome in this great land of immigrants. What a beacon of hope and an example to us all.

Taxing the working poor to provide for government handouts to the very poor isn't so attractive to the guy living pay check to pay check and already owes China $50,000 for his share of the national debt. But to my loving liberal friends, stop the chatter, adopt a few and get back with me once they are self-supporting.


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

Jolly said:


> $22,000,000,000,000. If my ciphering is correct, that's twenty-two trillion dollars. That's a lot of money.
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years


I thought the article would have semblance of being unbiased, but when they make bullet items like this:

"Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, at the beginning of the War on Poverty, only about 12 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning."
"Ninety-two percent of poor households have a microwave."

Well, obviously, in the 60's, AC was not that common and microwaves were not in existence.

And the attack on single families as the cause of welfare roles is silly. In the past, women were chattel, expected to suffer in a relationship. And I'm trying to figure out where the 22 trillion number was derived.

Ahhh, then I see Heritage Foundation is con think tank..."The Heritage Foundation is to formulate and promote conservative public policies...."
Drives me nuts when we have these 'think tanks' spewing out their ideology under the guise of fact.


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

haypoint said:


> I think most of us agree that just giving money to the poor and homeless isn't solving much. Some are critical of people that shrug their shoulders and turn away from this problem.
> For everyone that wants more money caring and feeding and sheltering the poor, start by taking on into your home. You could insure the food was healthy and not sold for drugs. You could supervise their behavior, insuring they stayed off drugs, etc. Keep those awful Churches out of it and gets that evil big government from messing things up. You could serve as an example fore the rest of us.
> While you are at it, if you prefer open borders, seek out an illegal alien family and put them in your spare room or rent them an apartment. Sort of putting your actions where your mouth is.
> Next, get a family of Syrian refugees to move in and you make them welcome in this great land of immigrants. What a beacon of hope and an example to us all.
> ...


Problem is, the Liberal crowd is already paying for the Conservative heartland...in effect, they have adopted a conservative American already...I guess conservatives don't want upset that deal.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

melli said:


> I thought the article would have semblance of being unbiased, but when they make bullet items like this:
> 
> "Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, at the beginning of the War on Poverty, only about 12 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning."
> "Ninety-two percent of poor households have a microwave."
> ...


Are you disputing the numbers or just who presented them? I'm also in agreement with their premise that single parent families make up the bulk of the welfare roles.... Unless of course you have data to contradict it.


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Are you disputing the numbers or just who presented them? I'm also in agreement with their premise that single parent families make up the bulk of the welfare roles.... Unless of course you have data to contradict it.


The 'study' is bunk. Propaganda. 
Shallow attempt to push conservatism. 
BTW - I am all for less government, a more efficient government. Doesn't have to exclude basic sustenance.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

melli said:


> The 'study' is bunk. Propaganda.
> Shallow attempt to push conservatism.
> BTW - I am all for less government, a more efficient government. Doesn't have to exclude basic sustenance.


Oh, I agree completely that as a society we need to take care of those that are unable to care for themselves. I was just curious as to whether you were satisfied with the stats used in the article. They do seem to closely parallel those I have found elsewhere over the years. They also seem to indicate that we must be doing something amiss else our nations "poor" would be doing quite well with the amount of money we've tossed at the problem.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

melli said:


> I thought the article would have semblance of being unbiased, but when they make bullet items like this:
> 
> "Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, at the beginning of the War on Poverty, only about 12 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning."
> "Ninety-two percent of poor households have a microwave."
> ...


And yet that study is held up as the pinnacle of all that's wrong, I read it, and wondered if those that approved even skimmed it. SMH


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

melli said:


> Problem is, the Liberal crowd is already paying for the Conservative heartland...in effect, they have adopted a conservative American already...I guess conservatives don't want upset that deal.


Conservative heartland? You mean what liberals call Fly Over Country, the place where all that GMO food is grown to feed the world, raise cattle in feed lots, chickens in cages, create all that gluten and high fructose corn syrup and where your pizza delivery guy and your Uber driver's car was built?
So since you think you are somehow supporting rural America, what's your plan for the exploding population of homeless in these blue pockets of liberal thinking?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

melli said:


> Problem is, the Liberal crowd is already paying for the Conservative heartland...in effect, they have adopted a conservative American already...I guess conservatives don't want upset that deal.


That's the truth the entitled that receive the liberal largesse fails to grasp, isn't it? The liberals pay for most of the poor in the south as well.


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh, I agree completely that as a society we need to take care of those that are unable to care for themselves. I was just curious as to whether you were satisfied with the stats used in the article. They do seem to closely parallel those I have found elsewhere over the years. They also seem to indicate that we must be doing something amiss else our nations "poor" would be doing quite well with the amount of money we've tossed at the problem.


Articles that push an agenda are garbage...imho. Not some of it, but all of it. Initially, while I was reading it, I thought wow, a bona fide article...then as I got further down into the meat of the article I was like whoa...lol. Numbers were thrown about without any proof, and conclusions drawn without proof.
Still no idea where they got 20 trillion. Does sound like a nice catchy number though...
And I agree, huge sums of money have been spent on the poor. Was it all a waste? I don't think so. I definitely think on the administration side, lots was wasted. The HUD program is an example.
What happens invariably, is that when government administers a program, the jackals come out the woodwork and abuse it.

Now, about the LA homeless problem...how many of those 55,000 homeless folks came to LA because the climate is more suitable to street living? For instance, we have the largest homeless population in Canada, because Vancouver is the warmest place to live in winter...still friggin cold, but it beats -30C back east. Most of the homeless came from somewhere else. Just the way it is...and we have aid organizations set up all over the city, but mainly in downtown east side. A real circus down there.
Basically, we have concentrated all our poor into one zip code. And it isn't just the homeless, but the seedy single occupancy 'hotel' rooms for those with a roof over their heads at night. Some of these places are worse than sleeping under a bridge.
Very few are leaving the hotels for a better life. They are trapped in a system and a place that offers nothing, except seedy bars and rampant drugs. And once a person enters this environment, they are not leaving.

Haypoint - this isn't just about the heartland. While the conservative states do consume more dole than the liberal states, the problem is all over, and getting worse. Used to be that a heartland worker could make a living at some factory/mine...not anymore. The heartland has been hollowed out. Everybody is chasing fewer good jobs. My time on a farm was really the last of an era, one in which, a family could make a living farming a few sections. Now, conglomerates are buying up farmland, and turning the family farm into a corporation, where 10,000+ acre spreads are common, and livestock ops are factories. Our old farmhouse and accessory buildings are gone...
Governments loathe to see their food production falter (for good reason), so they subsidize it. Ultimately though, whenever a government subsidizes something, that subsidy not only comes out of all our pockets, but that industry becomes inefficient. Same could be said for our collective subsidy on the poor. We have created a class of poor folks with no out. We don't give them enough to get out...heck, we don't give them enough to survive. So, we build more jails and hire more police. Not very productive. We have folks yammering about how the poor abuse the system, but offer nothing in the way of solution, except a swift kick in the rear, which is really what we are doing already. And the results speak for themselves.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

melli said:


> Articles that push an agenda are garbage...imho. Not some of it, but all of it.


The New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, etc will be sad to hear you say that.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> Still no idea where they got 20 trillion. Does sound like a nice catchy number though...


The Heritage Foundation's report has full footnotes. I suspect using constant dollars, the figure is correct. To look at just one year from another source, the House Budget Committee said we spent just shy of $800 billion in 2012.

https://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/war_on_poverty.pdf


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

melli said:


> We have folks yammering about how the poor abuse the system, but offer nothing in the way of solution, except a swift kick in the rear, which is really what we are doing already. And the results speak for themselves.


Well, here we offer opportunity. We offer at least twelve years of free education. (That is supposed to be helpful with employment.) We offer free housing, free food, free medical care, free utilities, monthly checks..... The list goes on and on. And yes... The results do seem to speak for themselves. We have spent vast fortunes to increase the numbers of poor folks.


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

mnn2501 said:


> The New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, etc will be sad to hear you say that.


In a perfect world, news organs would dispense news without any bias. Obviously, that isn't the case. At the very least, I'd hope a news outlet would dispense news with a bias reflective of the people it serves. That is, not pushing an ulterior motive. Sadly, this is either becoming more common, or we have become more cognizant of it. 

It seems to me, that we all are becoming skeptics of everything, to the point, paranoia reigns. It allows fringe ideals to become mainstream. We are all descending down the rabbit hole. I remember long ago when those checkout tabloids appeared...I was wondering who reads that garbage? Now, those tabloids are mainstream...fact and fiction have merged. It is telling when most folks believe Aliens (outer space kind) live among us...yet they haven't a shred of proof. I know someone who paid for a frigging vacation to New Mexico (somewhere down there) to see live aliens! I'm like whoa. I find it hard to talk to this person anymore, given their belief.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Is it really worse today than in days past?

“Hearst’s papers catered to urban working people, many of whom were recent immigrants. His papers favored labor unions, progressive taxation, and municipal ownership of utilities. They featured abundant pictures, advice to the lovelorn columns, and sentimental stories. Favoring Irish and German readers in particular, the papers condemned British influence and spread fears about the ‘yellow peril’ of Asian immigration.

In 1898, Hearst championed the Cuban rebels and welcomed the U.S. declaration of war against Spain. At the height of the crisis more than a million copies of the Journal were sold each day. Hearst ordered a reporter to scuttle a ship in the Suez Canal to stop the Spanish fleet and waded ashore in Cuba to accept the surrender of a group of Spaniards. In Hearst’s mind, a publisher and a president had equal right to act for the nation.”

http://www.history.com/topics/william-randolph-hearst


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> Is it really worse today than in days past?
> 
> “Hearst’s papers catered to urban working people, many of whom were recent immigrants. His papers favored labor unions, progressive taxation, and municipal ownership of utilities. They featured abundant pictures, advice to the lovelorn columns, and sentimental stories. Favoring Irish and German readers in particular, the papers condemned British influence and spread fears about the ‘yellow peril’ of Asian immigration.
> 
> ...


Interesting read...he left behind quite the home. 
Odd guy...socialist, yet a racist and warmonger. He catered to immigrants, just not Asian immigrants.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

melli said:


> Interesting read...he left behind quite the home.
> Odd guy...socialist, yet a racist and warmonger. He catered to immigrants, just not Asian immigrants.


Every generation has its immigrant villains. The sentiment stays the same, who it’s directed at changes through time.

But back to media bias. Hearst is just one example of a long, proud tradition of partisan journalism. Our revolution wouldn’t have gotten off the ground without those early broadsheets.

https://allthingsliberty.com/2015/02/top-10-revolutionary-war-newspapers/

Back when I was living and working in Chicago you could tell much about a person just by seeing which of the two daily newspapers they were reading on the El.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's the truth the entitled that receive the liberal largesse fails to grasp, isn't it? The liberals pay for most of the poor in the south as well.


Really?!?! You mean the people begging for the handouts are the ones paying for them? You mean to tell me it’s not the hard working American paying for all those benefits? Are you saying that there are more liberals contributing to society monetarily? That’s a neat trick! Bet you can’t back any of it up with unbiased fact!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Really?!?! You mean the people begging for the handouts are the ones paying for them? You mean to tell me it’s not the hard working American paying for all those benefits? Are you saying that there are more liberals contributing to society monetarily? That’s a neat trick! Bet you can’t back any of it up with unbiased fact!


How about a story outlining which states get more federal aide back than money they pay into the system. Or you could look at the States with the highest percentage of people who get SNAP benefits. Hint- it’s not the coastal elites.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/361668/


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> How about a story outlining which states get more federal aide back than money they pay into the system. Or you could look at the States with the highest percentage of people who get SNAP benefits. Hint- it’s not the coastal elites.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/361668/


I get a kick out of that map every time I see it. Its posted and makes the poster often believe all that money is food stamps and HUD when if fact its a total of *all* federal dollars. Watch California kick up the next two years when FEMA comes to bail them out from the fires or the heartland states when they start that section of I 69 up to Canada. 

I did notice on this one it said part of the problem was the Democrats of yesterday. 

_Part of the explanation for why southern states dominate the “most dependent” category is historical. During the many decades in the 20th century when the South was solidly Democratic, its congressional representatives in both the House and the Senate, enjoying great seniority, came to hold leadership positions on powerful committees, which they used to send federal dollars back to their home states *in the form of contracts, projects, installations*. _

Proof that it isnt just SNAP and welfare. 

By the way, did that article also say that per person benefit in Cali is 139 dollars and per person in Miss. is 117 dollars? 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/a-closer-look-at-who-benefits-from-snap-state-by-state-fact-sheets


I remember about three years ago Texas was 80 something cents per dollar. Since then they have really started the I 69 corridor and spent billions here but only because the fed wants it here. We fought it the whole way to no avail.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> How about a story outlining which states get more federal aide back than money they pay into the system. Or you could look at the States with the highest percentage of people who get SNAP benefits. Hint- it’s not the coastal elites.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/361668/


I said unbiased. That’s about as biased as it comes.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Something wrong with that article. It says NY was less than Texas. The article was dated 2014. My link which is 2017 NY has 15% and Texas has 14% population on SNAP. Looks like we should just pick the year we want to make our point.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

States with more military bases get lots of federal money, but that isn't welfare and has nothing to do with taxes paid.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> I get a kick out of that map every time I see it. Its posted and makes the poster often believe all that money is food stamps and HUD when if fact its a total of *all* federal dollars. Watch California kick up the next two years when FEMA comes to bail them out from the fires or the heartland states when they start that section of I 69 up to Canada.
> 
> I did notice on this one it said part of the problem was the Democrats of yesterday.
> 
> ...


Which is why the second half of the article, emphasising the number of folks on SNAP is telling. With the cost of living being higher in Cali than Miss it’s not surprising.

How about we look at the poverty level of states. Who do you think pays for the federal programs that support those in high poverty states?

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/us-poverty-rate-by-state.html

I’m guessing those good folks in Silicon Valley feed their fair share of Mississippians. And then some.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> How about a story outlining which states get more federal aide back than money they pay into the system. Or you could look at the States with the highest percentage of people who get SNAP benefits. Hint- it’s not the coastal elites.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/361668/


Thank you. A concise article with graphs often helps people understand these concepts easier.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

haypoint said:


> States with more military bases get lots of federal money, but that isn't welfare and has nothing to do with taxes paid.


Taxes paid don't go to the military? Can you explain how that works when the military gets the most federal money of any program?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Which is why the second half of the article, emphasising the number of folks on SNAP is telling. With the cost of living being higher in Cali than Miss it’s not surprising.
> 
> How about we look at the poverty level of states. Who do you think pays for the federal programs that support those in high poverty states?
> 
> ...


And NY (especially the City) pays to house, clothe, and care for a bunch in the heartland and south as well. Damn liberals!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> States with more military bases get lots of federal money, but that isn't welfare and has nothing to do with taxes paid.


California has four times as many military bases as Mississippi, including minor places like Camp Pendleton and that little Navy base in San Diego. Quick, name a base in Mississippi.

http://www.militarybases.us/bases-in-the-state-of-mississippi/


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> And NY (especially the City) pays to house, clothe, and care for a bunch in the heartland and south as well. Damn liberals!


Again your going to sit here and tell me that the red blooded American in West Texas ain’t paying for people in a liberal state? It’s tax dollars, it gets divided how ever the fed says to, ain’t got nothing to do with who pays in. The graphs and charts however show that even with the handouts those densely red areas on map still won’t vote for a Democrat. What does that tell you about those people? Maybe the poverty rate is higher because they are LEGAL and still taking jobs that don’t pay as high. Have you thought of that?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you explain how that works when the *military gets the most federal money of any program?*


I don't think that's true:



> During FY2016, the federal government spent $3.85 trillion on a budget or cash basis, up $164 billion or 4% vs. FY2015 spending of $3.69 trillion.
> 
> Major categories of FY 2016 spending included: Healthcare such as Medicare and Medicaid ($1,060B or 28% of spending), Social Security ($910B or 24%), non-defense discretionary spending used to run federal Departments and Agencies ($600B or 16%), Defense Department ($585B or 15%), and interest ($240B or 6%).[1]





  





This shows "social" spending is much higher.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't think that's true:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You may be right, but what's the difference between "defense department" and "non defense discretionary" are they military but divided differently? Plus what is included in "other mandatory"?

The other categories are fairly self explanatory, but these not so much, can you explain what they include?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Who do you think pays for the federal programs that support those in high poverty states?


Everyone who pays Federal taxes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You may be right, but what's the difference between "defense department" and "non defense discretionary" are they military but divided differently?


"Non-defense" isn't military.
I suspect that category includes foreign aid and disaster relief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget

https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-non-defense-discretionary-programs


> Non-defense discretionary (NDD) programs comprise domestic and international programs outside of national defense that Congress funds on an annual basis. In 2015, NDD spending totaled $585 billion, or 16 percent of federal spending.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Everyone who pays Federal taxes.


Exactly. Which states pay the most to the federal government? Which pay the least?



Bearfootfarm said:


> "Non-defense" isn't military.
> I suspect that category covers foreign aid and disaster relief.


Do you have a link? I believe that the "non defense" is military, and I suspect that "other mandatory" may be as well.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Which is why the second half of the article, emphasising the number of folks on SNAP is telling. With the cost of living being higher in Cali than Miss it’s not surprising.
> 
> How about we look at the poverty level of states. *Who do you think pays for the federal programs that support those in high poverty states?*
> 
> ...


nobody pays for those programs. If you will note the national debt parallels the expense of fighting poverty. It's been that way pretty much since the thirties when FDR started borrowing money to feed them. National debt... 21 trillion today, war on poverty since Johnson.... 22 trillion. We just keep borrowing, never paying off debt.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. Which states pay the most to the federal government? Which pay the least?


Google can tell you that.
Common sense will say it's the ones with the largest populations and highest costs of living which means inflated wages.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I believe that the "non defense" is military


Military is "defense"
Non-defense is also non-military
I already posted the links


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Military is "defense"


Where would "veterans care" be included? Perhaps "non defense"? Still military spending, correct?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Military is in the discretionary side of the budget, social programs are part of the mandatory side. Just backwards to what one would think from a constitutional standpoint.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where would "veterans care" be included? Perhaps "non defense"? Still military spending, correct?


Veteran's care would logically be under "healthcare"
I gave you links which explained what it means.

If you think they are mistaken then show yours saying it's "military"


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Military is "defense"
> Non-defense is also non-military
> I already posted the links


Just as I thought, non defense includes veterans, in fact it's almost half. "Nearly half of NDD health spending provides hospital and medical care for veterans." From: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-non-defense-discretionary-programs

ETA: It's still my opinion that "other mandatory" includes military spending as well.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Veteran's care would logically be under "healthcare"
> I gave you links which explained what it means.
> 
> If you think they are mistaken then show yours saying it's "military"


We are dealing with the federal government here.... Logic has little to do with much. Veterans care is in the discretionary side of the budget beside the military, along with other constitutionally authorized expenditures. The article I just posted shows the breakdown of expenditures pretty clearly. Military accounts for somewhere around 25% of our total spending, social programs about 65%, everything else... Which is mostly interest on the debt, accounts for the other 10%


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> NDD programs include a wide variety of priorities such as education, scientific research, infrastructure, national parks and forests, environmental protection, some low-income assistance, and public health, as well as many basic government operations including law enforcement, courts, and tax collection. The category also includes many programs related to national security, including foreign aid, homeland security, and services for veterans.





Irish Pixie said:


> "Nearly half *of NDD health spending* provides hospital and medical care for veterans." From:





Irish Pixie said:


> Just as I thought, non defense includes veterans, in fact it's *almost half*.


That's "nearly half" *of 21%*, so in reality *less than 10%* of the total.





Here's 54% of the total spending in the category:


> Of total NDD spending in 2016, 33 percent went to *grants to states and localities, such as for K-12 education and highway projects*, while 21 percent went to low-income programs, such as *Head Start and rental assistance*.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Quick, name a base in Mississippi.


There's an Air Force base in Biloxi


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's "nearly half" *of 21%*, so in reality *less than 10%* of the total.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are still looking at NDD or non defense discretionary spending. So that almost half of 21 percent is actually far less. That should be almost half of the 21% of the 10% of our total budget. Basically 1%.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are still looking at NDD or non defense discretionary spending.


Yes, that is all I was talking about.
Other links I posted showed defense spending along with the other categories.
It's a tiny portion of the total budget.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, that is all I was talking about.
> Other links I posted showed defense spending along with the other categories.
> It's a tiny portion of the total budget.


lotta folks get confused by all the talk about the military consuming half of "the budget" when they are only discussing the discretionary side, which accounts for only about a third of the total budget. It really skews the charts when you take two thirds of our spending out of the game. That two thirds is all social program spending!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mandatory spending includes all of this:










With medicare and social security among the highest percentage with m person drawing having paid into the system


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. Which states pay the most to the federal government? Which pay the least?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link? *I believe that the "non defense" is military*, and I suspect that "other mandatory" may be as well.


What you wrote contradicts itself like none other. Defense=military, non defense=non military. Where’s the confusion?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> With medicare and social security among the highest percentage with m person drawing having paid into the system


So military spending isn't the highest in either category



Irish Pixie said:


> Can you explain how that works when the *military gets the most federal money of any program*?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Taxes paid don't go to the military? Can you explain how that works when the military gets the most federal money of any program?


I included a couple thoughts in that sentence. States that get lots of federal money does not mean they get lots of welfare. Some states that have lots of federal money coming in have numerous military bases. Just trying to separate the thought that lots of federal money equates to a welfare state. Military spending is from all states and what each state pays shouldn't be reflected in where bases are put. Welfare paid out should reflect the individual states more closely.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's an Air Force base in Biloxi


My son launched his air force training there. As a IT he has made a good living, after the military, went back to college and now makes his living as a web site designer. Thank you Biloxi!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Thank you Biloxi!


My step-daughter and her husband were stationed there.
He's out now but they still own a house there.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> California has four times as many military bases as Mississippi, including minor places like Camp Pendleton and that little Navy base in San Diego. Quick, name a base in Mississippi.
> 
> http://www.militarybases.us/bases-in-the-state-of-mississippi/


As a percentage of state's income, I'd guess bases in MS are more important to MS than the ones in CA.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So military spending isn't the highest in either category


Probably not, and I'm willing to admit it, although it's not known if there is "military" (the goverment has odd specifications for how it pigeon holes such things) in the "other mandatory" category. You ready to admit that there _is_ military spending, ie. veteran care in the "non defense discretionary" category? You denied it earlier...



Bearfootfarm said:


> *Military is "defense"
> Non-defense is also non-military*
> I already posted the links


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> What you wrote contradicts itself like none other. Defense=military, non defense=non military. Where’s the confusion?


No, it doesn't. You need to reread the thread, or not. You're wrong regardless.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You ready to admit that there _is_ *military spending, ie. veteran care* in the "non defense discretionary" category?


I'll admit you keep *calling* their healthcare "military spending", but it's really not.

"Veteran" means "*former* military"
Note the past tense in the definitions below:


> a person who *has* *served* in the military





> Define veteran: a *former* member of the armed forces


No matter how you try to spin things, it's never going to come to anywhere near this:


> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> Can you explain how that works when the *military gets the most federal money of any program*?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's an Air Force base in Biloxi


I’ll give you partial credit.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'll admit you keep *calling* their healthcare "military spending", but it's really not.
> 
> "Veteran" means "*former* military"
> Note the past tense in the definitions below:
> ...


There is really nothing more to discuss, as what you've said and your descriptions of programs continue to change to suit what you have previously posted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I’ll give you partial credit.


You're quite magnanimous.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> There is really nothing more to discuss, as *what you've said and your descriptions of programs continue to change* to suit what you have previously posted.


You said:



> Irish Pixie said:





> Can you explain how that works when the *military gets the most federal money of any program*?


Every source shown has proven that's incorrect, which is why you started changing the topic yourself. 
Nothing I've posted has changed at all.



Irish Pixie said:


> There is really nothing more to discuss


"And still she persisted"


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "And still she persisted"


A correction, it's "Nevertheless, she persisted."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

"What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Probably not, and I'm willing to admit it, although it's not known if there is "military" (the goverment has odd specifications for how it pigeon holes such things) in the "other mandatory" category. You ready to admit that there _is_ military spending, ie. veteran care in the "non defense discretionary" category? You denied it earlier...





Bearfootfarm said:


> I'll admit you keep *calling* their healthcare "military spending", but it's really not.
> 
> "Veteran" means "*former* military"
> Note the past tense in the definitions below:
> ...


IP was gracious enough to admit her error.
You should follow her example and do the same, that is conceding that a "veteran" benefit is directly related to the fact they were in the military. If they weren't you could stand by the statement it wasn't "military spending" 100%.
But they wouldn't qualify for those benefits if NOT for their military service.
And it includes much more than healthcare...........

https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/browse-by-category/category/30

This isn't to say they don't deserve it for putting their lives on the line, but be realistic and call it what it is.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

see youtube.com Iris Dement "Living in the Wasteland of the Free"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> IP was gracious enough to *admit her error.*
> You should follow her example and *do the same*


I already did the same and admitted her error.
I posted the links to corroborate everything I said.



farmrbrown said:


> This isn't to say they don't deserve it for putting their lives on the line, but be realistic and *call it what it is*.


I'm not calling it anything.

The Govt calls it "healthcare" and it's *not* listed under "defense" with other "military" items.

You can call it anything you like.



farmrbrown said:


> But they wouldn't qualify for those benefits if NOT for their military service.


How they qualify was never mentioned. They also wouldn't be getting those benefits if they were still in the military. 

There's nothing to "concede" because it was never an issue. 
That's just you doing what you do.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I already did the same and admitted her error.
> I posted the links to corroborate everything I said.
> 
> 
> I'm not calling it anything.


Hmmmm............I guess these aren't your posts then?
You do "admit" other people's errors, but I was referring to admitting your own this time.



Bearfootfarm said:


> "Non-defense" isn't military.
> I suspect that category includes foreign aid and disaster relief.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> Military is "defense"
> Non-defense is also non-military
> I already posted the links





Bearfootfarm said:


> Veteran's care would logically be under "healthcare"
> I gave you links which explained what it means.
> 
> If you think they are mistaken then show yours saying it's "military"





Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, that is all I was talking about.
> Other links I posted showed defense spending along with the other categories.
> It's a tiny portion of the total budget.





Bearfootfarm said:


> I'll admit you keep *calling* their healthcare "military spending", but it's really not.
> 
> "Veteran" means "*former* military"
> Note the past tense in the definitions below:
> ...










Bearfootfarm said:


> The Govt calls it "healthcare" and it's *not* listed under "defense" with other "military" items.
> 
> You can call it anything you like.


Why, thank you.





Bearfootfarm said:


> How they qualify was never mentioned. They also wouldn't be getting those benefits if they were still in the military.
> 
> There's nothing to "concede" because it was never an issue.
> That's just you doing what you do.



If you mean, separating truth from fiction, then yes, I'm still doing that.

Not only are some of those benefits available to active personnel, they include family members as well who didn't serve.
So not only is "military spending" going to soldiers it also goes to civilians.


As some already pointed out, just because the gov't doesn't neatly divide it up for you to see, doesn't mean it ain't happening.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

WOW ......8 quotes in one post!
Impressive.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> And NY (especially the City) pays to house, clothe, and care for a bunch in the heartland and south as well. Damn liberals!





Irish Pixie said:


> That's the truth the entitled that receive the liberal largesse fails to grasp, isn't it? The liberals pay for most of the poor in the south as well.





mmoetc said:


> Which is why the second half of the article, emphasising the number of folks on SNAP is telling. With the cost of living being higher in Cali than Miss it’s not surprising.
> 
> How about we look at the poverty level of states. Who do you think pays for the federal programs that support those in high poverty states?
> 
> ...



I'll do one better, lol
The posts above are correct.

https://www.minnpost.com/health/2007/11/party-rich-democrats-or-republicans

https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/

It's not a big majority but it's a fact that most of the wealthiest Americans are Democrats.
Conceding that it's the wealthy that pay most of the income taxes, they therefore are supporting more of the gov't benefits to the poor.
And since they are voting for those programs and paying the larger share of the costs, I guess no one can really argue they aren't putting their money where their mouth is.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're quite magnanimous.


Just doing my part to help you keep your post count up.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> As a percentage of state's income, I'd guess bases in MS are more important to MS than the ones in CA.


You can guess whatever you’d like. I can’t argue against guesses. What would be more useful is to have some actual data that proves your contention that the amount of federal money spent on those military bases in Mississippi impacts the overall spending as you claim.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

One more note in the eternal debate on "fairness and equality" - one that seems to have countless sides.........

Many of our military don't come from the same side of the tracks or from the wealthy states either.

http://www.aei.org/publication/us-military-enlistment-rates-by-state-a-texas-sized-difference/


It's hard to make life "fair" isn't it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Just doing my part to help you keep your post count up.


What makes you think I need your help?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> You do "admit" other people's errors, but I was referring to *admitting your own* this time.


You seem to be confused.
I didn't make an "error".
What I said was factual.
Most of what you've shown is unrelated to my statements.
I'm also not sure why you think quoting all those posts is somehow proof of some "error"



farmrbrown said:


> Not only are some of those benefits available to active personnel, they include family members as well who didn't serve.
> So not only is "military spending" going to soldiers it also goes to civilians.


Again you're arguing a point that has nothing to do with what I said.
That is what you always do. You just love to hear yourself ramble.



farmrbrown said:


> As some already pointed out, just because the gov't doesn't neatly divide it up for you to see, doesn't mean it ain't happening.


Just because you keep saying it doesn't mean it is.
You just keep trying to change the context because you're obsessed with "proving me wrong".



farmrbrown said:


> If you mean, separating truth from fiction, then yes, I'm still doing that.


Says the self described "con man".
You should know by now I'm not impressed.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What makes you think I need your help?


Rest assured, I don’t. But it being the season of giving and me being the generous type I just thought I’d do my part.


----------



## catsboy (May 14, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> One more note in the eternal debate on "fairness and equality" - one that seems to have countless sides.........
> 
> Many of our military don't come from the same side of the tracks or from the wealthy states either.
> 
> ...


During my time in the Marine Corp I ran into a lot of guys that fit your case. Most guys from West Va had a choice of coal mines or go into the military. Most dark green Marines were from inner cites and were looking for a way out. I did serve with one guy whose father was a VP at GM and enlisted for kinda the same reason I did. To prove to an over bearing father that they could make it without their help.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> But it being the season of giving and me being the generous type I just thought I’d* do my part*.


You always do your part.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem to be confused.
> I didn't make an "error".
> What I said was factual.
> Most of what you've shown is unrelated to my statements.
> I'm also not sure why you think quoting all those posts is somehow proof of some "error"


Because that's usually how it's done, lol.
Spending money on a military veteran is military spending, whether or not you and Uncle Sam admit it or not.
Providing the link that confirms active duty also qualify for some of them proves the 2nd error.




Bearfootfarm said:


> I'll admit you keep *calling* their healthcare "military spending", but it's really not.
> 
> "Veteran" means "*former* military"
> Note the past tense in the definitions below:
> ...






Bearfootfarm said:


> Again you're arguing a point that has nothing to do with what I said.
> That is what you always do. You just love to hear yourself ramble.
> 
> 
> ...


Among the many things I know is, that I've never described myself that way, but I know who has.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You always do your part.


You’re welcome.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You’re welcome.


I didn't say "thank you".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Among the many things I know is, that *I've never described myself that way*, but I know who has.


You have, and I've shown you the quotes before.
Let's not play this game again.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Spending money on a military veteran is military spending, *whether or not you and Uncle Sam admit it* or not.


You're entitled to your opinion.
It won't change mine.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't say "thank you".


I know.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to your opinion.
> It won't change mine.


That's been proven as well, once again.




Bearfootfarm said:


> You have, and I've shown you the quotes before.
> Let's not play this game again.


Yes you have, to my great annoyance.
Fortunately most people KNOW the difference between a con man, who defrauds people out of money and someone who is smart enough to catch them.
I suspect you know the difference too, but enjoy your own little games too much to admit the truth.
That's too bad, but life is full of that kind of nonsense, isn't it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I suspect you know the difference too


I see no difference.
They both lie to get what they want.



mmoetc said:


> I know.


Your response implied otherwise.

You two can carry on without me now since you've exhausted all your new material.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I see no difference.
> They both lie to get what they want.
> 
> 
> ...


No, you inferred otherwise. I never presume that you will show gratitude. But whether you express it or not you’re more than welcome for me giving you the opportunity to respond to even more posts with nothing of substance.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I see no difference.
> They both lie to get what they want.
> 
> 
> ...


I'll see if I can help you "see" it.

The con man wants to steal - an injustice.
The one who catches him or stops him wants to right a wrong - justice.
Although I'm pretty sure you already knew that.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> I'll do one better, lol
> The posts above are correct.
> 
> https://www.minnpost.com/health/2007/11/party-rich-democrats-or-republicans
> ...


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. Which states pay the most to the federal government? Which pay the least?
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have a link? I believe that the "non defense" is military,* and I suspect that "other mandatory" may be as well.





Irish Pixie said:


> No, it doesn't. You need to reread the thread, or not. You're wrong regardless.


Here I reposted your quote. What you said was *you believe* non defense to be military spending. Can you show otherwise? I believe you are wrong, have a blessed day.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I'll do one better, lol
> The posts above are correct.
> 
> https://www.minnpost.com/health/2007/11/party-rich-democrats-or-republicans
> ...





Texaspredatorhu said:


> So of the 78% that make below 100k 55% voted dem. Let’s say that 55% averages 35k and the remaining republican voters average 65k. Who contributed more? Having 100k as the divider doesn’t work well when they still won’t say which voters made what. Either way both are biased as all get up, BFF is probably the only one who can post nonbiased info and show factual information.



Well, there are a few other links I saw that said pretty much the same thing, one of them a Pew Research survey. They usually have accurate results.
I could have broken it down all the way to $0 income but that would be stupid.
Look at the bolded statement above.
THAT'S why you can have the income level for this assertion stop at a certain point, $100,000, $200,000 etc.
It would take hundreds or thousands of "you and me's" to match the taxes paid by one wealthy family.
The simple fact is, that the top few percent DO pay over half the income taxes.
Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself.
Also the national election results of the last few decades should help you figure that out too.
How many elections victories have been by a few percentage points?

And don't pin all your hopes on BFF never being wrong either.
He occasionally is, but I think in 30,000 posts I only saw him admit it once or twice, and that was probably about a specific date of an event.
When it comes to using the wrong definition of a word, he'll fight that one til the grave, lol.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)




----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> By most indicators, the US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries. It spends more on national defense than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, France and Japan combined.
> US healthcare expenditures per capita are double the OECD average and much higher than in all other countries. But there are many fewer doctors and hospital beds per person than the OECD average.
> US infant mortality rates in 2013 were the highest in the developed world.
> Americans can expect to live shorter and sicker lives, compared to people living in any other rich democracy, and the “health gap” between the US and its peer countries continues to grow.
> ...


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Has anyone here ever been real serious dirt ass poor?

If so how did you get out of it?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JJ Grandits said:


> Has anyone here ever been real serious dirt ass poor?
> 
> If so how did you get out of it?


Yep. Mine was I got tired of eating oatmeal with no sugar or butter. Of course that was pretty much all I was eating every day. On the bright side I was pretty regular though. I kept thinking "what can I do different to get me some butter." And did it.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

JJ Grandits said:


> Has anyone here ever been real serious dirt ass poor?
> 
> If so how did you get out of it?


The availability of jobs improved after the Clinton years that were supposed to be just so awesome even though I couldn't buy a job while we were enjoying such 'prosperity'.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mreynolds said:


> Yep. Mine was I got tired of eating oatmeal with no sugar or butter. Of course that was pretty much all I was eating every day. On the bright side *I was pretty regular though*. I kept thinking "what can I do different to get me some butter." And did it.


Better than being unleaded?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

IndyDave said:


> Better than being unleaded?


Back then unleaded was a new thang and Ethel was so old timey.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

IndyDave said:


> The availability of jobs improved after the Clinton years that were supposed to be just so awesome even though I couldn't buy a job while we were enjoying such 'prosperity'.


Yeah per inflationary dollars I made more when I was 23 than I do now.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Maybe you can ask our expats why they’ve moved overseas. 

People want to come here for a variety of reasons, economic, health, safety, political and who knows how many others. We are a great country but we’re far from perfect and we should never stop trying to do better for each and every one of our citizens.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> Has anyone here ever been real serious dirt ass poor?
> 
> If so how did you get out of it?


Does living in a car and storage locker count? In part because I was paying for insurance for my daughter. Hard work, help from friends and family and more than a little good fortune.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe you can ask our expats why they’ve moved overseas.
> 
> People want to come here for a variety of reasons, economic, health, safety, political and who knows how many others. We are a great country but we’re far from perfect and we should never stop trying to do better for each and every one of our citizens.


Total Americans living abroad is around 4 million, give or take:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_United_States

47 million immigrants live in the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

So, for the sake of argument, the ratio is approximately 10:1


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Total Americans living abroad is around 4 million, give or take:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_United_States
> 
> ...


Thanks. But if we’re perfect why even that four million? Why do threads appear on this forum on occasion advocating for moving to other countries touting the opportunities in them and the benefits of living there?

I’ll repeat it again. We’re a great country. Most likely the greatest in existence today. But we’re not perfect and we should never stop trying to be or accept “good enough”.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

We are on page 10 of this walk through poverty. In many rural areas there is a variety of income levels. Generally, charity can provide some relief. However, there are often strings attached to the aid. The Church may collect donations of food or subsidize shelter, but expect attendance at Church Services. Drink up your unemployment check and help with your utility bill might not be there. This all serves to guide the community to behave within societal norms.
However when poverty stretches for miles in an urban environment, there is no neighborly charity. Oh, people are giving. But sharing your last cigarette does little to lift the oppression of poverty. Aid, from distant State of Federal sources, lacks the guidance of societal norms, so the poorly enforced parameters of eligibility lack a path back to self support.
While I'd love to charter a bus and gather the responders to this discussion for an actual walk through poverty, perhaps you'll take a minute and listen to a tiny slice of Detroit's poverty. While surfing the internet, just listen to the reality. A place where pedestrian hit and runs are common. Half of the people are driving without insurance, expired drivers license, warrants or drugs or open liquor. The other half are far too afraid to stop in these areas and getting out of their vehicle out of the question. Detroit Police Dispatch:
http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/13671?fb_action_ids=750263538357645&fb_action_types=og.likes
click on the little arrow under "listen".


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Our economy depends on the working class to have money to spend. It accounts for 70% of our economy. Unfortunately tax breaks for the wealthy have resulted in moving much of this nations wealth to off shore tax havens where it is basically sequestered and of no use to our economy. It just got a lot worse with the tax bill that the GOP just passed.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Thanks. But if we’re perfect why even that four million? Why do threads appear on this forum on occasion advocating for moving to other countries touting the opportunities in them and the benefits of living there?
> 
> I’ll repeat it again. We’re a great country. Most likely the greatest in existence today. But we’re not perfect and we should never stop trying to be or accept “good enough”.


Of those 4 million, many of those include Americans who live outside the country for one reason or another. I suspect many do so because of business. I suspect some live outside of the country because their retirement dollar goes further where they are at. The list of nations where Americans live found in the first Wiki is pretty interesting.

At no point in the existence of the nation, and at no point in the future, will all Americans live within the borders of the United States.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

fishhead said:


> Our economy depends on the working class to have money to spend. It accounts for 70% of our economy. Unfortunately tax breaks for the wealthy have resulted in moving much of this nations wealth to off shore tax havens where it is basically sequestered and of no use to our economy. It just got a lot worse with the tax bill that the GOP just passed.


Under the recent tax bill, 80% of Americans will see tax relief, but more importantly, corporate tax rates have been cut to bring them more in line with the competition. Please show me where things will get worse under the new bill, because of more money moving off-shore.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

fishhead said:


> Our economy depends on the working class to have money to spend. It accounts for 70% of our economy. Unfortunately tax breaks for the wealthy have resulted in moving much of this nations wealth to off shore tax havens where it is basically sequestered and of no use to our economy. It just got a lot worse with the tax bill that the GOP just passed.


Oh, how I wish it were so simple.
With the US highest tax rate for the wealthy, they park their money off shore. It is the high taxes that encourages the off shore investment. One could argue that with a lowered (still higher than yours) tax rate, the wealthy may feel like bringing it home.
Your class envy shows when you are concerned about the wealthy getting a reduction in taxes, while still paying a higher percentage than you, but I doubt you lose any sleep over the billions that leave this country, often untaxed, unreported, each month. Every legal alien worker that I know, sends most of their income to their home country. I've never met one that wants to be a US citizen. If you include the 15 million illegal aliens and a wild guess that each sends an average of $200 a week out of country, untaxed, that damages our economy more than a few off shore accounts.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> Has anyone here ever been real serious dirt ass poor?
> 
> If so how did you get out of it?


Yeppers, and a lot of hard work.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I've always had a roof over my head and food to eat, but Mr. Pixie and I were poor when we were young. It took hard work and a lot of studying to pull ourselves out of that place. It wasn't easy for us, I can't imagine being homeless, food insecure, having no one there to help, and trying to do it.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

At one time, I was close to homeless. I lived in a Chevy van for awhile. I know a woman that lived in her car after she got a job that was 100 miles from her rented apartment. She couldn't afford the transition from her home to her new location. Had a friend move into her home and care for her children until the school year was over. She was living in her car through a Michigan winter. Washed up in a Walmart restroom.
My wife and I lived in a 16 foot travel trailer for 2 years. Had an outside hand pump for water. Parked truck at the road and walked 1/4 mile to camper. Boots left on the floor still had snow on them the following morning.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I think everyone has their stories. It's all about priorities. How many poor smokers will go hungry but have plenty of cigarettes? I have seen more than a few in my life. You take life one priority at a time. My first priority was butter. Now I don't worry about butter. But I never forget that butter can be a fleeting thing. 

I'm not against welfare at all. Never have been. But there has to be a reckoning to those on it. There also had to be a reckoning to those that legislate it. I have said before on here that welfare is designed to keep you in it and not to help get off of it. For some reason they want to keep people on it. For the life of me I can't figure out why.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> For some reason they want to keep people on it. For the life of me I can't figure out *why*.


It's a way of buying votes with someone else's money.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a way of buying votes with someone else's money.


I can see that on the democrat side. Most people think they are the ones that help out the welfare people. Why do the Republicans do it? Everyone thinks they don't care anyway.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> I think everyone has their stories. It's all about priorities. How many poor smokers will go hungry but have plenty of cigarettes? I have seen more than a few in my life. You take life one priority at a time. My first priority was butter. Now I don't worry about butter. But I never forget that butter can be a fleeting thing.
> 
> I'm not against welfare at all. Never have been. But there has to be a reckoning to those on it. There also had to be a reckoning to those that legislate it. I have said before on here that welfare is designed to keep you in it and not to help get off of it. For some reason they want to keep people on it. For the life of me I can't figure out why.


Because there will never be zero unemployment, some of those people aren't capable of supporting themselves either due to a mental or physical illness, and it would cost trillions (or more) to educate and/or train everyone that receives government money to be able to support themselves and the government workers to oversee the _new_ programs. It's easier, and much cheaper to keep generations on the current programs.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Because there will never be zero unemployment, some of those people aren't capable of supporting themselves either due to a mental or physical illness, and it would cost trillions (or more) to educate and/or train everyone that receives government money to be able to support themselves and the government workers to oversee the _new_ programs. It's easier, and much cheaper to keep generations on the current programs.


I get that but there are millions on welfare that could and want to get off of it. These are the working welfare that have to turn down raises because it results in a cut in monthly income. I worked in the homes of these people for over twenty years. Ate lunch if they made it and say on their porches drinking tea while the crew rolled up the tools. the story is usually the same. If they took the dollar raise they were offered they lost 250 a month total income.

This issue could be fixed with a good software programmer in less than a week. I know the people in Washington know this too. We penalize them for doing good on their jobs. Many of these people lose hope and that's why they become addicted to something. Addicts usually are pessimistic and have little hope.

These people in the work force could be our entrepreneurs of the next decade and create more jobs. When a person works from nothing out of a hole it gives them confidence to try even more. Washington just keeps knocking them back down in their perverse game of whack a mole.

Rant over.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Oh, how I wish it were so simple.
> With the US highest tax rate for the wealthy, they park their money off shore. It is the high taxes that encourages the off shore investment. One could argue that with a lowered (still higher than yours) tax rate, the wealthy may feel like bringing it home.
> Your class envy shows when you are concerned about the wealthy getting a reduction in taxes, while still paying a higher percentage than you, but I doubt you lose any sleep over the billions that leave this country, often untaxed, unreported, each month. Every legal alien worker that I know, sends most of their income to their home country. I've never met one that wants to be a US citizen. If you include the 15 million illegal aliens and a wild guess that each sends an average of $200 a week out of country, untaxed, that damages our economy more than a few off shore accounts.


Name calling means that you didn't read my post. I don't have class envy. I just don't like the idea that many of the 1% got their wealth by stepping to the front of the line and by cheating.

It is a fact that the 1% spend less of their income than the rest of us. They hide the money to avoid paying taxes. That removes it from our economy.

It is also a fact that working class Americans pay more in taxes as a percentage of their income than the 1% because they spend nearly all of it and thus pay sales taxes on most of their income after paying payroll taxes.

It is also a fact that a hedge fund manager made $4 Billion one year and his tax rate was the same as a single person making $35,000 that same year. As far as I am concerned he and his ilk parasitize our economy without contributing anything close to what they gain from living in this country.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> I get that but there are millions on welfare that could and want to get off of it. These are the working welfare that have to turn down raises because it results in a cut in monthly income. I worked in the homes of these people for over twenty years. Ate lunch if they made it and say on their porches drinking tea while the crew rolled up the tools. the story is usually the same. If they took the dollar raise they were offered they lost 250 a month total income.
> 
> This issue could be fixed with a good software programmer in less than a week. I know the people in Washington know this too. We penalize them for doing good on their jobs. Many of these people lose hope and that's why they become addicted to something. Addicts usually are pessimistic and have little hope.
> 
> ...


OK. What is the whiz bang software program that will cut the programs without having kids go hungry or homeless? How will it train people for gainful employment? I'm being a bit snarky, but it's so easy to _talk_ about such things, just how will they be implemented that doesn't cost trillions more money in additional programs?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> I can see that on the democrat side. Most people think they are the ones that help out the welfare people. Why do the Republicans do it? Everyone thinks they don't care anyway.


They just apply it to the other side of the equation. Remove or restructure supports like SNAP or Medicaid or any of the other programs that make it feasible for someone to work at Wallyworld or Ronald’s Supper Club and stretch that paycheck to allow not just survival but a few of what should be luxuries like tobacco, a smart phone or booze and those companies would have to come up with the difference. Something the companies don’t want and neither do many of those who rely on such companies for cheap goods and services. Nobody wants to pay $10 for a fast food burger but nobody really misses the pennies that come out of their paycheck each week to support the $5 burger. Until it’s time to complain about those lazy working poor lacking the motivation to do better.

Both sides of the political spectrum have those they’re beholding to or are beholding to them.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Both sides of the political spectrum have those they’re beholding to or are beholding to them.


Yes but you and I know the ones they are really beholding to. They just try and pacify the voters.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> They just apply it to the other side of the equation. Remove or restructure supports like SNAP or Medicaid or any of the other programs that make it feasible for someone to work at Wallyworld or Ronald’s Supper Club and stretch that paycheck to allow not just survival but a few of what should be luxuries like tobacco, a smart phone or booze and those companies would have to come up with the difference. Something the companies don’t want and neither do many of those who rely on such companies for cheap goods and services. Nobody wants to pay $10 for a fast food burger but nobody really misses the pennies that come out of their paycheck each week to support the $5 burger. Until it’s time to complain about those lazy working poor lacking the motivation to do better.
> 
> Both sides of the political spectrum have those they’re beholding to or are beholding to them.


Ok, you have some points, but I need to correct you on a couple things. Smart phones are obvious luxuries, booze and smokes? Nope nope nope, thems is necessities!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> Yes but you and I know the ones they are really beholding to. They just try and pacify the voters.


I’m not doing obtuse this week.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. What is the whiz bang software program that will cut the programs without having kids go hungry or homeless? How will it train people for gainful employment? I'm being a bit snarky, but it's so easy to _talk_ about such things, just how will they be implemented that doesn't cost trillions more money in additional programs?


I don't mind the snark. You know me that well at least. 

These programs are already in place. The problem is once they reach a certain goal they cut money disproportionally as to the gain they receive on their jobs. I don't know the exact point but let use just one example that I heard with my own ears. 

Single mom with three kids told me this when u was working on her house. She worked in a cabinet shop. Started at eight an hour. No problem. Got a raise because she was a good hand and willing to learn. 9 dollars an hour and still no problem. They cut her benefits about 100 dollars a month. Net gain was 60 dollars. When she was offered ten an hour which is a gain of 160 month they cut her by 250 for a total loss of 90 dollars a month. 

It's not hard to fix the software/speadsheet/ledger or however they tally how much is recieved to fix that. If a person is allowed to work themselves out of welfare instead of being knocked down when they almost get there they will become productive citizens and less likely to become addicted to something.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> I’m not doing obtuse this week.


Me either. In trying to be a realist.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> I don't mind the snark. You know me that well at least.
> 
> These programs are already in place. The problem is once they reach a certain goal they cut money disproportionally as to the gain they receive on their jobs. I don't know the exact point but let use just one example that I heard with my own ears.
> 
> ...


Ten bucks an hour is well beyond any wage I ever earned. At some point those folks should no longer need my assistance!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> Me either. In trying to be a realist.


Pacifying voters doesn’t fill campaign coffers and keep them in power. You just gave a fine example of how the system should work. Now, ask yourself who benefits from the current system. Those who don’t have to pay those higher wages and those ignorant of the true cost those lower wages and the goods and services provided by them but benefit from them. They all vote and those in power benefit more from the status quo which allows them to pit one side against the other while paying lip service to “change”.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Pacifying voters doesn’t fill campaign coffers and keep them in power. You just gave a fine example of how the system should work. Now, ask yourself who benefits from the current system. Those who don’t have to pay those higher wages and those ignorant of the true cost those lower wages and the goods and services provided by them but benefit from them. They all vote and those in power benefit more from the status quo which allows them to pit one side against the other while paying lip service to “change”.


Seems like I heard somewhere that it's votes, not campaign financing that wins elections. Case in point... Clinton lost, Trump is now her president. Fickle voters.... They don't always stay bought, in spite of what Lyndon Johnson claimed!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> I don't mind the snark. You know me that well at least.
> 
> These programs are already in place. The problem is once they reach a certain goal they cut money disproportionally as to the gain they receive on their jobs. I don't know the exact point but let use just one example that I heard with my own ears.
> 
> ...


My apologies, I jumped to the assumption that you were talking about an overhaul of the entire system with a software program. 

What you detail makes sense, and would work to get those employed but needing help out of the system.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Enjoy...

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ten bucks an hour is well beyond any wage I ever earned. At some point those folks should no longer need my assistance!


How many hours a month so you work on your occupied rent houses? How much cash flow do you get. Figure that up and I bet you come up with more than ten an hour. 

Besides, don't get hung up on the dollar amounts. This was twenty years ago. It really was probably much smaller. I don't recall the actual per hour. Not even sure if she told me. I do recall the dollar raises which just proves how much more valuable her employer thought she was. 

At some point most of them can quit asking you for money if you only give them the chance to work their way out if it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> My apologies, I jumped to the assumption that you were talking about an overhaul of the entire system with a software program.
> 
> What you detail makes sense, and would work to get those employed but needing help out of the system.


No apologies needed. I write what's in my head and even I can't understand it sometimes.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

fishhead said:


> Name calling means that you didn't read my post. I don't have class envy. I just don't like the idea that many of the 1% got their wealth by stepping to the front of the line and by cheating.
> 
> It is a fact that the 1% spend less of their income than the rest of us. They hide the money to avoid paying taxes. That removes it from our economy.
> 
> ...


Not sure the 1% got there by stepping in front of anyone or by cheating. You have an example? That you believe the super rich got there by taking cuts or cheating sounds like the opinion of those that envy the rich.

The top 1% spend a lower percentage of their income, but generally spend far more money than you or I. They either reinvest it, putting their money at risk or they deposit it in other countries that don't tax so hard. They could put it in their mattresses or burn it in the fireplace. Yes, it is out of the economy. Their money, not yours or mine. But they pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes than you or I do.

Everyone that buys stuff pays sales taxes, rich and poor. If you don't want to pay sales taxes, stop buying stuff.

You and I are not corporate tax experts. If someone received $4 billion and didn't pay taxes, there may be IRS tax laws that permit him to defer that income. Perhaps he invested it. You and I just don't know. Most people know little about the 44,000 pages of IRS regulations. What the uneducated call loopholes are just tax laws. If I earn $50,000 on my in town job, spend $20,000 on a farm crop that gets me $10,000., I've lost $10,000. If my tax rate is 25%, then I only have to pay 25% on the $50,000 minus my $10,000 loss= $40,000. I don't pay taxes on what I lost. So, by losing $10,000, I "save" $2500 in federal taxes. Did I get a $2500 tax break? tax loophole? I'd rather pay the $2500 in extra taxes than lose $10,000. 

But don't get me wrong. I think we are far overdue for breaking up the monopolies of the top 1% and I think Wall Street is as crooked as they come. The rich have far too much control over our elected officials. As their riches accumulate ever faster and the numbers of poor increase daily, in ever faster numbers, the middle class is shrinking.
Taking more from the middle class tax payers to support the poor, just speeds up the process.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Single mom with three kids told me this when u was working on her house. She worked in a cabinet shop. Started at eight an hour. No problem. Got a raise because she was a good hand and willing to learn. 9 dollars an hour and still no problem. They cut her benefits about 100 dollars a month. Net gain was 60 dollars. When she was offered ten an hour which is a gain of 160 month they cut her by 250 for a total loss of 90 dollars a month.


It does seem unfair. But it wasn't designed to be a forever help. You can't look at welfare as a part time job.
My neighbor, struggling family of five. They had an argument, moved out. The next day, she went to the Welfare office. They got things going right away. Money to fill the cupboards, a repair guy for the furnace and the car, money to catch up the electricity bill, fuel for the car. She got a job waiting tables at the Country Club and started college, on a PEL grant. Welfare paid us to baby sit her kids. He came back and found out Welfare was a better husband that he had been so he was out. We'd babysit while she went on overnight shopping trips. They took a jet to Nebraska to visit friends, flew back by way of Toronto to see a hockey game. Such situations serve to show the working poor how stupid we are. One night as I was headed to work on the midnight shift, welfare neighbors called out, " Hey, come on over, we got steaks on the grill!" When I declined, " Sorry, I've got to go to work," they replied, " Work? Only fools work! Haha!"


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> How many hours a month so you work on your occupied rent houses? How much cash flow do you get. Figure that up and I bet you come up with more than ten an hour.
> 
> Besides, don't get hung up on the dollar amounts. This was twenty years ago. It really was probably much smaller. I don't recall the actual per hour. Not even sure if she told me. I do recall the dollar raises which just proves how much more valuable her employer thought she was.
> 
> At some point most of them can quit asking you for money if you only give them the chance to work their way out if it.


I have to hire the work done on my rent houses. @ $10 hour. This year I have paid out well over $20k prolly closer to $30k but haven't totaled things up yet. One house needed a lot of work after the last tenants trashed the place, another was a purchase of bank repo that needed a complete remodel. Floors, roof, windows, doors, kitchen cabinets, heat n air unit etc. It will be good to be able to get that cash flow reversed... Hopefully soon. With five occupied rentals, total income is $1850 month, when number six goes online that will go up by $350. Then of course there is property tax, income tax insurance, repairs and other things taking their bites too. It's not all sitting back cashing rent checks. Oh, and this is not an hourly wage job. It's called investing... That's putting my money at risk, 24/7/365. I'll let you do the math.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

haypoint said:


> It does seem unfair. But it wasn't designed to be a forever help. You can't look at welfare as a part time job.
> My neighbor, struggling family of five. They had an argument, moved out. The next day, she went to the Welfare office. They got things going right away. Money to fill the cupboards, a repair guy for the furnace and the car, money to catch up the electricity bill, fuel for the car. She got a job waiting tables at the Country Club and started college, on a PEL grant. Welfare paid us to baby sit her kids. He came back and found out Welfare was a better husband that he had been so he was out. We'd babysit while she went on overnight shopping trips. They took a jet to Nebraska to visit friends, flew back by way of Toronto to see a hockey game. Such situations serve to show the working poor how stupid we are. One night as I was headed to work on the midnight shift, welfare neighbors called out, " Hey, come on over, we got steaks on the grill!" When I declined, " Sorry, I've got to go to work," they replied, " Work? Only fools work! Haha!"


I met those people too. Many of them. That's why I'll respond to both sides of this issue with what seems to be contracting statements. The truth is it all needs to be addressed. We (collective) need to quit acting like it's one sided problem. It's multi faceted and no way to fix every problem with one solution. Some issues are as easy to fix as I said.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have to hire the work done on my rent houses. @ $10 hour. This year I have paid out well over $20k prolly closer to $30k but haven't totaled things up yet. One house needed a lot of work after the last tenants trashed the place, another was a purchase of bank repo that needed a complete remodel. Floors, roof, windows, doors, kitchen cabinets, heat n air unit etc. It will be good to be able to get that cash flow reversed... Hopefully soon. With five occupied rentals, total income is $1850 month, when number six goes online that will go up by $350. Then of course there is property tax, income tax insurance, repairs and other things taking their bites too. It's not all sitting back cashing rent checks. Oh, and this is not an hourly wage job. It's called investing... That's putting my money at risk, 24/7/365. I'll let you do the math.


Well ok then lol. That's still more than ten an hour. I understand REI myself very well and that's why I asked. Also do my own taxes. Or used to anyway when I had my construction company. I know all about it. 

But you said you had never made more than ten an hour.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> Well ok then lol. That's still more than ten an hour. I understand REI myself very well and that's why I asked. Also do my own taxes. Or used to anyway when I had my construction company. I know all about it.
> 
> But you said you had never made more than ten an hour.


 "I" have never made more than $8 per hour. My investments sometimes have, maybe. But that would have even been pretty rare. Consider my investments today are working and at risk 24/7/365. They earn less than minimum wage. Like I said... Do the math.. At ten per hour they would be making me $240 per day, x 365 days a year = $87,600 per year. Naw, I'm still making way less than minimum wage. Somewhere in the $2 dollar per hour range at best. But it beats farming!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> "I" have never made more than $8 per hour. My investments sometimes have, maybe. But that would have even been pretty rare. Consider my investments today are working and at risk 24/7/365. They earn less than minimum wage. Like I said... Do the math.. At ten per hour they would be making me $240 per day, x 365 days a year = $87,600 per year. Naw, I'm still making way less than minimum wage. Somewhere in the $2 dollar per hour range at best. But it beats farming!



LOL, you are hilarious. 

That reminds me of that rancher in that joke. (its an old joke so adjust for inflation)



Rancher decided to open a steak house. He was charging 3 dollars per steak. They were selling like hotcakes because they were so cheap. The steak house across town got mad and went to talk to him. He said "whats the matter with you, you cant make a living selling steaks for 3 bucks. You'll go broke in a year." 

The rancher replied, "Well, I am a simple man and I dont need to make all that much money. I raise my own beef and it costs me 30 cents to get that steak on the plate. I am perfectly happy with my 10% profit."


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Therein lies the secret to living well on less than minimum wage! Being content with what you do have. I'm thinking percentage wise I'm not getting even ten percent return on my investments, but I'm happy to get what I get. I have plenty to eat, a warm place to sleep, bourbon in the cabinet, a dog that tolerates me, a beautiful wife that loves me and a clear conscience that allows me to sleep well. It just don't get no better than that.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

haypoint said:


> Not sure the 1% got there by stepping in front of anyone or by cheating. You have an example? That you believe the super rich got there by taking cuts or cheating sounds like the opinion of those that envy the rich.


Allow me. The top handful of companies in the trucking industry are consolidating their position at the expense of others like me by buying legislation which makes their inefficient and abusive business model the most efficient legal business model. That qualifies as both cheating and stepping in front of and/or on others so far as I am concerned.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> Allow me. The top handful of companies in the trucking industry are consolidating their position at the expense of others like me by buying legislation which makes their inefficient and abusive business model the most efficient legal business model. That qualifies as both cheating and stepping in front of and/or on others so far as I am concerned.


I would need more details before passing judgement either way.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Allow me. The top handful of companies in the trucking industry are consolidating their position at the expense of others like me by buying legislation which makes their inefficient and abusive business model the most efficient legal business model. That qualifies as both cheating and stepping in front of and/or on others so far as I am concerned.


If it is legal, it isn't cheating. Under funded politicians seldom win the popular vote. So they snuggle up to the deep pocketed top 1%. That is legal. The top 1% ends up getting laws that benefit them, that's legal, too.
100 years ago, a president died and put a new president in place that was not in their pocket. He was able to break up the steel industry that was run by one person, railroad run by one person, fuel run by one person. For awhile, the top 1% were taxed heavily. But times change. Ways around taxes include going global. Whenever I bring up the unhealthy control the top 1% have on our economy, people say they know a rich person that pay a lot of taxes and works hard.
I accept that Wall Street is out of control and will screw me. I accept that the citizens cannot break up the monopolies or tax the top 1% in relation to the infrastructure benefits they reap.
My hometown depended on one main industry, refrigerators. Been that way since they were wooden iceboxes. Electrolux, a Swedish company bought the company. Within 2 years, they moved to Mexico. The factories have been torn down. The numerous support business are vacant. Low income housing has a waiting list. There is nothing illegal, they didn't step in front of anyone. They sought to maximize profits and did. That is what people do.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Ok here Meth is strong. I know a homeless Woman found she had Cancer was taking Cemo. Quit so she could enjoy her Meth. Now has Stage 3 Skin Cancer.

Once again my Son is missing for over a year he had a place to live. I believe he has gotten off his Medication again and once again Homeless. He has Mental Issues and on Drugs.

Always afraid he is going to be found dead. It is to get below Zero and I really wish I knew where he is.

big rockpile


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

haypoint said:


> Within 2 years, they moved to Mexico. The factories have been torn down. The numerous support business are vacant. Low income housing has a waiting list. There is nothing illegal, they didn't step in front of anyone. They sought to maximize profits and did. That is what people do.


Thats why you need a govt that looks after Americans first, not maximize profits of their 1% buddies.

In other words, its a free country, move your factories to Mexico, China, Timbuctu.... But if you want to sell you cheap labor products in this country, a tariff will be added to where you will either make significantly less profit or sell significantly fewer goods. There is nothing illegal, the constitution gives congress the right to impose tariffs.... Maybe the next company wont be so gung ho to chase cheapest labor around the world.

But alas we only have bought and paid for politicians that only look after paper profits for the wealthy. The current crop "fake" politicians in power maybe the worst in history. Whatever nonsense comes out of their mouth (or tweet) is the exact opposite of the truth.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

haypoint said:


> If it is legal, it isn't cheating. Under funded politicians seldom win the popular vote. So they snuggle up to the deep pocketed top 1%. That is legal. The top 1% ends up getting laws that benefit them, that's legal, too.
> 100 years ago, a president died and put a new president in place that was not in their pocket. He was able to break up the steel industry that was run by one person, railroad run by one person, fuel run by one person. For awhile, the top 1% were taxed heavily. But times change. Ways around taxes include going global. Whenever I bring up the unhealthy control the top 1% have on our economy, people say they know a rich person that pay a lot of taxes and works hard.
> I accept that Wall Street is out of control and will screw me. I accept that the citizens cannot break up the monopolies or tax the top 1% in relation to the infrastructure benefits they reap.
> My hometown depended on one main industry, refrigerators. Been that way since they were wooden iceboxes. Electrolux, a Swedish company bought the company. Within 2 years, they moved to Mexico. The factories have been torn down. The numerous support business are vacant. Low income housing has a waiting list. There is nothing illegal, they didn't step in front of anyone. They sought to maximize profits and did. That is what people do.


This post sounds pretty naive. Given that the politicians who are owned by various other persons or entities have a habit of going into congress not particularly wealthy and ending up millionaires well beyond their means even if they could have saved every single penny of their salaries, it is pretty obvious that there is more corruption involved than you are addressing, which is in fact illegal.

Incidentally, do you believe in a free market economy?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would need more details before passing judgement either way.


Would it do any good if you had videotape of the CEO's putting the cash in congressmen's hands and saying on tape it was to pass the favorable legislation?
Of course no one will ever be able to produce such concrete evidence, but just for kicks, if it was available would THAT change your mind?
I'll tell you right now, I don't think it would.
I think you would search out every other possible explanation than the obvious one - that the very rich often become very corrupt and bribe very ambitious legislators to pass very harmful laws to benefit the very few.

I don't need to see a videotape of it happening, there are thousands of years of human history that demonstrate it quite clearly........that is if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Would it do any good if you had videotape of the CEO's putting the cash in congressmen's hands and saying on tape it was to pass the favorable legislation?
> Of course no one will ever be able to produce such concrete evidence, but just for kicks, if it was available would THAT change your mind?
> I'll tell you right now, I don't think it would.
> I think you would search out every other possible explanation than the obvious one - that the very rich often become very corrupt and bribe very ambitious legislators to pass very harmful laws to benefit the very few.
> ...


I do not dispute that there are corrupt politicians, I was more interested in the legislation you claim is picking on you. Looking for more info, not evidence.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Incidentally, do you believe in a free market economy?


A free market economy cannot exist when monopolies exist. When the top 1% of the population hold 60% of the money and the bottom 50% hold 8% of the money and the trend continues to accelerate to more and more poor and an ever higher percentage of the economy controlled by that top 1%.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> A free market economy cannot exist when monopolies exist. When the top 1% of the population hold 60% of the money and the bottom 50% hold 8% of the money and the trend continues to accelerate to more and more poor and an ever higher percentage of the economy controlled by that top 1%.


Perhaps that bottom 50% should save more of their money. That way they could improve their plight.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

haypoint said:


> A free market economy cannot exist when monopolies exist. When the top 1% of the population hold 60% of the money and the bottom 50% hold 8% of the money and the trend continues to accelerate to more and more poor and an ever higher percentage of the economy controlled by that top 1%.


Now you have me completely confused about the point you are trying to make. First you tell me that there is nothing wrong with what amounts to an oligopoly buying laws to put smaller competitors out of business or at least make them so that they cannot outperform a less efficient business model and then you tell me that a free market cannot exist with monopolies (which in practice an oligopoly has the same effect) and that the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is bad.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps that bottom 50% should save more of their money. That way they could improve their plight.


On one hand I would agree that there is a problem with frivolous spending. On the other hand, you aren't going to get a very polite response from people you may give this advice under circumstances where a choice of only one option between saving and eating/living indoors is involved.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Didn't say it would be a well received solution. Just a workable one.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Didn't say it would be a well received solution. Just a workable one.


How long are you going to expect them to stop eating so they can save money?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> How long are you going to expect them to stop eating so they can save money?


It's not about stopping eating or living out doors. It's about cutting back on extras, eating less expensively and maybe even downsizing where they live for less expensive accommodations.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I do not dispute that there are corrupt politicians, I was more interested in the legislation you claim is picking on you. Looking for more info, not evidence.


It is a multilayered problem. First, with executive agencies being given through law broad authority to make up their own rules, you often have the same practices alternately being accepted, prohibited, and then mandated.

For example, originally, you could chain steel coils down to your truck any way you likes so long as you used enough chains. Then it became prohibited to cross chains. Then it became mandatory to cross chains if the coil were oriented lengthwise with the truck but prohibited if it were oriented crosswise. It is relatively easy to keep on top of this nonsense if you can afford an in-house compliance department, easier yet if you wrote the changes yourself, and extremely difficult if you can't afford for one of the one to ten people in your 'organization' to make a full time job out of tracking random and arbitrary changes. Oh, do remember that there are multi-thousand dollar fines available per violation, even on paperwork errors. JB Hunt won't miss a few thousand dollars per paperwork error here and there, but my brothers and I will.

Hours of service have become a problem. They claim that the regulations are crafted in the name of safety, but in reality they are crafted to protect the business model of having team drivers in a truck that never stops for sleep operated by drivers who can count the number of times they see home in a year without running out of fingers. For the rest of us who are disinclined to share such a confined space with anyone we are not willing to sleep with, expect to be home regularly, and follow the notion of working when we are rested and sleeping when we are tired, having it mandated that we go like hell for 14 hours straight--oh, make that 13 1/2 with the mandatory break with no more than 8 hours consecutive on either side of it. In reality this works out to being shut down when you could be productive and then driving half asleep because you have to. Oh, there is also that problem of being able to get less done per unit time when you are forced to work when you need to be sleeping, just like you can't force yourself to sleep when you're not tired.

Ironically enough, the companies who are pushing this nonsense have the worst safety records on the road, again proving that it has nothing to do with safety, but much to do with the fact that under these regulations, two drivers for all practical purposes cannot run out of hours simultaneously whether they are actually fit to be driving or not, but someone like me who needs to stop and rest every few hours has a serious problem, especially with being forced to use electronic logs, as in if I run out of hours 30 minutes from home I either employ an alternate solution or my alpacas get really irritated about not eating that day. Oh, did I remember to mention the multi-thousand dollar fines or the fact that with a limited number of violations, you become subject to fairly frequent arbitrarily planned audits and being shut down because the system is rigged in proportion to the size of the company and not the absolute number of violations. By that standard, if you lose your license when you accumulate 10 points against it as is the case in Indiana, as a professional driver, I should get 100 points because I drive roughly 10 times more miles in a year than the average non-truck driver. Oh, and since the safety scores are proportionate to size (in other words a single accident makes practically no difference to the score for the larger companies but has a huge effect on the seven people making up our organization) why then are fines not proportionate as well? If I get caught talking on a phone without a hands-free device, the fines are $3K to me personally and $11K to the company. Swift gets the same fines even though they operate twenty thousand (20,000!) trucks. If they get a completely insignificant penalty for safety violations because they are given leeway proportionate to size, why then do they not get a $4.7 Million fine per violation for the same thing (their 20,000 trucks divided by our six multiplied by the $14K)?

At the end of the day, it is difficult to propose with a straight face any explanation other than that the laws and regulations were crafted for the purpose of cleansing the market of smaller operators leaving an uncontested oligopoly for the chosen few whose relatively inefficient and highly abusive business models have become supported, protected, and mandated by law.

I could also address the sheer human misery involved. I hope I never meet the responsible parties personally given that they are really not worth going to prison over, but I doubt I could restrain myself. I really feel sorry for the employees they have trapped who are miserable but can't afford to leave.

Oh goodness, how could I have forgotten the standards for negatively scoring your safety record! So far as accidents are concerned, your safety record is not penalized for causing or being directly or indirectly responsible for an accident but rather for being involved in an accident. Case in point, last winter, a car slid through a stop while I was driving down the highway and ran into the side of my truck as I was passing the cross street. That counted against my record just as much as if I were to have run the car down out of sheer negligence while its driver was doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing. That said, bad luck has effectively become illegal, which, again shields the larger operators hiring people fresh off the street by making our involvement in accidents totally beyond our control penalized equally with their negligence/stupidity/lack of experience or training/just plain having no business in a truck.

Another thing I forgot when originally writing this post, I can be in bed (sleeper in the truck) sound asleep parked in a perfectly legal parking space and if some moron hits my truck it still counts against my record, once again, with a highly disproportionate effect compared with the likes of JB Hunt, Werner, Schneider, Swift, Maverick, or TMC.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It's not about stopping eating or living out doors. It's about cutting back on extras, eating less expensively and maybe even downsizing where they live for less expensive accommodations.


Often this is necessary, but what do you tell those who have nowhere to go but to either stop eating or take the next downsize which is outdoors? I will admit that I am feeling some of the irritation return from time past when my mom was lecturing me about investing money when I didn't know where my next meal was coming from. In many cases, you are right, but in others, your position sounds much like Marie Antoinette infamously declaring "Let them eat cake".


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps that bottom 50% should save more of their money. That way they could improve their plight.


Oh. That's why they are poor? Sounds like you have the cure to world poverty. Wow, just wow. Sounds like someone has never been poor or has forgotten what it is like.


IndyDave said:


> Now you have me completely confused about the point you are trying to make. First you tell me that there is nothing wrong with what amounts to an oligopoly buying laws to put smaller competitors out of business or at least make them so that they cannot outperform a less efficient business model and then you tell me that a free market cannot exist with monopolies (which in practice an oligopoly has the same effect) and that the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is bad.


Admitting a fact and thinking there is nothing wrong with it are two distinctly different things. The richest 1% are in control of most elected officials. When the need exists to elect a specific candidate, the money flows and the ads are endless. Their candidate wins and the process continues.
80 years ago, when a small group gained control of a country's banks and a growing number of factories. They controlled interest rates and wages. A charismatic commoner electrified the population against these few and a fairly successful extermination was initiated. The people took back control of their economy.
Over a hundred years ago, big business controlled who was selected president. McKinley was in their pocket. Big business, in an attempt to shut up Roosevelt, getting him on the ticket as Vice President was a sure way to make him ineffective. But the table was turned when McKinley was assassinated. Roosevelt had slipped into the presidency and he went to work breaking trusts and monopolies.
Those two mistakes will not happen again. A small group of people, and their money, that control the banks will remain anonymous and carefully separated from the masses. Control of the government is far deeper entrenched than it once was.
I see the overdue adjustment is unlikely.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Respectfully, you don't understand the nature of most mental illnesses, it's just not as simple as them asking for help. Their condition could make them paranoid, hearing voices, withdrawn, and many other things. On medication most make much better choices, but they need continued followup and treatment to stay "well".


When Ronald Reagan was governor of California he took up the cause of patient rights. To that end, he passed laws that allowed many mentally ill patients to sign themselves out of mental hospitals, if they so desired. Since hospitals are places where patients are heavily controlled, and nobody likes being told what to do, they signed themselves out in droves.

The puzzling part was that Ronald Reagan was a self-professed conservative republican, and patient rights didn't seem like the kind of cause a conservative republican might devote much time or effort to. But it turned out that it wasn't so much patient rights as it was getting the state off the hook for taking care of those people. Regardless of whether they ended up with family, friends, or on the street, at least it wasn't costing the state anything. Other states soon followed suit, and eventually similar federal regulations were enacted.

Mental patients got freedom, but at the cost of hunger and homelessness. It's a national disgrace.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Nevada said:


> When Ronald Reagan was governor of California he took up the cause of patient rights. To that end, he passed laws that allowed many mentally ill patients to sign themselves out of mental hospitals, if they so desired. Since hospitals are places where patients are heavily controlled, and nobody likes being told what to do, they signed themselves out in droves.
> 
> The puzzling part was that Ronald Reagan was a self-professed conservative republican, and patient rights didn't seem like the kind of cause a conservative republican might devote much time or effort to. But it turned out that it wasn't so much patient rights as it was getting the state off the hook for taking care of those people. Regardless of whether they ended up with family, friends, or on the street, at least it wasn't costing the state anything. Other states soon followed suit, and eventually similar federal regulations were enacted.
> 
> Mental patients got freedom, but at the cost of hunger and homelessness. It's a national disgrace.


I believe we are pretty close on this issue, but I do have the concern about involuntary committment so far as the potential for abuse goes. Being locked up for wrongthink or for being inconvenient, as was the case with the wife of a local judge back when--she required being involuntarily committed until her husband died, thus her inconvenience to his womanizing died, and all of a sudden she was miraculously healed.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The puzzling part was that Ronald Reagan was a self-professed conservative republican, and patient rights didn't seem like the kind of cause a conservative republican might devote much time or effort to. But it turned out that it wasn't so much patient rights as it was getting the state off the hook for taking care of those people. Regardless of whether they ended up with family, friends, or on the street, at least it wasn't costing the state anything.


From my work in the prison system and 6b years with mentally ill prisoners, I have some insight.
When the government takes control, they are also responsible. The prisoners with the worst behavior are placed in Segregation. We must insure they get feed enough, at the right times, medical care, taken to shower, taken to fenced outside exercise areas, safeguard their stored property. Plus document it all. So, it the event we slipped up and they missed a shower or were shorted a Yard time, we are responsible. The more control, the more responsibility.

Flint Michigan, ran out of money and needed state help repeatedly. Since the State gives so much money to Flint and they misuse t, a state law was passed that permitted the state to send in a financial manager to watch over how Flint spent their money. Flint has the highest water bill, buying water from Detroit. A company offered to build a pipeline from Lake Huron to Flint, saving money. Flint City Council voted to switch. The line would be ready in 2 years. Detroit Water got wind of this and refused to extend their contract, giving Flint only a few months to find another water source. Flint had a water treatment plant hooked to the Flint River, as a emergency backup. It would cost $500,000 for a study to determine feasibility of switching to this facility. The Emergency Manager approved the Council's request to spend this on a study. Then the Emergency Manager approved the Council's request to spend the money to switch to their water treatment plant. All the water provided was pure. But, this facility did not add a phosphorus to coat pipes, as was done in Detroit. The phosphorus eroded and the homes with lead pipes provided high levels of lead.
While all the decisions were made by the Flint City Council, because the State appointed Financial Manager approved the spending, many Flint residents blame the State. The State has poured millions into fixing this problem and many more millions will spill into Flint.
When you take any control over people, you are on the hook for every bump in the road.

The public is critical of mental institutions. Creating adult foster homes is costly and still places a bunch of responsibility on the state. Turn them loose and let society sort out their priorities.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Everyone should save something and a good perspective is to consider their labor as a service as their water, electric , home mortgage and other services they purchase.

Working for income in reality is the most important service a person provides to themselves as without it they cannot pay for the other services.

Viewing from that perspective , a person should pay themselves 3 to 10 percent of their net income to go into savings or safe investments and decide on tier caps where they can consider taking a small portion for additional disposable income one time infusion instead of lusting for disposable income grade things they cannot actually afford on their income without having the savings that in reality pay them for their service of providing the income for all the services they require to live within and slightly below their means.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

IndyDave said:


> I believe we are pretty close on this issue, but I do have the concern about involuntary committment so far as the potential for abuse goes. Being locked up for wrongthink or for being inconvenient, as was the case with the wife of a local judge back when--she required being involuntarily committed until her husband died, thus her inconvenience to his womanizing died, and all of a sudden she was miraculously healed.


While the law varies from state to state, the standard in most states is an opinion by a doctor that someone is a danger to himself or others. If she could prove otherwise then people could go to prison for doing what they did. It's not easy to get a doctor to take that kind of risk.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shrek said:


> Everyone should save something and a good perspective is to consider their labor as a service as their water, electric , home mortgage and other services they purchase.
> 
> Working for income in reality is the most important service a person provides to themselves as without it they cannot pay for the other services.
> 
> Viewing from that perspective , a person should pay themselves 3 to 10 percent of their net income to go into savings or safe investments and decide on tier caps where they can consider taking a small portion for additional disposable income one time infusion instead of lusting for disposable income grade things they cannot actually afford on their income without having the savings that in reality pay them for their service of providing the income for all the services they require to live within and slightly below their means.


The real problem with saving for difficult times is that most people (yes, MOST) have a setback sometime during their adult lives that wipes out all of their net worth. It could be a divorce, illness, accident, layoff, foreclosure, personal bankruptcy, business failure, or even a criminal allegation.

If it hasn't happened to you then you have indeed lived a charmed life.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Oh. That's why they are poor? Sounds like you have the cure to world poverty. Wow, just wow. Sounds like someone has never been poor or has forgotten what it is like.



Naw, most are poor because they had parents, grand parents that didn't learn basic economics and managed to pass that lack of knowledge on to them. Many continue in their plight due to adherence to the wrong economic "rules". That of blaming the rich for their success and feeling robbed because they aren't. I was born into poverty by most standards in this country today, never really got out of it. I learned early on to live within my means, actually a bit below my means, so I could save, invest and be a bit more comfortable in my old age. Still "poor" by government standards, but comfortable just the same. Plenty to eat, warm place to sleep in out of the weather, well stocked liquor cabinet, a dog that tolerates me and a beautiful woman that loves me.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The real problem with saving for difficult times is that most people (yes, MOST) have a setback sometime during their adult lives that wipes out all of their net worth. It could be a divorce, illness, accident, layoff, foreclosure, personal bankruptcy, business failure, or even a criminal allegation.
> 
> If it hasn't happened to you then you have indeed lived a charmed life.


It's happened to me several times. Two divorces, and a nasty go round with cancer. Never filed bankruptcy, never was foreclosed on or layed off though. Been without a job lots of times but paid my bills anyway.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Nevada,
There is nothing charmed about the life I live, I simply planned it better than some of my friends.

When I was still in school and living at home, I had a part time job earning $75 a week. After paying my parents $25 a week room and board, I put at least $10 a week into savings and if I didn't spend the $40 during the weekend on dates, I took whatever was left over and when I had $25 I bought a $50 EE.
During the years I bought EEs when they matured I cashed them out, using $25 to buy an extra EE , putting the interest and $2.50 into my 10% investment account and whatever left over I split between my pocket for the coming weekend, my vehicle maintenance and on hand cash funds.

When I got my first full time job making $6.50 an hour and moved out, I knew to find myself an apartment in the $200 to $250 with water and cable included.

Since a telephone then was a luxury on my budget, I used the payphone by the vending machines two doors down from my apartment as my home phone for two years until I could afford a $6 a month pager to go with the payphone as I continued to save and invest.

Ten years later I had a decent investment portfolio, moved to a nicer more expensive apartment than the $240 turned $325 place and started a small business I ran on the weekends with all profits earmarked for buying my first house and property.

When I finally had the money to buy a house , my ex wanted a house that would have cost us $125 more than we paid in rent while I only looked at houses at least $150 less than $475 we paid in rent because I knew that with the house also came utilities and maintenance costs.

She never did forgive me for holding to my guns and getting the 1100 foot house on 2 acres instead of the 2700 foot McMansion she wanted, but it all worked out for the best as I have been able to live comfortably and re-establish myself on my half of the split 

I am glad that when we split she took the newest vehicle we had and left me with the older rig that while not as good looking was actually more reliable and looks nice now that its about 90% fully restored to its 1980 condition.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It's happened to me several times. Two divorces, and a nasty go round with cancer. Never filed bankruptcy, never was foreclosed on or layed off though. Been without a job lots of times but paid my bills anyway.





Shrek said:


> Nevada,
> There is nothing charmed about the life I live, I simply planned it better than some of my friends.


Be that as it may, a certain number of people end up on the street after an event like that. Many more lose their savings along the way and have to start over.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Be that as it may, a certain number of people end up on the street after an event like that. Many more lose their savings along the way and have to start over.


Yup, found myself on the street starting over after both divorces. At least with the second one I was just broke, not heavily in debt like the first time.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> The real problem with saving for difficult times is that most people (yes, MOST) have a setback sometime during their adult lives that wipes out all of their net worth. It could be a divorce, illness, accident, layoff, foreclosure, personal bankruptcy, business failure, or even a criminal allegation.
> 
> If it hasn't happened to you then you have indeed lived a charmed life.


It's easy when a person has a spouse/SO with money that supports them... In the case of divorce, if you don't have the proverbial pot you don't have much to lose, huh?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's easy when a person has a spouse/SO with money that supports them... In the case of divorce, if you don't have the proverbial pot you don't have much to lose, huh?


Sure, that's true. The real point I was trying to make was that when people lose everything it isn't always a case of poor planning.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Sure, that's true. The real point I was trying to make was that when people lose everything it isn't always a case of poor planning.


True enough.... But is there some reason to not start over? Why do so many just give up?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Sure, that's true. The real point I was trying to make was that when people lose everything it isn't always a case of poor planning.


Yup, I agree.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> True enough.... But is there some reason to not start over? Why do so many just give up?


It depends on how hard they fall and what resources are available. If he's on the street then friends, family and education become assets. Otherwise, it can be difficult to get off the street.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It depends on how hard they fall and what resources are available. If he's on the street then friends, family and education become assets. Otherwise, it can be difficult to get off the street.


Didn't say it was easy, I asked why so many simply give up, even those with basic marketable skills.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Didn't say it was easy, I asked why so many simply give up, even those with basic marketable skills.


I would say that a good place to start looking for you answer is found at the point where such a person asks himself or herself 'why do I even bother' and can't come up with a good answer. Depression is a powerful force such that even when you know for a fact you can do something you may not be able to honestly believe you can in fact manage to do it. Events such as those in question have a nasty habit of appealing to those prone to depression in a negative manner.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Nevada said:


> While the law varies from state to state, the standard in most states is an opinion by a doctor that someone is a danger to himself or others. If she could prove otherwise then people could go to prison for doing what they did. It's not easy to get a doctor to take that kind of risk.


Generally, the doctor has to determine that there is a danger and then go to the judge for an order, but there is nothing to keep the judge from issuing the order without the doctor, as was done in this case.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> I would say that a good place to start looking for you answer is found at the point where *such a person asks himself or herself 'why do I even bother' and can't come up with a good answer.* Depression is a powerful force such that even when you know for a fact you can do something you may not be able to honestly believe you can in fact manage to do it. Events such as those in question have a nasty habit of appealing to those prone to depression in a negative manner.


understandable when our government provides them with a living whether they work to improve their plight or not. I recall my father being horribly depressed when he was losing the farm, but he still went and found a job, went to work every day and eventually paid all of his debts. I asked him once years later why he didn't just file bankruptcy like so many others do. His reply was simple.... "I borrowed the money, I had promised to pay it back".


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> understandable when our government provides them with a living whether they work to improve their plight or not. I recall my father being horribly depressed when he was losing the farm, but he still went and found a job, went to work every day and eventually paid all of his debts. I asked him once years later why he didn't just file bankruptcy like so many others do. His reply was simple.... *"I borrowed the money, I had promised to pay it back*".


Sure wish more people had that attitude today. 

My neighbors recently filed bankruptcy. I can see them going down that same road again as they have not changed any behaviors, nor the desire to change. 

I wonder what the cost of goods would be if businesses didn't factor in unpaid loans.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> understandable when our government provides them with a living whether they work to improve their plight or not. I recall my father being horribly depressed when he was losing the farm, but he still went and found a job, went to work every day and eventually paid all of his debts. I asked him once years later why he didn't just file bankruptcy like so many others do. His reply was simple.... "I borrowed the money, I had promised to pay it back".


It doesn't always work that way. When I was cleaning out my grandma's house I found her father's suicide note. He had found the Great Depression, well, too depressing.

As for the .gov providing a living, the other aspect of this you have to take into account is that when people try to help themselves, there is no one for one replacement available with the money. If they could be incrementally weaned off the system they would have a much better chance as opposed to hitting a threshold which is far too low to actually live on and then having the rug jerked out from under them altogether. Consequently, they learn not to hit that income threshold. The system is designed to keep people trapped on the plantation, thus they are literally forced to vote for a living. It is one of the most dishonest and cruel political stunts in our history, but it is highly effective for its purpose.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

IndyDave said:


> It doesn't always work that way. When I was cleaning out my grandma's house I found her father's suicide note. He had found the Great Depression, well, too depressing.
> 
> As for the .gov providing a living, the other aspect of this you have to take into account is that when people try to help themselves, there is no one for one replacement available with the money. If they could be incrementally weaned off the system they would have a much better chance as opposed to hitting a threshold which is far too low to actually live on and then having the rug jerked out from under them altogether. Consequently, they learn not to hit that income threshold. The system is designed to keep people trapped on the plantation, thus they are literally forced to vote for a living. It is one of the most dishonest and cruel political stunts in our history, but it is highly effective for its purpose.


Well said but good luck convincing some people. They would rather just keep it as is I guess.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> Well said but good luck convincing some people. They would rather just keep it as is I guess.


You can put me down in the column wanting to see the system changed.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You can put me down in the column wanting to see the system changed.


Then lets change it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> Then lets change it.


Love to, got a plan? So far my ideas don't sell well.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Love to, got a plan? So far my ideas don't sell well.


I said my plan a few pages back and you didnt buy that one either.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Love to, got a plan? So far my ideas don't sell well.





mreynolds said:


> I said my plan a few pages back and you didnt buy that one either.


LOL.
Well, to change a problem you first have to recognize it and be willing to admit there IS one.
The last question to me from YH (examples of legislation) went unanswered.
Sure, I found a pretty decent link with good explanations from years of SCOTUS cases. It was a little long and boring for most, but with plenty of info. Legislation and Court rulings that were biased against the poor and those that were skewed in favor of the wealthy and Big Business.
But showing that to someone that thinks the Trail of Tears was an invitation only, privileged nature hike, designed to help those poor impoverished Cherokee's to a better life..............well, I'll just wait for the Disney movie.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> I said my plan a few pages back and you didnt buy that one either.


I'm all good with your plan of weening them off gradually, but there has to be an actual cut off point somewhere.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm all good with your plan of weening them off gradually, but there has to be an actual cut off point somewhere.


Well of course there will be. The way it is now it's near impossible to get off it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> Well of course there will be. The way it is now it's near impossible to get off it.


Where would you be content placing the shut off point? $10 per hour seems more than sufficient to me.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Where would you be content placing the shut off point? $10 per hour seems more than sufficient to me.


The shut off point will set itself as they work their way out of it. You can't just say ten an hour and be done with it. You are not that naive. How much rent will 1200 take home pay get you in New York City? Here's a hint. It won't get anything.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> The shut off point will set itself as they work their way out of it. You can't just say ten an hour and be done with it. You are not that naive. How much rent will 1200 take home pay get you in New York City? Here's a hint. It won't get anything.


Location, location and location. If you can't afford a penthouse in Trump tower.... Look elsewhere.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> If they had proper mental health treatment there wouldn't be so many on the streets because they would accept help. It's a vicious circle and mental health care in the US just sucks. Bare minimum meds to stabilize and send them out without a bit of structured treatment. We as a people and country are better than this.


The problem is freedom. You can not FORCE them to be treated unless they are a threat to themselves or others. And once the meds take effect and they are ruled no longer a threat and they are ruled mentally competent and must be released. At which point they are free to stop taking their meds.

I used to deal with homeless and I can tell you a large number of those with mental health issues are there because of their own choice. Once they are on their meds for a while they, like a lot of other people with mental health issues, think they are 'cured' and stop taking their meds (and as noted you can't force them to take them). Or they don't like the side effects, drugs used to treat schizophrenics causes side effects which are fairly unpleasant.

BTW you are free to go out, find a mentally ill homeless person and bring him home and take care of him. I have actually seen that work.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Respectfully, you don't understand the nature of most mental illnesses, it's just not as simple as them asking for help. Their condition could make them paranoid, hearing voices, withdrawn, and many other things. On medication most make much better choices, but they need continued followup and treatment to stay "well".
> 
> You can lock them away and force meds with a court order, it isn't even that difficult. Nope, there are over a hundred thousand mentally ill homeless people in poverty, the official statistic is 20-25%.


Yeah you can lock them up and force meds on them, until the meds kick in and they are mentally competent and they you have to release them. Ask a beat cop about how this works. If they have a lot of contact with mentally ill homeless they will probably be able to give you names of people who have been locked away and released several times. I'm also willing to bet they will tell you unless the guy is violent when he's off his meds they don't even bother any more.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, no crime has to be committed, just a judge and court order. That's meds by mouth and injection. They can't be committed involuntarily to a locked down facility without being a danger to themselves or others, it's called a 72 hour hold.
> 
> No, we're not, that's over a 100k US citizens (and that's only the severely mentally ill) that aren't being treated like human beings. The mentally ill are as American as you and I but due to their disability they live like animals, they are preyed upon by every manner of scumbug, and they die in the street. What is your version of an alternative?


Courts cannot force medical treatment of any kind on a mentally competent adult. And once a mentally ill person is on their meds they are considered mentally competent. At that point no judge in the world is going to order a medical facility to force treatment on him.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> That is how the process works in New York, and there are variations of it across the nation. If a patient is in a facility and won't take their meds it goes to judge and he or she issues a court order to administer the medication. It happens every day, in every state in the country.


Why are they in a facility to begin with? I do not believe if someone is voluntarily in a treatment facility and refuses to take his meds a judge is going to issue a court order forcing treatment. If they have been involuntarily committed they have already been found mentally incompetent and such an order can be issued. 




Irish Pixie said:


> The mentally ill are not treated like human beings, in some cases they aren't even treated like animals- some rescue would pick them up and treat them. We are better than the way are mentally ill are treated.


They are treated like humans with rights. You may not like it but they have the full right to not take their meds and as long as they are not in danger you nor I have any right to force them to be treated. 




Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not going to argue with you, I know what I'm talking about, I don't think you do.


I have to question what you "know". As I have stated I used to work with homeless and there was no legal way for us to force a non-committed, i.e. a legally competent, person to take their meds.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I didn't realize there were 15 pages when I started. I'll have to read more later


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Why are they in a facility to begin with?


Before Ronald Reagan changed the law many mentally ill people were kept in hospitals for social reasons. If someone is incompetent to the point where he's not going to be able to take care of himself, and no family comes forward to help, it was considered humane to keep people who obviously weren't going to be able to hold down a job, feed themselves, or maintain a roof over their heads.

So while no doctor was willing to say that a particular patient was a danger to himself or others, doctors were willing to say that a patient was incompetent to the point where he couldn't take care of himself. That was good enough, at least until the law was changed.

Of course medical providers knew what humanitarian problems releasing those people would create.

I guess the short answer to your question is that there was no other place to send them to, so they just decided to hang on to them for humanitarian reasons.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Oh. That's why they are poor? Sounds like you have the cure to world poverty. Wow, just wow. Sounds like someone has never been poor or has forgotten what it is like.


Let me give you some real life examples of why some people are poor and will always be poor.

One of the places I work hire an outside company to do some work and I often interact with these guys. The outside company pays a bit over minimum wage but not much and offers on benefits. I'd guess about 3/4 of them smoke even though I have pointed out if they took the money they spend on smokes and did nothing but put it in a jar they'd have $300 for every pack they didn't buy each week. 

I'd say about the same percentage come in with a bag of fast food for lunch, again pointing out that lunch is equal to almost an hour's take home pay or they could save about $1,000 a year by bring a sandwich from home has no effect on them.

I'd say an even large percentage of them are high school dropouts. And a good number of them are either single parents or have kids from previous marriages. 

Then there's the phones they have, the talk about their fairly costly weekend activities and what they talk about buying (TVs, ATVs, boats, etc). Yet almost to a man they complain about being short on money. And of course the reason is because their job doesn't pay enough.

Now I can give you some real life examples of the other side of the coin. I went to school with a guy who's father was a sharecropper. The house he grew up in was owned by the farmer and they were allowed to live in it as part of the dad's pay. IOW, they were poor. He worked summer jobs, he worked after school and he worked his way though college. Today he owns his own business and has a huge house and all the 'toys' you'd expect someone with money to have. 

It has been my experience the poor are that way because of the choices they make in their lives. 
To quote Shakespeare;

_Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
_


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Mental patients got freedom, but at the cost of hunger and homelessness. It's a national disgrace.


Hummm. . .so should we pass a law making it illegal to be mentally ill and force treatment on people the state determines are in the wrong state of mind? Or we could just make it illegal to be homeless then we could provide all those homeless people with nice warm jail cells to sleep in.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Hummm. . .so should we pass a law making it illegal to be mentally ill and force treatment on people the state determines are in the wrong state of mind? Or we could just make it illegal to be homeless then we could provide all those homeless people with nice warm jail cells to sleep in.


Actually, that's another problem that releasing mental patients has created. The Cook County Sheriff says that most of the people in his lockup are mentally ill, so the county jail has become the default mental facility.

You see, those patients might not be a danger to themselves or others, but that doesn't mean they'll keep their clothes on. When they show-up on the streets naked they get sent to the county lockup.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Actually, that's another problem that releasing mental patients has created. The Cook County Sheriff says that most of the people in his lockup are mentally ill, so the county jail has become the default mental facility.
> 
> You see, those patients might not be a danger to themselves or others, but that doesn't mean they'll keep their clothes on. When they show-up on the streets naked they get sent to the county lockup.


Let's see. Laws are there to protect society, i.e. the people or "others". Having people walking around unclothed in public has been determined by society as something which it wants to be protected from. When someone breaks a law they have shown themselves, almost by definition, to be a threat to society and "others".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Let's see. Laws are there to protect society, i.e. the people or "others". Having people walking around unclothed in public has been determined by society as something which it wants to be protected from. When someone breaks a law they have shown themselves, almost by definition, to be a threat to society and "others".


But it's not a behavior problem, it's the result of mental illness. You'll have about as much luck modifying behavior of the mentally ill as you would by punishing epileptics for having seizures.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But it's not a behavior problem, it's the result of mental illness. You'll have about as much luck modifying behavior of the mentally ill as you would by punishing epileptics for having seizures.


The point is they are a 'threat' to others. As such they should be put through the legal system, found mentally incompetent and dealt with. The problem is once they are treated and the meds kick in they are found to be mentally competent and must be released because keeping them locked up would violate their civil and human rights. Once released they released they have the freedom to stop taking their meds and they wind up back in the system.

The only solution to getting and keeping them off the streets I can think of is to put in a three strikes type of law in effect. After the X time you have been arrested, ruled mentally incompetent, treated and released after the meds kick in you are locked away in a treatment facility. Or treat repeat offenders the way some states do pedifiles you determine even after their sentence has been completed they are a threat to society and keep them locked up.

As an extreme believer of freedom I don't like either of those options. When you give the state the power to lock someone up because the state "knows what's best for them" you are sliding a very slippery slope.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The point is they are a 'threat' to others.


The standard is that they are a "danger" to themselves or others.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> The outside company pays a bit over minimum wage but not much and offers on benefits. I'd guess about 3/4 of them smoke even though I have pointed out if they took the money they spend on smokes and did nothing but put it in a jar they'd have $300 for every pack they didn't buy each week.
> 
> I'd say about the same percentage come in with a bag of fast food for lunch, again pointing out that lunch is equal to almost an hour's take home pay or they could save about $1,000 a year by bring a sandwich from home has no effect on them.


I don't smoke and have never dealt with any addictions. For some of the marginal employees, like you mention, their cigarette habit is an addiction and keeps them from falling into depression that keeps them unemployed. Some of the living arrangements are dysfunctional. There might not be a safe place to keep a bag of apples, quart of juice or a place to cook a hotdog. Costs me more to cook a meal than to buy a $5. Fillup at KFC.
For a few years, I rented a room in a house of 6 guys. Constant turn over. Some guys worked at places that would run short on cash and leave them without a paycheck. Others struggled with depression. Walking great distances to get to work is hard. That step to getting your own car is huge. Then, the required auto insurance is much higher because they don't have a driving record with any insurance company. Then the car they get doesn't last, needs more repair than they have. Detroit is the second worst city to find a job.
oh, I don't doubt you can go from nothing and through hard work live a comfortable life. I've done it. But I've lived in and near poverty enough to know that a few changed events, I might find myself in a hole that even I couldn't climb out.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> But it's not a behavior problem, it's the result of mental illness. You'll have about as much luck modifying behavior of the mentally ill as you would by punishing epileptics for having seizures.


Exactly. Treatment is needed just like any other illness.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I walk around naked, and if anybody tells me I'm crazy, I shrink them down to about 2 ft tall with my mindray, and fry them like a Western Omelette with my Hand o' Heat.


----------

