# Las Vegas homeless law grace period over



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ew-law-prohibiting-camping-public-places.html

"Last November, Las Vegas City Council made it illegal for homeless people to sit, camp or sleep in public places when there are spaces available at approved shelters. Those doing so risk misdemeanor penalties of a $1,000 fine, arrest and up to six months in jail."


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Does not mean a lot if its not enforced. Just like many other laws.


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

A $1,000.00 fine for homeless persons? Really? Assuming they hold a high-paying job?


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

I always get a kick out of some of these "punishments" handed out by judges. Most of the people getting fined couldn't pay $2.00 never mind anything more. And victim reimbursement? Yeah, right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It really is a crazy law. $1000.00 and six months in jail for a person who can't afford rent. They will never get out of jail.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It really is a crazy law. $1000.00 and six months in jail for a person who *can't afford rent*. *They will never get out of jail*.


You're making assumptions as to what they can afford.
They won't have to go to jail as long as they simply obey the law and don't try to live on public property.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're making assumptions as to what they can afford.
> They won't have to go to jail as long as they simply obey the law and don't try to live on public property.


I assumed nothing. I read the article.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I assumed nothing.


You assumed you know what they can afford.
You assumed they will be given fines.
You assumed they will be arrested.



painterswife said:


> I read the article.


I read it too.
The article doesn't tell you what they all can afford.
If they "can't afford" to pay the fine, perhaps they should consider living somewhere else, which is really the entire purpose of the law.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You assumed you know what they can afford.
> You assumed they will be given fines.
> You assumed they will be arrested.
> 
> ...


I see you assuming what you think I know.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I see you assuming what you think I know.


You told me all those things.

I've seen this game before.
I'm not playing it this morning.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You told me all those things.
> 
> I've seen this game before.
> I'm not playing it this morning.


You accuse me of assuming when you are the one doing that and then pick up and run when it is brought to light. Don't start games you can't play then.

Next time you might try talking about the article instead of me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Don't start games you can't play then.


I win!!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

$1000 fine. No problem. That's probably 2 days of panhandling. And that's just working rush hours!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...em-las-vegas-debates-public-sleeping-n1075111

"But sleeping on public sidewalks or streets may soon not be an option for homeless people in Las Vegas. On Nov. 6, the City Council is slated to vote on an ordinance that would make it illegal to camp or sleep on the streets in parts of the city. Drafted in September, the ordinance would make it a misdemeanor to rest, sleep or “lodge” in Las Vegas’ downtown district and other residential areas if shelter beds are available. Those found in violation could be fined up to $1,000 or jailed for up to six months.

“It’s already hard enough because there are not enough shelters,” Peeples said. “This is going to give you a fine you can’t pay, and then they’ll lock you up.”


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

My gosh you two - can't you let it go? I don't know how many threads I've clicked out of because you both side track the thread with your squabbling. It's boring and because you both do it so often, you have become like children. Anything you could contribute (and once in a while you both do so you are not on ignore) to a thread gets passed over.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Looks like a loophole


painterswife said:


> if shelter beds are available


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Looks like a loophole


Yes there have to be open shelter beds. There is not enough by far but they can still fine them until they are full for the night. Luckily it looks like the police are refusing to enforce this law at this time.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Wolf mom said:


> My gosh you two - can't you let it go? I don't know how many threads I've clicked out of because you both side track the thread with your squabbling. It's boring and because you both do it so often, you have become like children. Anything you could contribute (and once in a while you both do so you are not on ignore) to a thread gets passed over.


Do you not think I am sick of his making everything about me instead of the topic?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> $1000 fine. No problem. That's probably 2 days of panhandling. And that's just working rush hours!


Yeah, they can afford the heroin and the booze and the cigarettes.
They can get money when they want it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

They might see jail as a good option.
They are inside, warm, got a bathroom, 3 meals a day and medical care.
Might not sound too bad to someone sleeping on a sidewalk.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> They might see jail as a good option.
> They are inside, warm, got a bathroom, 3 meals a day and medical care.
> Might not sound too bad to someone sleeping on a sidewalk.


If they thought that then they could easily do something to get themselves arrested and incarcerated.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're making assumptions as to what they can afford.
> They won't have to go to jail as long as they simply obey the law and don't try to live on public property.


Huh?
Doesn’t being homeless mean that they have to live on public property?


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> They might see jail as a good option.
> They are inside, warm, got a bathroom, 3 meals a day and medical care.
> Might not sound too bad to someone sleeping on a sidewalk.


I knew a lady once who felt just that way! She was mentally ill and in and out of group homes and I guess she was out so she chunked a rock through a store window to get arrested. I know this to be true because I was friends with the woman's daughter, we were adults, and my friend had a time dealing with her mother her entire lifetime.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> It really is a crazy law. $1000.00 and six months in jail for a person who can't afford rent. They will never get out of jail.


Good, they will get medical treatment, and not be crapping in the street. Or maybe just not break the law in the first place.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> Yes there have to be open shelter beds. There is not enough by far but they can still fine them until they are full for the night. Luckily it looks like the police are refusing to enforce this law at this time.


Lucky for who? The public using the sidewalks? The business owners ? 

If the homeless do not want to deal with jail then perhaps they will access other alternatives that they are currently ignoring. Seems they have alternatives. Just not alternatives they like. So when they are creating issues by sleeping on public or private property where they are not wanted they they will be able to choose other options that they prefer.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

painterswife said:


> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ew-law-prohibiting-camping-public-places.html
> 
> "Last November, Las Vegas City Council made it illegal for homeless people to sit, camp or sleep in public places when there are spaces available at approved shelters. Those doing so risk misdemeanor penalties of a $1,000 fine, arrest and up to six months in jail."


The law prohibits equally rich and poor folks from sleeping on sidewalks. It's about time that the idea of respecting public space gets some attention instead of it being used as a public bathroom as is seen elsewhere.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

georger said:


> The law prohibits equally rich and poor folks from sleeping on sidewalks. It's about time that the idea of respecting public space gets some attention instead of it being used as a public bathroom as is seen elsewhere.


I have no problem with respecting public space. I just don't believe that 1000.00 fines and jail time when you can't pay really will solve the problem.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I have no problem with respecting public space. I just don't believe that 1000.00 fines and jail time when you can't pay really will solve the problem.


A hug and a kiss ain't going to fix the problem


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


> A hug and a kiss ain't going to fix the problem


Meanwhile, in my town....

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...devices-to-deter-loiterers-in-citys-downtown/


SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — The Spokane City Council will vote Monday on a law that would ban devices that emit a high-pitched sound to discourage loiterers in the city’s downtown.
City Councilwoman Kate Burke, who crafted the proposal, told the Spokesman Review that the devices are inherently discriminatory because they are used mostly against homeless people and youth who congregate outside businesses.

But businesses are upset by the proposed ban on the high-frequency devices and say their business has been harmed by large groups that congregate in the area. Some businesses have been “overrun by negative activity” associated with loitering, said Mark Richard, president and CEO of the Downtown Spokane Partnership.

“There are times when as a last resort these devices are needed,” Richard said, adding that only a handful of businesses use the devices and do so only in the evening.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

And a boot to a butt cannot be applied


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> If they thought that then they could easily do something to get themselves arrested and incarcerated.


They will be doing that if they continue to camp out on public property.



> said: ↑
> I have no problem with respecting public space. I just don't believe that 1000.00 fines and jail time when you can't pay really will solve the problem.


Doing nothing won't solve anything.
Pretending doesn't work.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Cornhusker said:


> They might see jail as a good option.
> They are inside, warm, got a bathroom, 3 meals a day and medical care.
> Might not sound too bad to someone sleeping on a sidewalk.


Especially in really hot or cold weather...


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

tripletmom said:


> I knew a lady once who felt just that way! She was mentally ill and in and out of group homes and I guess she was out so she chunked a rock through a store window to get arrested. I know this to be true because I was friends with the woman's daughter, we were adults, and my friend had a time dealing with her mother her entire lifetime.


My sympathy to the daughter...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Huh?
> Doesn’t being homeless mean that they have to live on public property?


No, it does not.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Where else could they live ?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Many communities have a variety of shelters available. The law mentioned in this thread even specifies the penalties are only in force when the shelters are empty and not being used.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Redlands Okie said:


> Many communities have a variety of shelters available. The law mentioned in this thread even specifies the penalties are only in force when the shelters are empty and not being used.


They have less than half the shelter beds needed. That means it is a toss up on who gets fined or jailed. A few hundred go to jail and get fined but the extra couple of thousand still sleep on the streets. The problem will not be solved that way.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I understand what they're trying to do, but this isn't the way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> They have less than half the shelter beds needed. That means it is a toss up on who gets fined or jailed. A few hundred go to jail and get fined but the extra couple of thousand still sleep on the streets.


I don't think you understand what the law says.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I understand what they're trying to do, but this isn't the way.


What would be your solution to crowds of people living and defecating on public sidewalks?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What would be your solution to crowds of people living and defecating on public sidewalks?


I'm just saying that putting them in jail is the solution. Keep in mind that there are some people who will never go into a homeless shelter. Roughly half are mentally ill so they aren't good about following shelter rules.

Then there are those with pets. To some homeless, their dog is their only family. Shelters have to restrict pets because some people's dogs bite other guests.

As I said, putting them is jail isn't the answer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Keep in mind that there are some people who will never go into a homeless shelter. *Roughly half are mentally ill* so they aren't good about following shelter rules.


Those need to be off the streets for everyone's safety.



Nevada said:


> Then there are those with pets. To some homeless, their dog is their only family. Shelters have to restrict pets because some people's dogs bite other guests.


Life is about making choices.
It's not about getting everything we want, or making excuses for self destructive behavior.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> $1000 fine. No problem. That's probably 2 days of panhandling. And that's just working rush hours!


Years ago during lunch we read an article that Panhandlers in some parts of NYC were taking in around $200,000 a year on some prime corners.

When our boss came in I told him our whole crew was considering giving notice and leasing a private jet to commute to prime corners in NYC to panhandle for 8 hours a day and fly home with weekends and holidays off.

He laughed and pointed to the part of the article that said the panhandlers camped 24/7 on the best corners and often got arrested or killed over their spots.

I said "Well that throws a monkey wrench in that idea. We are all too pretty for jail and if dead couldn't keep up payment on a Gulfstream. Nevermind."

Our boss than smiled and asked how many of us wanted to work the upcoming holiday at triple time pay and we all raised our hands.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Life is about making choices.
> It's not about getting everything we want,


 It’s Not ?
What if that is your choice? What if that is the way you choose to pursue happiness?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those need to be off the streets for everyone's safety.


Interestingly, it was Ronald Reagan who put mental patients on the street. He did it when he was governor of California. At the time I didn't understand why a conservative would champion patient rights. It turns out that it was to save money. You see, taking care of the mentally ill is expensive, so if they're allowed to sign themselves out it would save the state a fortune. Other states followed suit, and as president he made patient rights a national thing.

You're correct that the mentally ill belong in hospitals and not on the street. But this is the system we have now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Interestingly, it was Ronald Reagan who put mental patients on the street. He did it when he was governor of California. At the time I didn't understand why a conservative would champion patient rights. It turns out that i*t was to save money*.


Well, you can't just keep spending money you don't have.
Unfortunately that has to be done at times, but it's not the best plan.



Nevada said:


> he made patient rights a national thing.


He gave the people what they asked for.
Trying to make everyone happy seldom works.
One *big* difference now is the number of people it involves.



Nevada said:


> You're correct that the mentally ill belong in hospitals and not on the street. But *this is* *the system we have now*.


There are more services being offered now if they would simply ask for them.
They can't keep making excuses and ignoring the laws.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

“They” don’t want the services , you appear to want the services for them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> “They” don’t want the services


What they "want" isn't relevant if they are mentally ill.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol obviously it is.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> “They” don’t want the services , you appear to want the services for them.


True, and it's not complicated. In a hospital they tell patients what to do, but nobody likes being told what to do. If you allow them to sign themselves out they'll do it. It's probably not in their best interest to leave the hospital because most of them don't have the wherewithal to provide themselves with basic needs, such as food and a place to live. But hospitals don't really have a choice in the matter under current laws.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But hospitals don't really have a choice in the matter under current laws.


Not all patients have that option.
It depends on how and why they were committed.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

You seem in favor of the all knowing government running peoples lives?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not all patients have that option.
> It depends on how and why they were committed.


Sure. There's always an exception for those who might be a danger to themselves or others.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

tripletmom said:


> I knew a lady once who felt just that way! She was mentally ill and in and out of group homes and I guess she was out so she chunked a rock through a store window to get arrested. I know this to be true because I was friends with the woman's daughter, we were adults, and my friend had a time dealing with her mother her entire lifetime.


My BIL did some similar stuff like that when he wanted to dry out. Sometimes it is the only way to get help these days. It happens often. 

Another guy that works for me did something in Las Vegas no doubt ( I wont say what) that got him arrested. he went before the judge who was going to give him probation and he begged the judge not to. He said if he got probation he would end up dead. He just wanted help and the judge ordered mandatory rehab for 2 years. That was in 2006 and he is still with us and sober. Poster child for addicts as he has been through the ringer from his stories. Was even in the cartel. 

Yes, it happens a lot for those who have no other options.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There's always an exception for those who might be a danger to themselves or others.


Those are mainly the ones living on the streets.
Addicts just need time to get clean.
It's still up to them to stay that way.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I understand what they're trying to do, but this isn't the way.


What is "the way"?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> What is "the way"?


There are several answers to that question, because there are a number of reasons why people are on the street. Those who are disabled aren't getting enough support from social programs. The same goes for people who ended up on the street because of losing a job. But people who only need economic help are simple to deal with, as long as funding exists.

The rest are mentally ill or addicts. That's a more complicated problem. If a mental patient can't see to his own basic needs then the government needs to compel him to become a ward of the social services department. Not necessarily in a hospital, but maybe in a halfway house. Addicts can only be helped when they reach the point where they can't take care of themselves.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

The saddest homeless are those exiled to the street by economics and who then start taking drugs to make such a life bearable.

Expecting somebody on streets to automatically have the resources and skills to find alternatives is expecting a lot. You do realize lot people graduate high school without being able to read? Lot people complaining seem to think the homeless are all just as smart and well functioning as they are but chose the hobo life. Only very small percentage of population truly want the hobo lifestyle. And they tend to have pretty good survival schools cause they thought it out. Somebody that has always had a job and loses job combined with yet another rent increase doesnt have these skills. Neither does some disabled person.

Are there scammers looking for beggar lifestyle? Sure but they are small minority that give excuse to the righty tighties to not fund necessary social services.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

If you had the resources to accept a single homeless individual into your home for an indefinite period, would you?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> If you had the resources to accept a single homeless individual into your home for an indefinite period, would you?


No.
Definitely not.
I know some angelic people would, but not me. 
We do our part though.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> If you had the resources to accept a single homeless individual into your home for an indefinite period, would you?


Random stranger, nope. Somebody I know and like, maybe. See if you take in a tenant, free or paid, they tend to invite other people. For a HERMIT, this is not acceptable. Its really a straw man argument. The poor are not an individual responsibility, its a national governmental responsibility. You might ask Google or GM if they would take in homeless, after all corporations have been deemed "people" too with same political rights. And they are far wealthier than all but handful living breathing individuals.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

When folks start telling you an issue is complicated, many times that means they just don't have a solution they like.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...wn-unhoused-people-los-angeles-community.html

Little more realistic view of homeless.


> “Many of them are living in tents across the street from the apartments from which they have been evicted,” said homeless advocate Jane Nguyen.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> Random stranger, nope. Somebody I know and like, maybe. See if you take in a tenant, free or paid, they tend to invite other people. For a HERMIT, this is not acceptable. Its really a straw man argument. The poor are not an individual responsibility, its a national governmental responsibility. You might ask Google or GM if they would take in homeless, after all corporations have been deemed "people" too with same political rights. And they are far wealthier than all but handful living breathing individuals.


He didn’t make an argument, he asked a question. 
No strawman.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> When folks start telling you an issue is complicated, many times that means they just don't have a solution they like.


I particularly like when people who don’t live in an area with a homeless problem and aren’t at all affected by it start advising us who do, on what our humanitarian duty is and what we should put up with.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> Random stranger, nope. Somebody I know and like, maybe. See if you take in a tenant, free or paid, they tend to invite other people. For a HERMIT, this is not acceptable. Its really a straw man argument. The poor are not an individual responsibility, its a national governmental responsibility. You might ask Google or GM if they would take in homeless, after all corporations have been deemed "people" too with same political rights. And they are far wealthier than all but handful living breathing individuals.


The United States Federal Government was never intended to delegate programs for 350 million people thru hundreds of layers of bureaucracy. The police are not bound by law to protect you, why would they be bound to support a vagabond?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> https://slate.com/news-and-politics...wn-unhoused-people-los-angeles-community.html
> 
> Little more realistic view of homeless.


How do you know? Are you living there?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> When folks start telling you an issue is complicated, many times that means they just don't have a solution they like.


I am quite willing to for tax rates to rise to deal with issue. Its lack of political will to deal with it. Its NOT cheap. Govt needs to provide cheap private housing, little huts and portajons if necessary. Large unsafe communal sleeping spaces with people kicked out at dawn and told "no room at the inn" if they are late getting back.... is NOT an answer. 

Again lot of problem is that the cheap rentals have disappeared with greed and gentrification. Taking space away from poor to make profit selling to yuppies.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> I am quite willing to for tax rates to rise to deal with issue. Its lack of political will to deal with it. Its NOT cheap. Govt needs to provide cheap private housing, little huts and portajons if necessary. Large unsafe communal sleeping spaces with people kicked out at dawn and told "no room at the inn" if they are late getting back.... is NOT an answer.
> 
> Again lot of problem is that the cheap rentals have disappeared with greed and gentrification. Taking space away from poor to make profit selling to yuppies.


You're willing to have local tax rates rise in an area you don’t live in to deal with homeless?
That’s generous of you.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

S


GTX63 said:


> The United States Federal Government was never intended to delegate programs for 350 million people thru hundreds of layers of bureaucracy. The police are not bound by law to protect you, why would they be bound to support a vagabond?


Sorry but it is the governments responsibility to provide a stable society. Pretending the poor dont exist or they are poor by choice doesnt cut it. Its greed causing the problem, deal with the greed.

The police are only if you want to pay to imprison the poor. Or do summary executions. They are not social workers.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Would you mind


HermitJohn said:


> I am quite willing to for tax rates to rise to deal with issue. Its lack of political will to deal with it. Its NOT cheap. Govt needs to provide cheap private housing, little huts and portajons if necessary. Large unsafe communal sleeping spaces with people kicked out at dawn and told "no room at the inn" if they are late getting back.... is NOT an answer.
> 
> Again lot of problem is that the cheap rentals have disappeared with greed and gentrification. Taking space away from poor to make profit selling to yuppies.



If you were take in a "hobo" would you allow him to advise you on your grocery, clothing and entertainment purchases?
Would you mind sharing with HT approximately what you paid to the federal government in income tax for 2019?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Lisa in WA said:


> You're willing to have local tax rates rise in an area you don’t live in to deal with homeless?
> That’s generous of you.


If you havent noticed, its a NATIONAL problem. Just some localities harrass the homeless to force them elsewhere. You need to deal with it as a national issue. Most of problem is lack of low end jobs anybody can live on with exponentially increasing rent. There are no properties cheap enough that somebody on low end can ever buy one. Not in areas with jobs.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

So remove greed and you eliminate poverty?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> If you havent noticed, its a NATIONAL problem. Just some localities harrass the homeless to force them elsewhere. You need to deal with it as a national issue. Most of problem is lack of low end jobs anybody can live on with exponentially increasing rent. There are no properties cheap enough that somebody on low end can ever buy one. Not in areas with jobs.


Is it? I mostly hear about it in cities. We didn’t have this problem in rural Idaho.
Where do you live?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

A


GTX63 said:


> Would you mind
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Uh already said the only person I might take in would be a person I knew well, down on their luck. I would not take in a random stranger. Thats your straw man not mine. Its the governments responsibility and I am willing for MY taxes as well as everybody elses taxes to go up to pay for dealing with the problem.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You do realize that the US government was never designed or intended to delegate over 350 million people?
You do realize that the ratio of citizens to their local reps is obscenely out of balance now, right?
Yet, you would expect that the government is the best and only solution?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> So remove greed and you eliminate poverty?


Yep, make it too expensive to gentrify poor areas. You want to build, you build with rents the people already living there can afford. Cheap housing needs to be available. Tearing it down for profit means you have problem of people that no longer can afford to live there.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> A
> 
> 
> Uh already said the only person I might take in would be a person I knew well, down on their luck. I would not take in a random stranger. Thats your straw man not mine. Its the governments responsibility and I am willing for MY taxes as well as everybody elses taxes to go up to pay for dealing with the problem.


What portion of your yearly income would you be comfortable with the government taking to fund a program?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> You do realize that the US government was never designed or intended to delegate over 350 million people?
> You do realize that the ratio of citizens to their local reps is obscenely out of balance now, right?
> Yet, you would expect that the government is the best and only solution?


The govt is only solution. This isnt something private individuals can deal with. Nor individual churches. The govt is only organization big enough, unless you want to legislate corporations deal with it. they are people too according to Supreme Court.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> The govt is only solution. This isnt something private individuals can deal with. Nor individual churches. The govt is only organization big enough, unless you want to legislate corporations deal with it. they are people too according to Supreme Court.


that let’s you off the hook nicely, doesn’t it?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> What portion of your yearly income would you be comfortable with the government taking to fund a program?


It would be tiny increase in income tax rate to fund it. Its not about ME and MY assets, its about society as a whole. Its not my personal responsibility to deal with homeless problem. ITS SOCIETY'S RESPONSIBILITY. I suspect nobody would significantly miss half percent increase in income tax. They can afford endless wars in south Asia, they can afford to build huts for the homeless.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

So you believe that Government is the only solution? Ok.

Now, lets say we tax the rich 50% and dedicate the money to obliterating homeless. How should you be taxed to support your fair share? If 50% is too much for you would you be willing to participate in Government work/labor programs in order to satisfy your debt to the homeless?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Lisa in WA said:


> that let’s you off the hook nicely, doesn’t it?


Nope, my taxes would go up the same as everybody else. ITS SOCIETY'S RESPONSIBILITY. Expecting individuals to solve societies problems while greedy dont participate is unfair. ITS SOCIETY'S PROBLEM, what part of that dont you get. Would your rather your taxes be raised to spend $90k per year to put poor in Super Max???? Or would you rather continue to step over bodies on the sidewalk?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> It would be tiny increase in income tax rate to fund it. Its not about ME and MY assets, its about society as a whole. Its not my personal responsibility to deal with homeless problem. ITS SOCIETY'S RESPONSIBILITY.


I am seeing a contradiction here.
Wouldn't that be akin to the "Somebody should do something" folks as they pass by the bum on the curb?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> So you believe that Government is the only solution? Ok.
> 
> Now, lets say we tax the rich 50% and dedicate the money to obliterating homeless. How should you be taxed to support your fair share? If 50% is too much for you would you be willing to participate in Government work/labor programs in order to satisfy your debt to the homeless?


How clueless are you, look at the tax booklet the IRS sent you. Now go to the tax rate schedules and increase tax rate by half percent for all catagories. Everybody's problem, everybody pays that owes taxes.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> Nope, my taxes would go up the same as everybody else.


Just trying to stay on topic. How would you contribute your fair and equal share to the plight of others, funded by the government, if you did not have the liquidy to do so?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Are you saying that by the tax booklet, if you don't owe taxes at the end of the year, then you have no further responsibility for the homeless?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> I am seeing a contradiction here.
> Wouldn't that be akin to the "Somebody should do something" folks as they pass by the bum on the curb?


Nope, ITS SOCIETY'S PROBLEM, SOCIETY as whole needs to pay. JUST LIKE TAXES I PAY GO TO ENDLESS WARS TO MAKE WORLD SAFE FOR BILLIONAIRES.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> Nope, my taxes would go up the same as everybody else. ITS SOCIETY'S RESPONSIBILITY. Expecting individuals to solve societies problems while greedy dont participate is unfair. ITS SOCIETY'S PROBLEM, what part of that dont you get. Would your rather your taxes be raised to spend $90k per year to put poor in Super Max???? Or would you rather continue to step over bodies on the sidewalk?


My husband and I pay every single month for rent for a homeless family. We have for four years since we moved here and will continue on indefinitely. 
We also donate to the local charities that provide shelter as well as high property taxes which also help the homeless and even provide them free bus passes so they can come into all of our neighborhoods to steal and leave needles in children’s playgrounds.
I’m not really keen on giving even more unless it’s getting them off the streets, forcibly if necessary so they can receive the treatment they need but don’t necessarily want.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> Just trying to stay on topic. How would you contribute your fair and equal share to the plight of others, funded by the government, if you did not have the liquidy to do so?


So you would have the homeless pay to fund their own help???? Are you truly clueless, money doesnt just spring out of pockets of poor, cause it isnt in those pockets. Those that benefit most from living in this society should pay the most. Dont want to pay for something and you think homelessness if fun, then you should stop earning money and go join them. Hey according to you its all a holiday for them....


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The big corporations that hire hundreds of accountants to help them avoid taxes; they are the ones who should pony up more?
What about the guy making 30k a year that makes up a bunch of deductions so he grabs another 2-3k of Uncle Sam's money for his refund?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Would your rather your taxes be raised to spend $90k per year to put poor in Super Max????


Why do you always want to jump to such unrealistic extremes?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Lisa in WA said:


> My husband and I pay every single month for rent for a homeless family. We have for four years since we moved here and will continue on indefinitely.
> We also donate to the local charities that provide shelter as well as high property taxes which also help the homeless and even provide them free bus passes so they can come into all of our neighborhoods to steal and leave needles in children’s playgrounds.
> I’m not really keen on giving even more unless it’s getting them off the streets, forcibly if necessary so they can receive the treatment they need but don’t necessarily want.


So according to GTX63, you should do more, pay rent for a dozen families, cause he doesnt want his taxes to go up one penny.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> So you would have the homeless pay to fund their own help???? Are you truly clueless, money doesnt just spring out of pockets of poor, cause it isnt in those pockets. Those that benefit most from living in this society should pay the most. Dont want to pay for something and you think homelessness if fun, then you should stop earning money and go join them. Hey according to you its all a holiday for them....


I'm not saying the poor should pay their own way.
You have stated it isn't your problem either, but yet you seem to have a plan for others to, and I am trying to get clarification.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> So according to GTX63, you should do more, pay rent for a dozen families, cause he doesnt want his taxes to go up one penny.


I didn’t see him say that and I won’t do any more till I see a reasonable solution that gets people off the streets and out from under the bridges, regardless if they prefer to be there or not.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why do you always want to jump to such unrealistic extremes?


Price what it costs to imprison somebody in Super Max. Its around that much. Even low end state prisons its probably at least $30k. Depends on the state and how well they apply federal rules on conditions. Do they get the medical care they are supposed to get? Some wardens pocket lot food money and feed prisoners crap. Greed, greed, everywhere.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I have no issue with the ideals of someone who is passionate about a topic that lives that which they speak.
I would expect you to have a low opinion of the preacher who condemns you to hell over your lifestyle of ie booze or gambling, yet he is seen as a regular on the boats or in the tavern.
The same guy that says "live and let live", well he doesn't live in the same tower of scrutiny.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Price what it costs to imprison somebody in Super Max.


That would be pointless.
It's ridiculous to think "poor people" would be put in a Super Max.



HermitJohn said:


> Greed, greed, everywhere


That's your answer to everything.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> I'm not saying the poor should pay their own way.
> You have stated it isn't your problem either, but yet you seem to have a plan for others to, and I am trying to get clarification.


Its my responsibility to pay my taxes. Its the governments responsibility to serve the poor with those taxes. I AM NOT A SOCIAL WORKER. ARE YOU?

I dont own a rooming house. Do YOU? Do you personally have billions to spend? Thats why we have govt, to represent us collectively and do what needs to be done to keep society functioning. Its not functioning very well now, too much selfishness and greed.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> Price what it costs to imprison somebody in Super Max. Its around that much. Even low end state prisons its probably at least $30k. Depends on the state and how well they apply federal rules on conditions. Do they get the medical care they are supposed to get? Some wardens pocket lot food money and feed prisoners crap. Greed, greed, everywhere.


If the government you espouse is be the best and only solution to homeless, yet you continue to point out the waste, fraud and corruption of the government and what they do with the money we already give them...why give them more?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's your answer to everything.



Read your Bible. "The love of money is the root of all evil." and "its easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven"


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> Its my responsibility to pay my taxes. Its the governments responsibility to serve the poor with those taxes. I AM NOT A SOCIAL WORKER. ARE YOU?
> 
> I dont own a rooming house. Do YOU? Do you personally have billions to spend? Thats why we have govt, to represent us collectively and do what needs to be done to keep society functioning. Its not functioning very well now, too much selfishness and greed.


Why would such greed thrive among the private sector yet stop at the door of government?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> So you would have the homeless *pay to fund their own help*???? Are you truly clueless, money doesnt just spring out of pockets of poor, cause it isnt in those pockets.


They could help.
Many of them are able bodied.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> Read your Bible. "The love of money is the root of all evil." and "its easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven"


Following up on my previous question. Does becoming a part of the treasury or congress prevent such evil from infecting them?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> If the government you espouse is be the best and only solution to homeless, yet you continue to point out the waste, fraud and corruption of the government and what they do with the money we already give them...why give them more?


Hey I didnt vote for the idiots that lowered taxes on the 1%'rs. Maybe you should pay attention who you vote for. You vote for idiots, you get idiot governmental actions. Another 20 year war for trillions anybody?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Read your Bible. "The *love of money* is the root of all evil." and "its easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven"


You seem to be the one who loves it so much you never want to let it go. 
That has nothing to do with what I said though.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

This greed thing you keep mentioning?

Is it the rape or the man?
The gun or the shooter?
The money or the heart?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They could help.
> Many of them are able bodied.


So you are going to pay to train them to build their own housing. Where are you going to get the land? Or do you want lifelong indentured servitude in exchange for housing?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I h


GTX63 said:


> If you had the resources to accept a single homeless individual into your home for an indefinite period, would you?


I have a homeless family staying with me now.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem to be the one who loves it so much you never want to let it go.
> That has nothing to do with what I said though.


So you want me to become homeless to help the homeless? Reason I have any money cause I dont give it to bankers and others wanting me to buy useless stuff. Why should I pay more for life needs than I have to?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Just trying to stay on topic of some previous posts-
Are you willing to work and contribute labor in lieu of money via the government to help with the general collective/welfare?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> I h
> 
> I have a homeless family staying with me now.


Is this the single woman again?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> So you are going to pay to train them to build their own housing. Where are you going to get the land? Or do you want *lifelong indentured servitude* in exchange for housing?


More ridiculous extremes.
Patterns never change.
Carry on.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Lisa in WA said:


> He didn’t make an argument, he asked a question.
> No strawman.


A strawman question then....


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More ridiculous extremes.
> Patterns never change.
> Carry on.


You are thinking people can live on the air in Cincinnatti. You do anything and it tends to take money or resources. HOW are you going to solve problem of these able bodied homeless without spending any money or providing any land???????


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Why not gather everyone together who can't pay more in taxes and have them work as a whole, x amount of hours every month?
Habit for humanity, mission style work, etc. Somebody has to be the gear, we can't all be the grease.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Lisa in WA said:


> that let’s you off the hook nicely, doesn’t it?


You apparently fund one families rent. How about 50 million. Its that kind of silly question. One person cant solve problem alone. Not even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet together. Its SOCIETY"S PROBLEM, why do you think some individual or small group of individuals can solve this without government???? Is there a bunch of private individuals out there with more resources than USA govt? Cause you need to talk to them. Average joe can put $5 in beggars cup but expecting significant number individuals to pay $1000 plus per month plus utilities to house a stranger just aint happening.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> Why not gather everyone together who can't pay more in taxes and have them work as a whole, x amount of hours every month?
> Habit for humanity, mission style work, etc. Somebody has to be the gear, we can't all be the grease.


Where are you getting the materials and land for all these extra Habit for Humanity houses? How is mission style work going to give these people a private space to live? Again land and materials and local govt permissions. IT TAKES MONEY. Did you buy your place and build your house on wishful thinking or did it take money?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

How many homes could you and another 50 guys and gals from your community put up in a year of weekends?
Have a government surpervisor sign off on your hours instead of paying more tax money you might not even have.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> Is this the single woman again?


I am not sure how to answer that they not married but she does have two kids before she met him. 
Why would that matter to you?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> You apparently fund one families rent. How about 50 million. Its that kind of silly question. One person cant solve problem alone. Not even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet together. Its SOCIETY"S PROBLEM, why do you think some individual or small group of individuals can solve this without government???? Is there a bunch of private individuals out there with more resources than USA govt? Cause you need to talk to them. Average joe can put $5 in beggars cup but expecting significant number individuals to pay $1000 plus per month plus utilities to house a stranger just aint happening.


 I’d agree with you if something actually constructive was done. Like opening up mental health asylums and rehab centers in areas equipped for that kind of thing and not throwing money at homeless to allow them to continue on as they do. It's money into a blast furnace.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> Where are you getting the materials and land for all these extra Habit for Humanity houses? How is mission style work going to give these people a private space to live? Again land and materials and local govt permissions. IT TAKES MONEY. Did you buy your place and build your house on wishful thinking or did it take money?


The additional tax on the rich could buy the materials. You showing up two weekends a month means you are giving more without it hitting you in the pocketbook.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> Are you saying that by the tax booklet, if you don't owe taxes at the end of the year, then you have no further responsibility for the homeless?


Yep, those without income have no money to pay for the homeless. Again the homeless cant pay for the homeless. Did you flunk math in school? You dont squeeze blood from a turnip.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> I am not sure how to answer that they not married but she does have two kids before she met him


Some folks avoid trouble and others seem to invite it in for dinner and a show; it being singular.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> Yep, those without income have no money to pay for the homeless. Again the homeless cant pay for the homeless. Did you flunk math in school? You dont squeeze blood from a turnip.


Would I be wrong in saying that you must have made something for the year 2019?
But instead of cash, pay your debt in labor. That seems to be a solution to one of your complaints.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> The additional tax on the rich could buy the materials. You showing up two weekends a month means you are giving more without it hitting you in the pocketbook.


Who Do you think you’re fooling? If iI have to give up two weekends a month it’s going to devastate my income.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

More taxes from the rich can be done; I agree with you on that. But I think you are underestimating the amount of money that you could save the federal government by simply picking up a hammer or drill, or a spatula, or a vacuum, in order to repay the difference in what you cannot pay with money.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Who Do you think you’re fooling? If iI have to give up two weekends a month it’s going to devastate my income.


Any more than supporting two women?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> The additional tax on the rich could buy the materials. You showing up two weekends a month means you are giving more without it hitting you in the pocketbook.


But you dont want to tax the rich! If you have money to work with then I would suggest minimal huts that homeless can feel safe and can actually start getting stable enough to work through their problems. Living on sidewalk is NOT a stable place to work up from. The days of getting good enough job to pay rent just by showing up every day doesnt exist, especially if you cant even shower or get clean clothes. Plus if they leave their belongings, others steal them. So you earn your $20 working only to return "home" to scattered miscellaneous, your home is gone. Do you want to hire a smelly tattered homeless person, even an obviously well spoken smart one?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> Why would such greed thrive among the private sector yet stop at the door of government?


IT wont if you keep voting in those that vote the rich big tax cuts.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I don't want to tax anyone. What I said was that they could still handle an increase. You however would be the difference maker, because like hundreds of thousands of others who did not or could not pay more taxes, you would be taking the matter into your own hands, literally.
Then, when you are debating/discussing the matter with someone else who feels differently than you, you have the trump card that is called having skin in the game.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> Any more than supporting two women?


 Why do you make up stuff about others?
Did I say I was supporting 2 women ?
why would you care if I do ?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> IT wont if you keep voting in those that vote the rich big tax cuts.


My education taught me that greed isn't specific to any race or gender. The folks that keeping cutting taxes weren't born doing it, so how do you know who is invincible to greed?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Why do you make up stuff about others?
> Did I say I was supporting 2 women ?
> why would you care if I do ?


I don't care. 
You mentioned having money issues since bringing a strange woman in to live with you.
My experience was that you won't keep a woman very long without flattening out your wallet once in awhile.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

I should also point out the Habitat for Humanity houses are not free, those that qualify have to have a stable job/income. They just dont have to jump through private banking system hoops. 

But yea I think few that arent mentally ill or otherwise incapacitated would have no problem helping build a hut they then had right to live in long as needed. But buying that land and the people bitching about not in my backyard. They dont want homeless on sidewalks but neither do they want them to have any permanent space. Face it, the poor they shall always be with you, well duh, but you got to allow them some living space or pay beaucoup bucks to lock them up. Or kill them. Thats the choices. They dont just go 'poof' disappearing into the netherworld and only reappear when convenient.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> I don't care.
> You mentioned having money issues since bringing a strange woman in to live with you.
> My experience was that you won't keep a woman very long without flattening out your wallet once in awhile.


 I did ?
Could you point that out to me ?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> My education taught me that greed isn't specific to any race or gender. The folks that keeping cutting taxes weren't born doing it, so how do you know who is invincible to greed?


Big clue is when they vote their benefactors big tax cut, then dont vote for them again. Would seem simple enough. No you probably cant read anybody's mind first time out. Some people are very expert liars. Listen closely to what they say, and if it sounds reasonable, give them a chance.

Unfortunately way politics worldwide is progressing, guessing most people arent too concerned about lies. Just whatever they see as benefiting them personally... in short term. Biggest downside of humans is they think in terms of very short term benefits. Like the raccoon that eats apple while its still unripe, just so nobody else gets it.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Yes, that seems reasonable.
I'd use this thread as a reminder for folks who complain about social problems, not enough funding, yet high taxes and the general out of control spending of government.
The old saying of "Put your money where your mouth is" could easily be updated "Put you back into it."
Hard work is to the solution to many problems, citizen.


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

Dictionary definition of "hermit":* A person who has withdrawn from society and lives a solitary existence.*

So. Our resident HERMIT has withdrawn from SOCIETY, but insists it's SOCIETY's job to finance the homeless.

Anyone else see the irony here?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Nope


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

nehimama said:


> Dictionary definition of "hermit":* A person who has withdrawn from society and lives a solitary existence.*
> 
> So. Our resident HERMIT has withdrawn from SOCIETY, but insists it's SOCIETY's job to finance the homeless.
> 
> Anyone else see the irony here?


yes.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Seems like society should pay to solve the problems it creates


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

If I ever identify as a woman I'd like to be known as MsAnthrope.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

HermitJohn said:


> I should also point out the Habitat for Humanity houses are not free, those that qualify have to have a stable job/income. They just dont have to jump through private banking system hoops.
> 
> But yea I think few that arent mentally ill or otherwise incapacitated would have no problem helping build a hut they then had right to live in long as needed. But buying that land and the people bitching about not in my backyard. They dont want homeless on sidewalks but neither do they want them to have any permanent space. Face it, the poor they shall always be with you, well duh, but you got to allow them some living space or pay beaucoup bucks to lock them up. Or kill them. Thats the choices. They dont just go 'poof' disappearing into the netherworld and only reappear when convenient.


I disagree. Calgary has a privately funded program, in which a group bought an old office space and converted to small apartments for the homeless. During construction, those that were interested could work for fair pay in general labour type positions, which also gave them first option for one of the apartments. 

It's a great program and helps people come in off the street. It considered low income housing so workers help tenants set up pensions, find jobs and then take a small percentage of their income. The program does cater to those who want off the streets so they are expected to remain clean and sober, take care of their apartment and in return, programs are in place for meal planning, budgeting, cooking, finding work.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Why is it that all these social programs always insist on clean and sober?


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)




----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Why is it that all these social programs always insist on clean and sober?


Are you feeling singled out?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

nehimama said:


> Dictionary definition of "hermit":* A person who has withdrawn from society and lives a solitary existence.*
> 
> So. Our resident HERMIT has withdrawn from SOCIETY, but insists it's SOCIETY's job to finance the homeless.
> 
> Anyone else see the irony here?


Yep.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

So I should just ignore problems of society I am forced to live in? If its not dealt with then it will affect everybody. Sticking head in sand doesnt make problems go away. You need look them in the eye and deal with them. Something our current govt isnt doing.

Doesnt mean its my personal responsibility to take a vow of poverty and to become homeless myself or take one of these random folk into my home.
I am not Mother Teresa. I will pay my fair share of taxes along with every other citizen, assuming we ever get a responsible govt and not just apologists for the rich. I see no problem putting up huts for these folk so they at least have permanent dry shelter and not just shuffled around with no ability to get a start.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

But, has been previously asked, are you willing to physically contribute if it meant less money in the hands of corrupt officials and a lesser tax increase for you?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

nehimama said:


>


Yea cause the Great Orange God will solve all....


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> But, has been previously asked, are you willing to physically contribute if it meant less money in the hands of corrupt officials and a lesser tax increase for you?


Unlike you I am not worried about paying tiny bit more tax. I am already paying for umpteen south Asian wars I think are completely stupid. A bit more to build huts for the homeless is fine.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Now see Hermit, rather than groan and lament, I have asked you repeatedly on this thread if you agreed to what could be the start of solution to funding and maintaining some stability for the homeless. You continue to side step the issue.
Do you have a solution other than taxing everyone that makes more than you are or you willing to be proactive about that which you speak?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

nehimama said:


> Dictionary definition of "hermit":* A person who has withdrawn from society and lives a solitary existence.*
> 
> So. Our resident HERMIT has withdrawn from SOCIETY, but insists it's SOCIETY's job to finance the homeless.
> 
> Anyone else see the irony here?


Irony is one word. I can think of another word.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

HermitJohn said:


> Unlike you I am not worried about paying tiny bit more tax. I am already paying for umpteen south Asian wars I think are completely stupid. A bit more to build huts for the homeless is fine.


What was your effective tax rate last time?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Why is it that all these social programs always insist on clean and sober?


You start one that recruits dirty and drunk.


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

Sounds good to me.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> Do you have a solution other than taxing everyone that makes more than you are or you willing to be proactive about that which you speak?


 Of course. The Dynasty Tax. 
every body pays the same.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

That just relieves you from coming out and doing your fair share.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

How do you figger?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

It is not the responsibility of government to provide housing for anybody, other than active duty military. The president lives in the white house, I don't know if he is required to by law. We all came into this world naked and screaming, what you do after that is up to you. An what you don't do after that, is up to you as well.

PS; I intend to leave this world the same way. Naked and screaming.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> If you had the resources to accept a single homeless individual into your home for an indefinite period, would you?


If they were a family member, not on any illegal drugs. Then yes.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

muleskinner2 said:


> It is not the responsibility of government to provide housing for anybody, other than active duty military. The president lives in the white house, I don't know if he is required to by law. We all came into this world naked and screaming, what you do after that is up to you. An what you don't do after that, is up to you as well.
> 
> PS; I intend to leave this world the same way. Naked and screaming.


I get the strong impression that Hermit believes it is the sworn duty of government, in spite of any specific writ. It is unfortunate, and a bit ironic that some folks believe the government has a duty where not specified yet they can ignore or dismiss the rights predetermined as unalienable and borne long before this republic.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> How do you figger?


The question to Hermit was if he had a solution other than taxing everyone more, who made more money than he does.
You offered another tax...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> The question to Hermit was if he had a solution other than taxing everyone more, who made more money than he does.
> You offered another tax...


I believe that society has an obligation to take care of people who can't take care of themselves. Charitable contributions have never been able to deal with homelessness and hunger.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I believe that society has an obligation to take care of people who can't take care of themselves. *Charitable contributions have never been able to deal with homelessness and hunger.*


Neither have taxes. What's your point? The truth is simply that there are people you just cannot help, period. History clearly shows more money in taxes is not going to do it. Spend tax dollars building them homes and those new homes won't be livable in 10 years, guaranteed. I'd wager most of them are getting a food stamp allotment every month and they are trading the food stamps for booze or drugs. Give them more food stamps and they will trade for more booze or drugs. It is illegal to just lock them in someplace you can pay people to take care of them because they have rights. See, there is no answer.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I have a homeless family member. There are no less than a dozen households within the family that would take him in. Some would even drive cross country to get him, plenty would chip in to pay bus fare. But he would lose cred with all his cool Pacific Northwest homeless friends, so he won't take anybody up on the repeated offers. If the pacific northwest wasn't such a cool place to be homeless, maybe he would change his mind. He froze his toes off. I'm sure there was a warm bed somewhere in the Pacific Northwest that night, but it probably came with strings attached , like don't shoot up heroin in here, or something silly like that. If they started rounding them up and putting them on chain gangs building roads or sorting recycling or any of a host of other tasks, I bet it would be a lot less fun to be homeless. 

It should be up to localities. If the business owners and residents want homeless people, they should be entitled to have as many as they can afford. If they want to create an inhospitable environment for homeless people, they should be entitled to do that as well. They will move,and they are perfectly able to move freely, if you are willing to shove some heroin in body cavities there are plenty of people that will pay you bus fare to go cross country. One night not shooting up and instead saving the money you got working in a car wash or panhandling that day so you could shoot up later will go a long way towards a bus ticket.

If you are sane enough to afford heroin, or survive on the streets as a homeless person, you are sane enough to choose not to be homeless. Pets? How can somebody afford to take care of a pet if they can't take care of themselves? Are they getting their pets rabies vaccinations, licenses, etc? Where is animal control?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> So you want me to become homeless to help the homeless?


I don't think you really read what I post since your replies have no relation to the things I say.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Why is it that all these social programs always insist on clean and sober?


Because all the dirty drunk positions are filled.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I believe that society has an obligation to take care of people who *can't* take care of themselves.


The issue is more what to do about those who *can*, but won't.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

I don't pretend to have an answer, one thing that is concerning to me is that some of these unfortunate homeless folks are procreating while homeless creating little ones that really don't stand a snowballs chance.. What's up with that?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

You really don’t see much of that .


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The issue is more what to do about those who *can*, but won't.


Those that can but won’t is none of your business.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Yet you just returned to an earlier point made in this thread, that many people believe it is their duty to make the homeless into what they determine is best for them.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nevada said:


> I believe that society has an obligation to take care of people who can't take care of themselves. Charitable contributions have never been able to deal with homelessness and hunger.


That may be true, but who does society begin with?
Some posters are lumping the mental defect and the criminals in with all homeless and it seems to be to be sloppy to generalize everyone. That would also include the term "society."
My back and forth with Hermit was intended to lock down on a point he seemed to be making about the higher economic classesbeing forced in doing more for the poor, yet he was content with whatever the government was taking from his paycheck.
If one truly believes that society, or government or another entity should be mandated to support a segment of the population, why should the guy making 20k and getting a 3k refund every spring be content with his sales or local tax mechanisms as the total of his involvement?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nevada said:


> I believe that society has an obligation to take care of people who can't take care of themselves. Charitable contributions have never been able to deal with homelessness and hunger.


Unless you force an individual to do as you or others may believe, no program will be a fix all; and even at that, ironically, forced compliance is not in everyones best interest.

I'll go ahead and wager that no rational, clear thinking American adult citizen is currently starving, in the literal sense, because they have no options available to them.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Those that can but won’t is none of your business.


It's absolutely his business if his money is being used to enable those that can, but won't. Or if his money is used to clean up the mess that ensues from localities that decide that they will enable capable people to exist as parasites. If you can survive as a homeless person, and can hustle enough to obtain ample drugs to support a decent drug habit, you are sane enough to seek out various forms of existing assistance, gainful employment, and housing opportunities.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

And that’s still none of your business. 
I chose to live in a tent on public land
I chose to live under a bridge
I chose to live in a cave
Was it any of your business ?
Would it have been just cause I had a beer or joint ?
If it’s not hurting you why can’t you allow freedom ?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Reread his post and then consider if you expect his tax dollars to sustain your lifestyle.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Can’t see how that’s relevant


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't think you really read what I post since your replies have no relation to the things I say.


I think that happens more times than not and not just with him


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Those that can but won’t is none of your business.


Say that after 300 people poop in your front yard for three years


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Can’t see how that’s relevant


Then give me money for booze and ciggies and don't ask questions.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HermitJohn said:


> You apparently fund one families rent. How about 50 million. Its that kind of silly question. One person cant solve problem alone. Not even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet together. Its SOCIETY"S PROBLEM, why do you think some individual or small group of individuals can solve this without government???? Is there a bunch of private individuals out there with more resources than USA govt? Cause you need to talk to them. Average joe can put $5 in beggars cup but expecting significant number individuals to pay $1000 plus per month plus utilities to house a stranger just aint happening.


It don't cost a grand a month to house a stranger. Second hand stores in my area will fix you up with a spare bed for less than a hundred. Put it in one corner of a room in your house... Bingo, one homeless person housed!


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> Those that can but won’t is none of your business.


Your right. It should not be our business. Do not live on and hinder the use of public spaces, or expect help from the public that is not freely given by those that choose to do so. All would be good. 
Unfortunately that does not seem to work out so far.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Say that after 300 people poop in your front yard for three years


Do you know anyone in that position ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> Then give me money for booze and ciggies and don't ask questions.


 Can you explain how that’s relevant ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Redlands Okie said:


> Your right. It should not be our business. Do not live on and hinder the use of public spaces, or expect help from the public that is not freely given by those that choose to do so. All would be good.
> Unfortunately that does not seem to work out so far.


 Why shouldn’t the public be allowed to use public spaces ?
Is the use of public spaces only allowed to those that make enough money?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HermitJohn said:


> Its my responsibility to pay my taxes. Its the governments responsibility to serve the poor with those taxes. I AM NOT A SOCIAL WORKER. ARE YOU?
> 
> I dont own a rooming house. Do YOU? Do you personally have billions to spend? Thats why we have govt, to represent us collectively and do what needs to be done to keep society functioning. Its not functioning very well now, too much selfishness and greed.


I agree with what you say but the problem isn't about money. It's about keeping that money on task. After 3-5 years that money will start going someplace else and they will ask for more. Then more and more. 

Why is it no one talks about fiscal responsibility? This needs to be solved first and once and for all or all of our other problems will just get worse.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> If the government you espouse is be the best and only solution to homeless, yet you continue to point out the waste, fraud and corruption of the government and what they do with the money we already give them...why give them more?


Great minds think alike.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> If I ever identify as a woman I'd like to be known as MsAnthrope.


You have already been branded by the name MsTake. You greedy old man.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

barnbilder said:


> It's absolutely his business if his money is being used to enable those that can, but won't. Or if his money is used to clean up the mess that ensues from localities that decide that they will enable capable people to exist as parasites. If you can survive as a homeless person, and can hustle enough to obtain ample drugs to support a decent drug habit, you are sane enough to seek out various forms of existing assistance, gainful employment, and housing opportunities.


BINGO


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Redlands Okie said:


> Your right. It should not be our business. Do not live on and hinder the use of public spaces, or expect help from the public that is not freely given by those that choose to do so. All would be good.
> Unfortunately that does not seem to work out so far.





AmericanStand said:


> Why shouldn’t the public be allowed to use public spaces ?
> Is the use of public spaces only allowed to those that make enough money?


Reread the post. The public should be able to use the areas. ALL OF THE PUBLIC. 

It says live on and hinder the use of public spaces. Needles, crap, trash, tents, etc on the sidewalks and parks affects everyone wanting access to those spaces or having to deal with the problems.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Redlands Okie said:


> Reread the post. The public should be able to use the areas. ALL OF THE PUBLIC.
> 
> It says live on and hinder the use of public spaces. Needles, crap, trash, tents, etc on the sidewalks and parks affects everyone wanting access to those spaces or having to deal with the problems.


@AmericanStand said they are not pooping on the sidewalks..


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Walking hinders the use of tents , at one point in history streets were commonly used to throw contents of bed pans and the droppings of animals .
what you’re still saying is as long as they don’t interrupt what you choose to do it’s OK but they should have to deal with whatever the heck you want?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> @AmericanStand said they are not pooping on the sidewalks..


 When did I say that?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I think that happens more times than not and not just with him


I concur


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Those that can but won’t is none of your business.


They are if someone expects me to help pay their way, or if they are crapping on the sidewalks where I might step in it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I don’t hear them asking you to pay their way. From what I’ve seen all Thet want is for you to leave them alone. 
And I’d like to feel some pity for the end of your life because you step in some doo. 
but the truth of the matter is I don’t think you’re going to step in and doo and I don’t think it would kill you if you did. I just went and reviewed the constitution and I could not find any right to be guaranteed that you won’t step in any doo.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t hear them asking you to pay their way. From what I’ve seen all Thet want is for you to leave them alone.
> And I’d like to feel some pity for the end of your life because you step in some doo.
> but the truth of the matter is I don’t think you’re going to step in and doo and I don’t think it would kill you if you did. I just went and reviewed the constitution and I could not find any right to be guaranteed that you won’t step in any doo.


We have laws about sanitation. Pooping on sidewalks is usually prohibited.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Probably written by those that have a place to poop that’s not on the sidewalk


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> And that’s still none of your business.
> I chose to live in a tent on public land
> I chose to live under a bridge
> I chose to live in a cave
> ...


Live as you wish. It is none of my concern but people living like you show up in the homeless numbers. And a lot of them are exactly like you. Why do liberals expect everyone else to fix a homeless problem when much of the problem is intentional or self induced by irresponsible (by society standards) people? Taxpayers didn't force anyone into being a drunk or dope addict. Why are we expected to fix it? The only thing that can be done is to make addiction treatment available for those who want it and it is already available in most places.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

delete. double post.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Probably written by those that have a place to poop that’s not on the sidewalk


Everyone has the option of not pooping on the sidewalk. Don't live in an area where sidewalks are, carry a small shovel. Even a cat understands the theory.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

poppy said:


> Live as you wish. It is none of my concern but people living like you show up in the homeless numbers. And a lot of them are exactly like you. Why do liberals expect everyone else to fix a homeless problem when much of the problem is intentional or self induced by irresponsible (by society standards) people? Taxpayers didn't force anyone into being a drunk or dope addict. Why are we expected to fix it? The only thing that can be done is to make addiction treatment available for those who want it and it is already available in most places.


The homeless don’t have a problem with it it’s others that want to cure their problems. What would you say if the people living in 6000 square-foot mansions wanted to treat you the same way you wanna treat people living in tents?
“ Good grief if you don’t have enough ambition to get off your lazy butt and pay the mortgage on a 6000 ft.² home you’re pretty much useless to society. I don’t see why we should waste our money paving the streets in front of your house or even running water to your homes you should take those buckets out in the field somewhere fertilize the corn instead of being such a big drain on society”

Get it it’s only a problem because others make it a problem.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Everyone has the option of not pooping on the sidewalk. Don't live in an area where sidewalks are, carry a small shovel. Even a cat understands the theory.


 Dang I got admit I wanna see you with that shovel digging cat hole in the concrete sidewalk. 
I bet you catch it from others for digging up the sidewalk.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Dang I got admit I wanna see you with that shovel digging cat hole in the concrete sidewalk.
> I bet you catch it from others for digging up the sidewalk.


You missed this part... Don't live in an area where sidewalks are. I've lived in tents with my family. There's no need to violate others people's rights. These people need to seek out places where they aren't bothering others with their filth.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think that would be a good idea
But if someone is crapping on the sidewalk it’s obviously that they are weaponising their poop. 

I once took my girlfriend on a ride through New York City. Out of all the wondrous things there I think she remembers most a homeless person taking a poop on a car hood.
She couldn’t understand why he was doing that, obviously he was displeased with the car owner and I suspect the car was parked in his “home”.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Pooping on the sidewalk seems to have become Focal point of the homeless debate. But that’s really a tiny tiny problem
My work has put me on foot in many of the homeless focal points. Los Angeles San Diego San Francisco Sacramento Fresno etc. I don’t remember ever running into a turd on public sidewalk. 
What I have found is turds in alleys. And minefields of turds near encampment.

Of course none of this is nearly as bad as the turd farms just out of sight of any non Official convenient parking location along the interstate.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I haven't finished wading through the mud and replies but I have to consider the question/observation my daughter had. The United States imports thousands of homeless people every year. Why aren't we putting that amount of money and effort/care into the homeless people who are citizens of this country?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think we do. Exactly the same amount. 
None


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

There are a bunch of organizations that cater to immigrants, legal and illegal. Immigrants get help with housing, help finding jobs, help with welfare, health care and education. Americans aren't even allowed to require that immigrants learn to speak American English. Homeless Americans don't get that kind of assistance which is why so many end up homeless in the first place.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Danaus29 said:


> I haven't finished wading through the mud and replies but I have to consider the question/observation my daughter had. The United States imports thousands of homeless people every year. Why aren't we putting that amount of money and effort/care into the homeless people who are citizens of this country?


The answer is here- N_W V_T_RS
Folks who enjoy "Wheel Of Fortune" can fill in the blanks and potentially win a new AMC Gremlin.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol I would so enjoy having one of them.........for a week .


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Danaus29 said:


> I haven't finished wading through the mud and replies but I have to consider the question/observation my daughter had. The United States imports thousands of homeless people every year. Why aren't we putting that amount of money and effort/care into the homeless people who are citizens of this country?


The sad truth of that most immigrants will work 60 or more hours a week and not complain. They will take any job that comes their way. 

Now imagine if the homeless did that?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Some do !
I don’t think anything is sad at all about the fact that immigrants are willing to work I don’t think anything is sad at all about the fact that immigrants are willing to work hard.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Offer to pay the homeless the same as an immigrant (and in cash so they can keep their benefits too), give them transportation, cheap housing and hold their hand throughout the job and I'm sure many would work. To find out, someone would have to offer them the chance. Many places won't because it is illegal.

The professional bums won't take any job, but we are not talking about professional bums.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Some do !
> I don’t think anything is sad at all about the fact that immigrants are willing to work I don’t think anything is sad at all about the fact that immigrants are willing to work hard.


And there some that do aren't homeless for long are they? 

I used to be "some" homeless guy. I took every job that came my way. Some jobs were food only but that's ok. What else was I going to do that day that was more important?


----------

