Some math I did

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 22
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
# of people homeless: 600K.

Cost of a good house: 500K.

Cost to give every homeless person a free house: 600K*500K=600M*500=60000M*5=60B*5=$300B.

Cost of free college: $60B

Amount of money spent on the military: $800B

Cut the military budget by 50%; that raises enough money to give free college and to give every homeless person a free house (while having $40B left over).

Cut the military budget (and this means we can stop funding Ukraine).
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Fuck the poor and increase the military budget, so we can have military stronger than the rest of the world combined, which will force them to seek protection from us and even pay for protection or pay not to get invaded, and keep testing weapons in Ukraine to fuck Russia.
#3
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Cost of a good house: 500K.
That's a shack in blue cities/blue states.

#4
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Fuck the poor and increase the military budget, so we can have military stronger than the rest of the world combined, which will force them to seek protection from us and even pay for protection or pay not to get invaded, and keep testing weapons in Ukraine to fuck Russia.
You're almost there.

Your mistake is trying to get the rest of the world to pay for it. All you need from the rest of the world is an excuse to give away weapons. Then you steal from the American people to buy those weapons from the American people plus your cut (which is huge).

If you tried to make other countries pay, they might refuse and try to do it themselves. Americans have no choice but to pay.

There is a slight risk that somebody might actually try to use the nominal democracy to take over the government with people who don't want to spend a trillion dollars on weapons and corruption. That's why you need to censor social media, control the news cycle, and amplify people like Double_R who run around saying things like:

So even if there was voter fraud on a scale where fraudulent ballots surpassed the margin of victory, you still would have no reason to believe that fraud changed the outcome.
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you tried to make other countries pay, they might refuse and try to do it themselves. Americans have no choice but to pay.
No, as it is not better to give away weapons for free, as it is of no any benefit, unless it is done in war to counter Russia, which I already explained.
#6
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There is a slight risk that somebody might actually try to use the nominal democracy to take over the government
I think democracy is a bad system of government unless you can maintain high military spending which is great.

#7
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Quick question. What happens to wages when there are more people competing for jobs than companies competing for talent? 
Topic's author
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I live in a blue state; the house I live in is a little more than $500K, but it's a moderately big house.  $500K is above the median home price in most states (Median Home Price By State 2024 – Forbes Advisor).

But you (and all other fiscal conservatives) won't back this position because you have a party to stick too.
Topic's author
#9
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
Quick question. What happens to wages when there are more people competing for jobs than companies competing for talent? 
What does this have to do with giving taxpayer funded housing (which I'm not a fan of; but would prefer to taxpayer funded war/genocide (for Ukraine in case you need the right wing virtue signal)?
#10
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
But you (and all other fiscal conservatives) won't back this position because you have a party to stick too.
Still clueless

#11
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2

shack



shack


shack



shack


shack
#12
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2

normal American house size (not 2 bed apartment size)
Topic's author
#13
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Of course it's going to be more expensive in urban Staten island.  The federal government can build homes for the homeless in the suburbs.  Better that than spending the money on wars in Ukraine.
#14
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
What does this have to do with giving taxpayer funded housing (which I'm not a fan of; but would prefer to taxpayer funded war/genocide (for Ukraine in case you need the right wing virtue signal)?
1. I was referring to another part of your post. Tax payer funded insane asylum is what we need for a lot of these people. The mentally ill are often discarded by their family and need help and homelessness is there only option. 

2. Cities with large homeless populations a lot of times have huge housing costs like LA or New York, and you will also notice these places don't do too much building lately because the wealthy want to retain their home values so they essentially outlaw new apartment buildings going up

3. Increase in tax breaks for income based housing with the stipulations that background and credit checks be banned from the application process.

4. There are millions even hundreds of millions going to fund homeless shelters around the country. Essentially places that are essentially laundering public funds by hiring friends as contractors abd taking kickbacks when they over pay them. Actually hold these charitable organizations accountable through tracking some key indicators of their results and sending the funds to a rival charity if things smell fishy.

5. Make every high end community provide one unit of equal value to a low income family so that way you can escape the hood easier
#15
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
But you (and all other fiscal conservatives) won't back this position because you have a party to stick too.
I listed a few ideals that liberals can get behind or who are the originators of the ideals . 

What you are stipulating would hurt poor people. Government housing is just another way to enslave the poor.  Shit like that is why I never sought government assistance whe I was homeless. You never escape poverty if you enter a homeless shelter. Be in by 4pm be out by 6 am and if you get a job that doesn't fit those hours you have nowhere to rest your head and usually you need to show up hours early for a spot. 

You aren't helping the homeless with what you suggest
Topic's author
#16
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
1. If you support this, then you are starting to not sound fiscally conservative as this is more government spending.

2. Housing prices can be 50% of what they are now; the homeless won't be able to afford them.  The homeless can move to a suburb where it's cheaper than San Fransisco.  You should be allowed to build new housing in San Fransisco and loosen a lot of the regulations; but don't act like it will help people that are unemployed and have no money.

3. This is a left wing position; tax cuts for the poor.

4. Hundreds of millions is $.3 billion.  $300 billion is needed to wipe out homelessness (about 1/3 of the military budget).

5. This point sounds very leftist.

You are sounding very leftist right now and it's fine if you acknowledge that; but just understand that.
Topic's author
#17
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
Government housing is just another way to enslave the poor. 
Who is enslaving the poor by this happening?
#18
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
1. . If you support this, then you are starting to not sound fiscally conservative as this is more government spending
Fair enough but insane asylum are essentially a conservative thing and homelessness spiked after democrats shut them down. 

2. but don't act like it will help people that are unemployed and have no money.
I would suggest they get employed and get money. I do think you are stereotyping the homeless though. A lot work and just need to save up money to get into a home and some can't because housing prices are too high. 

You responded fast so did you consider my suggestions at all or are you in rebuttal mode and just interested in shooting down ideals? Serious question because I have considered your position. I usedto hold the position that buying them houses was literally the solution. 

3. This is a left wing position; tax cuts for the poor.
Yeah you are just in shoot down mode. I Suggested tax cuts for those who own apartment complexes tied to stipulations encouraging income based apartments without background or credit checks

5.This point sounds very leftist.
I have some leftist views. So what . As does Donald Trump. 
#19
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Who is enslaving the poor by this happening?
Policy makers. Have you ever had to use the government for anything whatsoever? The mountains of paperwork. The odd hoops you have to jump through. The waiting lists. 

What happens when you depend on the government.

1. Have a bad political view, they can remove your funding for that house they Gave you?

2. Smoke Crack? If you have a large enough amount than no you didn't you are now a dealer and a felon, no subsidies. 

Once funding runs low and expectation gets high they add more stipulations. 

Here are some they may have

1. Monthly drug tests to stay in government housing
2. Must reside in state of housing for 2 years with evidence
3. Must have less than 3 kids.

The government is a shitshow and no tinkering by applying new policies to prevent that just means adding to th shit show in different ways.
Topic's author
#20
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
A lot work and just need to save up money to get into a home and some can't because housing prices are too high. 
Then they can live in a cheaper suburb.  I do think it should be easier to build in Manhattan; but Manhattan has no land to build.

You responded fast so did you consider my suggestions at all or are you in rebuttal mode and just interested in shooting down ideals?
It was entirely coincidence.  I sometimes am in rebuttal mode and sometimes I am not.

I considered the suggestions, but they are left wing suggestions (except making it easier to build a home when this issue is up to local government and a suggestion I agreed with), so if you agree with them, then give the left credit.

Yeah you are just in shoot down mode.
That's my bad.  I just have huge adrenaline rushes and that gets in the way of my thinking.

I have some leftist views. So what . As does Donald Trump. 
That's fine; but you seem like a conservative guy.  I got right wing views on guns, free speech, abortion, and vax mandates, but I'm left on Qualified immunity, government spending, the confederate flag, and immigration.

Policy makers. 
How do policy makers enslave people who depend on them?

What happens when you depend on the government.

1. Have a bad political view, they can remove your funding for that house they Gave you?

2. Smoke Crack? If you have a large enough amount than no you didn't you are now a dealer and a felon, no subsidies. 

I don't think the government will take away your house if you vote against them.  My left wing Dad didn't kick me out for political disagreements and he actually has to live with me.

Not being allowed to smoke crack isn't slavery.  Slavery is being forced to work with no compensation.

Here are some they may have

1. Monthly drug tests to stay in government housing
2. Must reside in state of housing for 2 years with evidence
3. Must have less than 3 kids.
If I was homeless (or even middle class), then I would rather live by these rules than pay $1000/month for rent.


#21
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't think the government will take away your house if you vote against them. My left wing Dad didn't kick me out for political disagreements and he actually has to live with me.
I dont think I mentioned voting against them but what if you have pro rape views abd work hard towards rape legalization?

If I was homeless (or even middle class), then I would rather live by these rules than pay $1000/month for rent.
Where do you find places for only 1k a month? I can't find a place for less than 2500 unless I live around black people
Topic's author
#22
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
I dont think I mentioned voting against them but what if you have pro rape views abd work hard towards rape legalization?
If you have the pro r*** views, then as a Civilian, I don't think our politicians would care and most don't even know you exist.  But if you have those views as a POTUS, then I would vote against you, even if the alternate candidate is horrible too (lets say they believe burning living babies should be legal) because I would vote 3rd party.

Where do you find places for only 1k a month? I can't find a place for less than 2500 unless I live around black people
I was guessing, but lets say rent was $3000/month.  Would you rather pay $3000/month for rent with no drug test or pay $0/month for rent with a drug test?