How to end homelessness

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 42
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
There are about 100 million Bernie Sanders supporters and about 500,000 homeless people and about 153 million worldwide orphans.  Lets send all of these people to the homes of Bernie Sanders supporters, because they claim it's bad that there are orphans and homelessness and they want OTHER people to do something about it.

If they think this is too radical, then maybe we just shouldn't care what happens to the homeless?  They want the homeless and the orphans to get housed, lets put them in THEIR house.

Problem solved.
#2
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
There are about 100 million Bernie Sanders supporters
Biden won the election with 81 million votes and Bernie objectively had less support than Biden so I don't know where that number comes from.

and about 500,000 homeless people
580,000+ in US

and about 153 million worldwide orphans. 
Let's focus on US policy please. No US politician has suggested that the US adopt or even help all the world's orphans.

Lets send all of these people to the homes of Bernie Sanders supporters, because they claim it's bad that there are orphans and homelessness
I would accept as axiomatic that orphaned children and homeless people are social ills that all states are required to address since the beginning of civilization.  Why beat up Bernie Sanders?  You can't honestly claim to be a Christian without acknowledging a responsibility to care for orphans and homeless people.  That's just being a non-asshole in any society worth living in, frankly.

and they want OTHER people to do something about it.
They want everybody, including themselves to do something about it as in they want governments to do something about it because that's cheapest and most effective solution

If they think this is too radical, then maybe we just shouldn't care what happens to the homeless?  They want the homeless and the orphans to get housed, lets put them in THEIR house.
History tells us that there is not any  realistic choice between  taking care of the indigent or letting them starve.  If such a choice were available to societies all societies would choose starvation and the problem easily solved.  The problem is that the indigent don't starve, they find ways to eek out a living at the margins while creating ever increasingly expensive social problems.  The actual choice is between paying less money up front or  much more money later, when the indigent become social problems that can't be ignored.  One part of the secret of America's economic success in the 50's and 60's is that we learned that it was much cheaper to build big State run orphanages and asylums than it was let these people sleep in the street.  Republicans (Reagan was the poster child in this respect) in the 70's and 80's stupidly cleared out the orphanages and asylums as a short-term cost-saving measure only to realize too late that they ended up paying ten-fold in increased crime, emergency services, damage to the commercial appeals of city centers, etc.  The average cost of a homeless person to US taxpayers is currently about $100,000/year when we could easily house, feed, and provide medical care for a quarter or a fifth of that cost  if only we could convince Republicans that its not about being nice to people its just about providing practical solutions to problems that all large societies share in common.




#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
they want governments to do something about it because that's cheapest and most effective solution
Lmao. More like laziest solution.

The reason why homelessness is a problem in 1 party banana republics like California stems from 3 things:

1) The state rewards people for being homeless. (throw money and say you care = votes)
2) The state discourages low cost housing construction. (lobbies want to keep property values high)
3) The state prefers outpatient medication over institutionalization because big pharma makes more money that way. Plus it's more expensive to treat all those addicts when you can just let them sleep for free in tent cities. Setting up government rehabilitation centers wouldn't work anyway due to #1 and #2.

#4
Incel-chud
Incel-chud's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 434
2
3
8
Incel-chud's avatar
Incel-chud
2
3
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
I was molested in foster care and it was still better than being sent to a Bernie sanders supporters house
Topic's author
#5
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Incel-chud
Why would you not want to be in a Bernie Sander supporter's house?  They care about the poor and wouldn't molest you.  You would get treated well there.  If they don't take care of you and treat you well, they are hypocrites for demanding the rich do it with their money.
#6
Incel-chud
Incel-chud's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 434
2
3
8
Incel-chud's avatar
Incel-chud
2
3
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think you know all Bernie Sanders supporters are rich kids angry at their parents and utilizing ivory tower thinking
Topic's author
#7
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@oromagi
Biden won the election with 81 million votes and Bernie objectively had less support than Biden so I don't know where that number comes from.
A lot of people that would sit out elections would have voted for Bernie because they think democrats are too right wing.  Not all Bernie Sanders supporters are of voting age.  About 1/3 of the country supports Bernie.

No US politician has suggested that the US adopt or even help all the world's orphans.
I'm making a point claiming that if there are children suffering in other countries (or even in my own country), then it's none of my business.  Free market includes not being forced to help out the poor.

You can't honestly claim to be a Christian without acknowledging a responsibility to care for orphans and homeless people.
America is not a theocracy.  We don't make laws based on the bible.  Forcing people to help out the poor because of the bible is making laws based on the bible.  This is also why I don't use the bible to justify banning abortion or opening the borders.

But if you care about the homeless, your free to adopt a homeless person.

They want everybody, including themselves to do something about it as in they want governments to do something about it because that's cheapest and most effective solution
If the government, with it's $3 trillion annual budget was effective in ending homelessness, there would be no homelessness.  The easiest solution to homelessness (if we even want to give people free homes) is to put them all in Bernie Sander's homes and in AOC's district.  If she turns them down, she is being mean to the poor.  How sad!  Lol

The actual choice is between paying less money up front or  much more money later, when the indigent become social problems that can't be ignored. 
The problem can be ignored.  We just do nothing and if they starve, less welfare bums.  I'm sick of subsidizing Trump (or Biden) supporting homeless people.  No more welfare state.

Republicans (Reagan was the poster child in this respect) in the 70's and 80's stupidly cleared out the orphanages and asylums as a short-term cost-saving measure only to realize too late that they ended up paying ten-fold in increased crime, emergency services, damage to the commercial appeals of city centers, etc. 
Private police deal with any crime that the homeless do, and then the homeless would be working off the debt they racked up.  Once their labor is done, they get a job to where they don't have to starve anymore so they don't have to steal anymore.  This is a quicker more effective form of punishment and rehabilitation for the homeless than 20 years of jail/living off the government for theft.  #LibetarianCapitalist.

The average cost of a homeless person to US taxpayers is currently about $100,000/year when we could easily house, feed, and provide medical care for a quarter or a fifth of that cost
How do you come to that conclusion?


Topic's author
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Incel-chud
I think you know all Bernie Sanders supporters are rich kids angry at their parents and utilizing ivory tower thinking

Your thinking of Hilliary supporters.  Bernie supporters are average, working class Joes and Janes.  They aren't woke like Clinton supporters.  They don't care what your stance on abortion and woke culture is as long as they get free healthcare and more union benefits.  They love the poor.  So lets ship all the homeless to Sanders supporter's houses.
#9
Incel-chud
Incel-chud's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 434
2
3
8
Incel-chud's avatar
Incel-chud
2
3
8
I would accept as axiomatic that orphaned children and homeless people are social ills that all states are required to address since the beginning of civilization.  Why beat up Bernie Sanders?  You can't honestly claim to be a Christian without acknowledging a responsibility to care for orphans and homeless people.  That's just being a non-asshole in any society worth living in, frankly.
They should be taken care of through filial responsibility laws, also a truly free market would pretty much entirely eliminate poverth
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
A selective extinction event,

Or a tent,

Might be the answer.

That your after.

A virus that only attacks,

The moron-gene.

And a sown in groundsheet,

Makes the home,

A complete,

Treat,

For the feet.


By the way,

And before you say.

I was DNA tested,

No moron-gene detected.

Have you been preselected?

Also,

A truly free market.

Would pretty much,

Entirely,

Eliminate,

Poverth,

Might be,

Symptomatic.




#11
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Lets send all of these people to the homes of Bernie Sanders supporters, because they claim it's bad that there are orphans and homelessness and they want OTHER people to do something about it.
They want everybody, including themselves to do something about it
What is so difficult to understand about this?
#12
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
For once, I’m liking where this is going. And while we’re at it, for those that want to abolish prison, let’s send criminals to their houses 🙌
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
amen
#14
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
A lot of people that would sit out elections would have voted for Bernie because they think democrats are too right wing.  Not all Bernie Sanders supporters are of voting age.  About 1/3 of the country supports Bernie.
Sanders support dropped and avg. of 25% from 2016 to 2020.  In Bernie country, the Northwest and Northeast, his support dropped by more than half.  If we agree that Bernie is too old to run  for office again than Bernie' support in the underage is irrelevant, right?
I'm making a point claiming that if there are children suffering in other countries (or even in my own country), then it's none of my business. 
Let's set aside other countries.  US citizens commit to promoting the General Welfare in the very first sentence of the US Constitution.  Feeding our children is one of the first and most traditional American obligations to that General Welfare.
America is not a theocracy. 
No.  Just making it clear that the rightwing ain't rooted in Christian values, in spite of constant claims to those values.

If the government, with it's $3 trillion annual budget was effective in ending homelessness, there would be no homelessness. 
But they already did that with a smaller budget.  There was less homelessness in the US in the 50's an 60's then just about any other time since NAZI Germany.   We figured it out and then Ronald Reagan convinced Republicans to trash that cheaper and more effective solution to support short term budget cuts and short term tax cuts.

 The problem can be ignored. 
If you are going to neglect America's indigent then you have no business complaining about crime.  There is an absolute and irresolvable relationship between the quality our children's welfare and the national crime rate 20 years later.  History is quite indisputable on this point:  you can pay now or you can pay much more later but you are very wrong, the problem is impossible to ignore.

then the homeless would be working off the debt they racked up.  Once their labor is done, they get a job to where they don't have to starve anymore
I don't know why you think the homeless are particularly employable.  Two thirds are addicts, a third suffer  from profound mental diagnoses (almost all of which stem from childhood neglect and violence).  First you have to convince some employer that its worth investing in training these folks.  Most addicts will disappear once the first paycheck is issued.  Do really think this method hasn't been tried since the beginning of civilization and been found generally useless?

How do you come to that conclusion?
Figures are pretty rough.  My State of Colorado spends about $481m on shelters, services, emergency response and healthcare on a population that ranges between 5-10,000  That doesn't include local jurisdiction spending which is considerable and that doesn't include charitable food banks, clothing drives, spending which is considerable. Some private interests, especially hospitals take on some of the burden as well. The Fed Govt. estimates it spends an avg. of $35,000 per homeless individual per year.  So that number is probably more like $40,000 for young transient homeless and closer to $200,000 for the very mentally ill.

This also does consider the secondary impacts of homelessness like crime or tourism which is considerable.

My state estimates that they can provide a homeless person with a simple studio apt or mobile microhouse for about $12,000/yr.  If we can keep basic service under a thousand/month then that's a quarter of what we spend now.  If we went back to the old centralized dormitories model we could probably get annual spending below $20,000/year for about a fifth of what we spend now.


#15
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@oromagi
We figured it out and then Ronald Reagan convinced Republicans to trash that cheaper and more effective solution to support short term budget cuts and short term tax cuts.
I'm not well-versed on homeless policy. What did we do then vs now?
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
My state estimates that they can provide a homeless person with a simple studio apt or mobile microhouse for about $12,000/yr.  If we can keep basic service under a thousand/month then that's a quarter of what we spend now. 
People are going to be scrambling to qualify as homeless if they can get free housing out of it. You can't build that many houses.
#17
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
State run orphanages, sanitariums, and asylums
#18
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
You did it underdog, you cured homelessness. Every thread from you is sheer blissful wisdom, god bless your soul.
#19
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Colorado Coalition for the Homeless has been converting apartment buildings into ultra-cheap housing for the homeless for 30 years with a lot of success.   If you focus on getting mothers with children off the streets as a priority, those families tend to get their shit together and get self-sustainable in a couple of years.  Non-addicted mentally ill also benefit massively from a  shelter, regular meals and medicine delivery- if they can stay on top of their meds and find a little support system those folks get back into working life fairly often.  Hard core addicts are much more difficult to house and rehabilitate but they can still benefit a lot from a single place to eat meals, rec'v healthcare, get mail make phone calls, etc.
#20
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@oromagi
State run orphanages, sanitariums, and asylums

Yeah, one of the reasons I'm not a huge Reagan fan, myself. A lot of the people that would have been in asylums roam the streets. No such thing as a good free market solution for homeless and orphans.

Notice I say "good" because ignoring, while an option (as discussed above), clearly isn't a good one.
#21
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
-->@oromagi
State run orphanages, sanitariums, and asylums

Yeah, one of the reasons I'm not a huge Reagan fan, myself. A lot of the people that would have been in asylums roam the streets. No such thing as a good free market solution for homeless and orphans.

Notice I say "good" because ignoring, while an option (as discussed above), clearly isn't a good one.

My mom was a psychiatric nurse specializing in homeless with addiction + mental health problems.  She worked in Manhattan and downtown Denver for 35 years and was used as an exemplary for one textbook in psychiatric nursing.  Needless to say, she had a lot of opinions on this subject.  I think she and a lot of health professionals thought that the big sanitariums were too cold, too warehouse, too "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" which they were undeniably.  Life in a low budget state dormitory was depressing and a lot of residents were deprived of a lot of rights, I expect.  But my mom came to see that such centralization and security and sanitation and regularity were actually far better for hardcore addicts and lunatics than the streets, where addictions could run wild and increasing violence could not be controlled.  I'm no fan of Reagan but we should say that an ideologically sound argument for shutting the asylums was made at the time which Reagan endorsed, I suppose.  I do agree those sites were too big.  A better balance between centralizing services and keeping people close to their communities ought to be found. 

Little rebel tent cities have popped up around Denver since the Floyd riots and though they are made to move to a new location every month or so they have proved a real nuisance: lots of crime, including blatant, furious amounts of bike theft, car theft, catalytic converter theft, drug dealing, propane tank explosions and ridiculous amounts of littering.  I would like to see vagrancy laws strengthened to combat this scourge but we need a legitimately helpful, worthwhile institution to offer a realistic and effective alternative  to sleeping rough first.  I think this can be done compassionately and for far less money than our present solution.
#22
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
because they claim it's bad that there are orphans and homelessness and they want OTHER people to do something about it.
Broadly speaking - the entire purpose of government is to Marshall a set of collective resources of group - and use those resources to do thing that benefit the group.

It’s not specifically that supporters want someone else personally want anyone directly inconvenienced (ie: want OTHER people to do it), but feel that to be an effective response they need more than charity and individuals to deal with it, and want more of the countries resources diverted to it.

If you have basic level of human decency, and empathy you can appreciate that homelessness is bad that you we need to do something about; the only argument is about how that I achieved.
#23
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Incel-chud
also a truly free market would pretty much entirely eliminate poverth

This sounds very similar to “communism works it just hasn’t been properly implemented”

A truly free market and working communism are largely impossible for the same reason. Human nature precludes it. “Truly free” markets rely on altruistic governance of the market, as self interest typically drives markets towards monopoly and inequality that altruistic governance is in achievable, as it is always possible to convert money to power at some level. It just screws the system up from the top down instead of bottom up.

Even were that not true - the claim is also ridiculous. For homeless not to be an issue in some notional free market - it must either be possible for a majority of individuals to be born to restart jobs/economic activity with no capital; or impossible that become lose all your capital. Given that both would be laughably untrue no matter how free market the market was: it would seem that it wouldn’t be any off of panacea. 

#24
Incel-chud
Incel-chud's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 434
2
3
8
Incel-chud's avatar
Incel-chud
2
3
8
self interest typically drives markets towards monopo
It really doesn't.  Back when the country was first formed, everyone was a business owner and it was highly unregulated. You would be a  blacksmith or a farmer or vet. Everyone legit owned their own businesses before market interventionist was a thing
#25
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Or, like, homes? maybe?
#26
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
You can't honestly claim to be a Christian without acknowledging a responsibility to care for orphans and homeless people.

#27
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
There's a megachurch in Denver that was founded by a group of Real Estate agents and is essentially a church built around a private school system built around a football program.  Sons of NFL players are actively recruited and offered free tuition and former Bronco Ed McCaffrey who is the program coordinator has been caught standing on the sidelines of football fields as far away as Arizona with ten of thousands of dollars in cash on his person- so very active recruiting.   After about their third year they won their first state championship and now 8 of the last 12.  They were in the news last month for firing two gay teachers just for being gay.
#28
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
There's a megachurch in Denver that was founded by a group of Real Estate agents and is essentially a church built around a private school system built around a football program. 

#29
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit

-->@oromagi
There's a megachurch in Denver that was founded by a group of Real Estate agents and is essentially a church built around a private school system built around a football program. 

Yeah, I think the South Park guys went to Littleton and Columbine- big schools that used to compete for that 5A championship and Valor Christian is just a couple of miles away so they are probably quite familiar with it.
#30
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
Colorado Coalition for the Homeless has been converting apartment buildings into ultra-cheap housing for the homeless for 30 years with a lot of success.  
How does this work, exactly? Apartments have people that live in them too, generally less wealthy people I would think. Right?