Homelessness peaks in the US

[welsh]

This was one of the legacies of the Reagan era. Seems a repeat in the Bush era. Maybe it's those damn republicans?

So libertarians? What do you think? Give them shelter or let them freeze?

Americans are troubled by this issue: An Associated Press poll taken Feb. 11-13 found 53 percent consider homelessness a very serious problem, while 36 percent say it's somewhat serious. Some 56 percent see the long-term homeless as victims of circumstances beyond their control, according to the survey. It was conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs among 1,001 adults and had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Or is that stuff about a more compassionate America a lot of horse shit?

homelessness problem returns

 

[Bradylama]

So libertarians? What do you think? Give them shelter or let them freeze?

Give them shelter. That isn't government subsidized.

 

[welsh]

You're such a humanitarian.

Of course with faith based initiatives, church groups can use that money to make shelters and preach at the same time- government subsidized church for the homeless is a better alternative than, say, a more sound employment program?

Whoops, but that's government intervening in the economy- can't have that.

Wait, now you do realize that Bush's social security bill- in which individuals would have to invest in companies- would basically mean public subsidized industry, right?

So this makes government and business have a closer, more cosy relationship in which business might have more reason to influence or determine policy.

And somehow this is good libertarianims, how?

And this kosher, but getting homeless people into shelters or better yet, getting them jobs is a bad thing?

You haven't yet figured that libertarianism in reality is a bit different than ideal libertarianism and perhaps the real is morally vacuous?

Or perhaps you can clarify what seems a contradiction?

How about that american quality of life, hunh? Good if you're doing well, fucked if you're not.

 

[Bradylama]

You're such a humanitarian.

And what if I contributed to charities? Humanitarianism doesn't need the government to occur.

Of course with faith based initiatives, church groups can use that money to make shelters and preach at the same time- government subsidized church for the homeless is a better alternative than, say, a more sound employment program?

Employment program... for what? Government employment? Businesses aren't exactly hiring people off the streets unless they have to wear a foam rubber suit and stand on the street corner.

Whoops, but that's government intervening in the economy- can't have that.

Nope.

Wait, now you do realize that Bush's social security bill- in which individuals would have to invest in companies- would basically mean public subsidized industry, right?

Which is exactly why I'm against it. In my opinion, Social Security should become opt-out. I don't like the idea of the government investing my money for me. It just opens the door for a whole bunch of corrupt bullshit.

So this makes government and business have a closer, more cozier relationship in which business might have more reason to influence or determine policy.

And somehow this is good libertarianims, how?

It isn't.

ANd this kosher, but getting homeless people into shelters or better yet, getting them jobs is a bad thing?

No. I never said it was. These things can be accomplished without the government picking up the homeless off the streets and dropping them in jobs. Particularly if those homeless aren't schizophrenic.

You haven't yet figured that libertarianism in reality is a bit different than ideal libertarianism and perhaps the real is morally vacuous?

Real Libertarianism is morally vacuous, because real Libertarians don't seek a moral government, but a just one.

How many Libertarians did you think you'd ambush with this topic? :p

 

[welsh]

How many to ambush, not sure. We have a few here.

But as soon as you say a "just" government you make a moral choice. What does "just" mean to you? By keeping your definitions ambiguous you do little but confuse and distract with fancy labels.

Back in the old days you had the government employ people who had no jobs, you didn't give taxes breaks to business. Got unemployment issues, have the unemployed build a damn, or a bridge or something. It's not like our infrastructure isn't getting a bit run-down.

Immediately when you have tax breaks to businesses you not only show preferences, but you also make a policy choice of government interaction with business. This leads to cronyism.

That said, by having a libertarian idea of governance with a reduced government, than the question becomes- who does government really serve? This question is made more complex because we live in a world real people but also "legal' people in the form of corporations.

 

[Bradylama]

The government didn't give tax breaks to business because for the longest time they didn't need tax breaks. That's because before the Income Tax (unconstitutional by the way) the Federal government could only tax trade.

The purpose of reaching Small Government itself is so that we can eventually abolish the income tax.

That said, by having a libertarian idea of governance with a reduced government, than the question becomes- who does government really serve?

The government should serve the nation. Not the people, and not business, but the nation itself. Why? Because the government should only be tasked with national security and Law.

The idea that the government should serve the people is a foolhardy notion, because people are stupid, or at the very least, short-sighted. The last time the majority of the nation thought they knew what was best for the country, the end result is a government that can control almost any aspect of our lives.

As well, the government has no right to dictate what I can do with my life and my money short of harming others.

That's Libertarianism. The idea that only individuals know what's best for themselves.

Also, I suppose that by The Old Days, you really mean The New Deal. But let's not bring Social Security into this again.

 

[Fez]

If you set fire to half of the homeless population you solve everything. The bums get heat from the blaze, a warm meal and the homeless population decreases.

 

[bob_the_rambler]

Government subsidized shelters arnt necessary, in the statistics is said sommat like 53% of people polled thought that homelessness was a serious problem, if they really cared they might get off their asses and do something productive to help the problem.

Im not for government subsidized shelters because that means the government come to the tax payers pockets for funding........Welsh i think your right, we at one time employed these people and put them to use and provided a way for them to survive and now we just watch them as we drive by in our BMW's and Buicks.

 

[Fez]

No one really cares about homeless or poor people anyway, barring themselves. If they did there would be more done about it, but there isn't as people don't care if someone else rots as long as they have a big TV.

 

[Bradylama]

Welsh i think your right, we at one time employed these people and put them to use and provided a way for them to survive and now we just watch them as we drive by in our BMW's and Buicks.

Nevermind that at the time, unemployment was at 1/3 of the population. Considering how so many people already do the same work the unemployed did during The New Deal, you figure out a good way of giving them easy employment without pissing off people that already have jobs.

 

[Maphusio]

Welsh i think your right, we at one time employed these people and put them to use and provided a way for them to survive and now we just watch them as we drive by in our BMW's and Buicks.

Nevermind that at the time, unemployment was at 1/3 of the population. Considering how so many people already do the same work the unemployed did during The New Deal, you figure out a good way of giving them easy employment without pissing off people that already have jobs.

whooho tough conversation. I just wanted to chime in. Unemplyment is currently at 1/2 or greater. The gov recordes unemployment by those that are on it and that only lasts for so long before they kick you out on your ass.

Out here is Wa state its pretty odd to cruise the streets of Tacoma and see a homeless person on literaly every busy street corner. I think the general concensis of the gov is to ignore the percentages and try/hope things will improve. For if they did research the total unemployment you would have another serious depression on your hands.

 

[Bradylama]

Sources? Research?

I've never heard anything on unemployment being at 50%.

Are you talking about Washington State?

 

[Maphusio]

The way unemployment numbers work is very simple. Those who are registered as unemployed become part of the national figure. However, after a period of time unemployment will no longer help that person if they could not get up on their feet. Thus they become homeless and off the unemployment records. This way corporations both national and international as well as big Wall Street stockholders will not dump the economy into turmoil (more so than it all ready is) creating a depression such as the great dust bowel depression.

 

[Bradylama]

I got that part. What you haven't explained is how half the country is out of a job.

 

[Maphusio]

I can see where it would seem that I am positively saying that the current rates are at 1/2. I should have stated they could possibly be that high. I would like to get my hands on unemployment records post 9/11 a few months. I am sure they would not list any of the people currently registered. This reenforcing what I have been saying. This may have been a fact I read on a article written by Michael Moore. Not positive though. I hope this is coherent as I have worked another double and am now a bit drunk.

 

[Bradylama]

This may have been a fact I read on a artcial writen by Michael Moore.

'Nuff said. If that is the case, of course.

 

[WraithUV]

LOL Yeah. Moore is just the guy I'd go to for factual and unbiased data. Yeah... right after I ride my pet monkey to the moon maybe..

Anyways, all statistics are inherently flawed. A good example is the quotes up there saying how 53% feel it's a big problem etc. You may note, they surveyed a whole 1001 people.

Ooooh. That's not even the population of most small towns, let alone an indication of the country as a whole. It also gives no indication on whether these 1001 people were all say government employees... bus drivers... all lived within 20 miles of each other... all had the same last name... etc.

Point being, if you want to get decent survery data, you need a much larger study, and you have to be sure to diversify the demographic of the people included and also be absolutely sure that any questions are asked in a completely unweighted and neutral manner or it means precisely squat.

Oh, and the nation's unemployment isn't remotely close to 50%, though I definitely wouldn't be the least bit shocked if Moore has actually said so.

-Wraith

U.S. unemployment numbers disappoint but improvement seen

Friday, February 04, 2005

U.S. Unemployment
As expected, U.S. unemployment numbers were better in January; however, the number of new jobs were considerably below analysts expectations. The forecasters expected anywhere between 190,000 and 200,000 new jobs, whereas only 146,000 were created. However, the unemployment number fell from December’s 5.4% to 5.2% in January, a level not seen since 2001 when the recession began. Along with the disappointing new job number in January, November and December job figures were revised downwards, with December falling from 157,00 to a revised 133,000 and November falling from first reported 137,000 to 132,000. The actual unemployment rate is the U.S. has now fallen 1.2% since the peak in June 2003 of 6.3%. All in all the U.S. is making some headway in sending people back to work, but the numbers are once again not really strong enough to impress traders as the future sustainability of the U.S. economy in the long term. Although the consensus is still almost unanimous that the Federal Reserve will one again raise interest rates when they meet March 22nd, any further weakness in economic statistics could cause a second look.

 

[Maphusio]

You guys should ahhh check Michael on some things.... I think you would be amazed to find he uses FACT not fiction... Go ahead prove me wrong. Post it here. Anyways what I said IS true about the USA's unemployment records. They only last for so long before you are no longer on the list and assumed to have found a job. I think it is safe to presume that most would have not.

 

[WraithUV]

Actually, unemployment figures are taken from <gasp!> people collecting unemployment.

Therefore, people who are not collecting unemployment, while they may technically be unemployed obviously have some other means of income and are therefore not counted into the figures.

Hmm... tough stuff here.

And you're more than welcome to take Moore's word as gospel. I however learned a very long time ago that anyone who's too far to one side or the other is very selective about the "facts" they present.

If you put something in the right context, you can "prove" almost anything -regardless of how stupid it might be.

-Wraith

 

[Sander]

You guys should ahhh check Michael on some things.... I think you would be amazed to find he uses FACT not fiction... Go ahead prove me wrong. Post it here.

I did, a while back, on Fahrenheit 9/11:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8829&start=0

Oh, and then there is, of course, this infamous website about Bowling For Columbine:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

And now that that guy opened a general Michael Moore website, there's a lot more on that site as well. I haven't read it yet, though:
http://www.mooreexposed.com/