RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Don't Move to Austin. It's Rotting from Within. - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Don't Move to Austin. It's Rotting from Within. Rate Topic: -----

#41 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,266
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 17 September 2019 - 03:01 PM

View PostTimothy, on 17 September 2019 - 02:18 PM, said:

1) You act like this wasn't a problem before and these people didn't exist. If people are seeing more homeless people, it's because they aren't worried as much about hiding themselves. The prohibition on camping pushed people even more to the margins, making it harder to get help. They were already camping. Some of them in the same spots they were before, some in more public areas than before (under a bridge instead of in the woods.)

The right-wing approach of more punishment doesn't always work. Prohibition doesn't always work. It often pushes what is prohibited underground rather than preventing it.

2) Almost everyone says that there needs to be steps taken to get to prevent homelessness in the first place. We'll see how long that lasts until conservatives start complaining about "socialism".

The essential prohibition on affordable housing (by democrats) because of overbearing regulations (like Title 20 and 24 in CA)is one major reason for lack of affordable housing. This is according to NYT and the mayor of LA.

This is the leftís fault. Trump and republicans are rolling back regulations and allowing the free market to take care of its people. It works. Your side opposes it. Your side is simply wrong about almost everything - the homeless crisis included. (Iím not going to say you should give it a chance because I know you wonít.)
0

#42 User is offline   Tikk 

  • Oh Rrrrrreeeaaaally?
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 9,141
  • Joined: 16-December 03

Posted 17 September 2019 - 05:35 PM

View PostTimothy, on 17 September 2019 - 02:18 PM, said:

1) You act like this wasn't a problem before and these people didn't exist. If people are seeing more homeless people, it's because they aren't worried as much about hiding themselves. The prohibition on camping pushed people even more to the margins, making it harder to get help. They were already camping. Some of them in the same spots they were before, some in more public areas than before (under a bridge instead of in the woods.)

The right-wing approach of more punishment doesn't always work. Prohibition doesn't always work. It often pushes what is prohibited underground rather than preventing it.

2) Almost everyone says that there needs to be steps taken to get to prevent homelessness in the first place. We'll see how long that lasts until conservatives start complaining about "socialism".


1) Did I? Did I really act like this wasn't a problem? Did I really act like these people didn't exist?

Where? Show me where I even hinted at that.

2) Maybe. Maybe we need to institutionalize the insane and put them under the care of mental institutions. Like the guy repeatedly screaming at me, "HAVE YOU GIVEN YOURSELF A CAT SCAN!?" in front of my family. (Seattle 2016)

But you have to address or even say anything constructive. You claim we think this or that or rail against socialism. I haven't said anything of the sort, other than to say that you (being leftists) exploit them when it's time to vote. And I have said that you use them to make yourself feel morally superior because you care more than the rest of knuckle dragging right wingers. Which I honestly think you do.


I have shown with how and by what economic theories you are making their lives and more lives much much worse. You have yet to answer that.

You do the typical leftist deflection / talking point and act like it's a reasoned response.

It isn't.

And ANY solution isn't that they be left to do whatever the hell they want wherever they want.

Which you actually think is a good thing.

It isn't either.

And I once again encourage you to use your brain and think honestly and objectively.

This post has been edited by Tikk: 17 September 2019 - 05:36 PM

0

#43 User is offline   Timothy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 10,042
  • Joined: 12-December 03

Posted 18 September 2019 - 12:49 AM

View Postzurg, on 17 September 2019 - 03:01 PM, said:

The essential prohibition on affordable housing (by democrats) because of overbearing regulations (like Title 20 and 24 in CA)is one major reason for lack of affordable housing. This is according to NYT and the mayor of LA.

This is the leftís fault. Trump and republicans are rolling back regulations and allowing the free market to take care of its people. It works. Your side opposes it. Your side is simply wrong about almost everything - the homeless crisis included. (Iím not going to say you should give it a chance because I know you wonít.)

:yawn:

I've posted in several threads recently about reducing regulations to make housing more affordable. And how California sucks at it. Threads that you have participated in. You like to complain about other people arguing in bad faith. Maybe you should try practicing what you preach.

View PostTikk, on 17 September 2019 - 05:35 PM, said:

1) Did I? Did I really act like this wasn't a problem? Did I really act like these people didn't exist?

Where? Show me where I even hinted at that.


"Vagrancy enforcement not occurring = More Homeless

And permitting it / not enforcing the laws does not help the homeless. In fact, it hurts them. And eventually they will be exposed to more diseases, Hepatitis, pests, and other unsanitary conditions."

These people were homeless before we started "permitting" it. In general, you said multiple statements to the effect that I endorsed homelessness. That these measures created the problem.

Quote

2) Maybe. Maybe we need to institutionalize the insane and put them under the care of mental institutions. Like the guy repeatedly screaming at me, "HAVE YOU GIVEN YOURSELF A CAT SCAN!?" in front of my family. (Seattle 2016)

I agree with institutionalizing the insane.

Quote

But you have to address or even say anything constructive. You claim we think this or that or rail against socialism.

I bring up "socialism" because conservatives often complain about universal health care proposals and social safety net programs.

Our lack of universal health care is a significant part of this. I saw this first hand with a friend who was in and out of homelessness. Among several other issues, he has a major medical condition that can make it very difficult to work if it's not consistently treated and medicated properly. But he often couldn't afford treatments or medications, which made it harder to work, which made it even harder to get treatment.

(And yes I put my money where my mouth is and helped him out many times. And no, the health care issue wasn't the only factor that would lead to him being homeless. Some were personal flaws. One factor was high housing prices that I blame mostly on certain elements of the left. I talk about it in the past tense because he's since moved and I haven't kept up with how he's doing.)

Quote

I haven't said anything of the sort, other than to say that you (being leftists) exploit them when it's time to vote. And I have said that you use them to make yourself feel morally superior because you care more than the rest of knuckle dragging right wingers. Which I honestly think you do.

Where have I said anything that suggests that I think my position is "morally superior"?

Quote

I have shown with how and by what economic theories you are making their lives and more lives much much worse. You have yet to answer that.

I did address it:

"Subsidies/incentives work this way when people weigh different choices and make a decision to go a certain route.

The problem is, people generally don't choose to be option in spite of having alternatives that are clear are to them. Note that I'm talking about their perception of what their choices are, not necessarily what the actual choices are. It's usually a downward spiral that they get dragged into, not a deliberate choice.
"

I realize rereading it that I mangled the first sentence. Correcting that: People experiencing homelessness generally don't believe that they have a viable alternative to being homeless.

To expound on it: That's why a strategy of creating disincentives doesn't work. It's already really bad even without the ways you say we are "enabling" it. If disincentives worked, they would already be working.

Quote

You do the typical leftist deflection / talking point and act like it's a reasoned response.

It isn't.

And ANY solution isn't that they be left to do whatever the hell they want wherever they want.

Which you actually think is a good thing.

It isn't either.

And I once again encourage you to use your brain and think honestly and objectively.

Where have I said they should be "left to do whatever the hell they want wherever they want"?
0

#44 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,266
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 18 September 2019 - 06:14 AM

Timothy, I donít remember that youíve blamed the leftist government for any of the homeless problems. Thatís my point in case you missed it.
0

#45 User is online   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,657
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 18 September 2019 - 07:10 AM

View PostTimothy, on 18 September 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

:yawn:

I've posted in several threads recently about reducing regulations to make housing more affordable. And how California sucks at it. Threads that you have participated in. You like to complain about other people arguing in bad faith. Maybe you should try practicing what you preach.



"Vagrancy enforcement not occurring = More Homeless

And permitting it / not enforcing the laws does not help the homeless. In fact, it hurts them. And eventually they will be exposed to more diseases, Hepatitis, pests, and other unsanitary conditions."

These people were homeless before we started "permitting" it. In general, you said multiple statements to the effect that I endorsed homelessness. That these measures created the problem.


I agree with institutionalizing the insane.


I bring up "socialism" because conservatives often complain about universal health care proposals and social safety net programs.

Our lack of universal health care is a significant part of this. I saw this first hand with a friend who was in and out of homelessness. Among several other issues, he has a major medical condition that can make it very difficult to work if it's not consistently treated and medicated properly. But he often couldn't afford treatments or medications, which made it harder to work, which made it even harder to get treatment.

(And yes I put my money where my mouth is and helped him out many times. And no, the health care issue wasn't the only factor that would lead to him being homeless. Some were personal flaws. One factor was high housing prices that I blame mostly on certain elements of the left. I talk about it in the past tense because he's since moved and I haven't kept up with how he's doing.)


Where have I said anything that suggests that I think my position is "morally superior"?


I did address it:

"Subsidies/incentives work this way when people weigh different choices and make a decision to go a certain route.

The problem is, people generally don't choose to be option in spite of having alternatives that are clear are to them. Note that I'm talking about their perception of what their choices are, not necessarily what the actual choices are. It's usually a downward spiral that they get dragged into, not a deliberate choice.
"

I realize rereading it that I mangled the first sentence. Correcting that: People experiencing homelessness generally don't believe that they have a viable alternative to being homeless.

To expound on it: That's why a strategy of creating disincentives doesn't work. It's already really bad even without the ways you say we are "enabling" it. If disincentives worked, they would already be working.


Where have I said they should be "left to do whatever the hell they want wherever they want"?


:biglaugh:

View Postzurg, on 18 September 2019 - 06:14 AM, said:

Timothy, I donít remember that youíve blamed the leftist government for any of the homeless problems. Thatís my point in case you missed it.


Of course Timmah can't.
0

#46 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 18,655
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 18 September 2019 - 08:21 AM

View PostTimothy, on 17 September 2019 - 02:18 PM, said:

The prohibition on camping pushed people even more to the margins, making it harder to get help.


That doesn't make any sense. Social Services in every city are aware of where the homeless people sleep and spend their time. I bet 99% of homeless people have been contacted by Social Services or have been referred to Social Services by the police. The homeless people in the woods and under the bridge all know where to go for shelter. They don't go because of the restrictions on drug use in the shelter or other rules they don't like. The only "help" they are seeking is money via panhandling.

I'm more than willing to give a few bucks to any bum with a sign that says "Looking For Work". I've never seen one so I haven't given away a penny yet.

Quote

The right-wing approach of more punishment doesn't always work. Prohibition doesn't always work. It often pushes what is prohibited underground rather than preventing it.


It's called a "deterrent". Everybody has a minimum standard of living they are not willing to go below. If you keep raising the standard of living for people who don't want to work you will only add to the number of homeless. People who are not willing to live in the woods or under a bridge may be willing to quit work if they could set up a nice campsite with no rent payments.

Progressives need to stop giving more and more stuff to people they feel sorry for. It only increases the number of people they feel sorry for.

This post has been edited by Natural Selection: 18 September 2019 - 08:42 AM

0

#47 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 18,655
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 18 September 2019 - 08:27 AM

View PostTimothy, on 18 September 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

Our lack of universal health care is a significant part of this. I saw this first hand with a friend who was in and out of homelessness. Among several other issues, he has a major medical condition that can make it very difficult to work if it's not consistently treated and medicated properly. But he often couldn't afford treatments or medications, which made it harder to work, which made it even harder to get treatment.


He doesn't qualify for the Medicaid program that already exists?
0

#48 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,874
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 18 September 2019 - 11:14 AM

View PostNatural Selection, on 18 September 2019 - 08:21 AM, said:

It's called a "deterrent". Everybody has a minimum standard of living they are not willing to go below. If you keep raising the standard of living for people who don't want to work you will only add to the number of homeless. People who are not willing to live in the woods or under a bridge may be willing to quit work if they could set up a nice campsite with no rent payments.

Progressives need to stop giving more and more stuff to people they feel sorry for. It only increases the number of people they feel sorry for.

Bingo. Between the time I went to Hawaii in the 80s to dive, and when I as back there around 2010 to 2012 the "homeless" population had completely ballooned. A once nice park was completely overrun and unsafe to go into, there were tents and people laying on every beach and little grove near the beach. Some of it was, once people paid to get there they didn't have the money to get back to the mainland, if they even wanted to. Better to be homeless in paradise than in Michigan. I was talking with one of the Marines we worked with, and he said it's a huge problem but even the local government guys admit what's the dividing line between a "homeless" person and someone lazy who just wants to lay out on the beach all day every day? Hard to get people off those beaches without penalties for taking up space on public land.

I remember once in an episode of the scifi series Babylon 5 they mentioned the "lurkers" in down below, people who came for work, lost a job and never had the money to get back to Earth. In B5 "down below" was a hellish existence, in Hawaii, not so much.
0

#49 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 18,655
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 18 September 2019 - 12:07 PM

View PostSeverian, on 18 September 2019 - 11:14 AM, said:

Bingo. Between the time I went to Hawaii in the 80s to dive, and when I as back there around 2010 to 2012 the "homeless" population had completely ballooned. A once nice park was completely overrun and unsafe to go into, there were tents and people laying on every beach and little grove near the beach. Some of it was, once people paid to get there they didn't have the money to get back to the mainland, if they even wanted to. Better to be homeless in paradise than in Michigan. I was talking with one of the Marines we worked with, and he said it's a huge problem but even the local government guys admit what's the dividing line between a "homeless" person and someone lazy who just wants to lay out on the beach all day every day? Hard to get people off those beaches without penalties for taking up space on public land.

I remember once in an episode of the scifi series Babylon 5 they mentioned the "lurkers" in down below, people who came for work, lost a job and never had the money to get back to Earth. In B5 "down below" was a hellish existence, in Hawaii, not so much.


The homeless in Hawaii could use some "tough love". Progressives feel the need to do the opposite and it's making things worse. They always get the human behavior aspect of the equation wrong.
0

#50 User is offline   corporal_little 

  • What is your major malfunction....
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 8,673
  • Joined: 09-January 04

Posted 18 September 2019 - 03:17 PM

View PostTimothy, on 16 September 2019 - 09:16 PM, said:

Subsidies/incentives work this way when people weigh different choices and make a decision to go a certain route.

The problem is, people generally don't choose to be option in spite of having alternatives that are clear are to them. Note that I'm talking about their perception of what their choices are, not necessarily what the actual choices are. It's usually a downward spiral that they get dragged into, not a deliberate choice.


It depends entirely on what "laws" we are talking about.

And if they have viable alternatives. If you criminalize it without having alternative paths, you effectively just force them to be criminals. Which is where we were with these laws.


It's generally more of a concurrent than subsequent effect. Making it illegal to camp doesn't prevent them from being homeless.

I agree that the major focus needs to be on preventing people from being homeless in the first place.


How many cities aren't "leftist controlled"?


Tim - you can't sit here and tell us that the homeless problem hasn't gotten way worse in Austin over the last couple years. You might be able to BS others on here, but I'm in Austin every other week. Have several construction projects underway down there. One, over on Shoreline Drive, we had to have the police come out 5 times to remove a giant homeless encampment from the site so we could clear it. It's not like these homeless people are evil or anything, but I sat right there and watched them shoot up drugs, leave the needles on the ground and I even saw one lady give a guy a BJ right out in the open, with (what I assume were) her kids standing right there. It was unreal.

To be fair..... the issue has gotten pretty bad in more conservative Fort Worth too. Go over off Lancaster west of 35w and south of 30....hundreds of homeless laying every where.
0

#51 User is offline   Tikk 

  • Oh Rrrrrreeeaaaally?
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 9,141
  • Joined: 16-December 03

Posted 18 September 2019 - 07:46 PM

View PostTimothy, on 18 September 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

<snip>

"Vagrancy enforcement not occurring = More Homeless

And permitting it / not enforcing the laws does not help the homeless. In fact, it hurts them. And eventually they will be exposed to more diseases, Hepatitis, pests, and other unsanitary conditions."

These people were homeless before we started "permitting" it. In general, you said multiple statements to the effect that I endorsed homelessness. That these measures created the problem.


Encouraged is not the same thing as endorsing. Reading is fundamental. You encourage homelessness, you probably don't endorse it.

And where in those statements did I say they didn't exist before. What I AM saying is that the policies that just let them be, encourage more of them.

Let me give you a for-instance:
Jerry and Jim are friends. Jerry loses his job and ends up losing his apartment. Jerry finds a spot and buys a camper for his truck. Jim would like to help, but with his own apartment money is tight. Jerry is able to get a lower paying job and is able to start saving a little money.

Jim sees this and thinks to himself, "Wow, imagine how much more money I would have if I didn't pay rent!" So he asks Jerry for a spot nearby. They find one, and soon enough both have it not too bad (other than the places to wash themselves, etc.).

Time passes. They are in a world of rampant alcoholism and drug use. They get addicted to one or the other. Then end up losing everything and losing their jobs.

Now granted this is just a hypothetical.

But at any point, they could have thought, "Ya know. Living out of a camper might get me fined for improper use of public land" Maybe that incentive would have been enough for them to choose a different way to save money.

Now two things. Liberal policies such as rent control and limiting construction drive up residency prices. And no building codes / public land use enforcement mean these people can pitch a tent wherever they can find the space. What choice do you think drug addicts, prostitutes, alcoholics, etc. will choose?

I have a niece. She moved to California with her boyfriend. They both have jobs (his is less steady than hers). Yet both live out of a van. Until they leave California they will be stuck in that van. And they are in an environment where drug use is rampant. Do you think that my niece has been offered drugs? I truly worry for her.

Quote


I agree with institutionalizing the insane.



But do you not see that when the homeless are never challenged, they will never be evaluated for mental health? And when they do, it may sometimes be an act just to be able to spend a comfortable night in the hospital? And don't you think THOSE people make it harder for those who actually need help don't get it.

All these things feed on each other. Lax law enforcement, cynical health care providers, lack of enforcement of public land use, building codes, the list goes on and on and on.

All of it leads to more disease and homelessness

Quote


I bring up "socialism" because conservatives often complain about universal health care proposals and social safety net programs.



Well there's that. But Universal Health Care is socialism. It's too large of an industry. Venezuela started by the government just taking control of the oil industry.

And then there's actual Democrats such as Sanders, Warren, Booker, oh and Maxine Waters Chairman of the House Financial Committee says she wants to take over the oil industry. These aren't fringe. They are current leaders of the party and candidates for the Presidency of the United States.

/sarcasm

I can't imagine where we could possibly think that Democrats wanted to implement socialism

/sarcasm

Quote


Our lack of universal health care is a significant part of this. I saw this first hand with a friend who was in and out of homelessness. Among several other issues, he has a major medical condition that can make it very difficult to work if it's not consistently treated and medicated properly. But he often couldn't afford treatments or medications, which made it harder to work, which made it even harder to get treatment.



Sorry about your friend. But universal health care is not the solution. Particularly the way the left has implemented it.
Maybe I could offer some more insight if you provided more information.

But look on the bright side. At least the Republicans removed the provision by which your friend would be fined for not having insurance.


Quote


(And yes I put my money where my mouth is and helped him out many times. And no, the health care issue wasn't the only factor that would lead to him being homeless. Some were personal flaws. One factor was high housing prices that I blame mostly on certain elements of the left. I talk about it in the past tense because he's since moved and I haven't kept up with how he's doing.)



So he doesn't have any money, yet he can afford to move?

OK. It seems like you're holding back information. But OK that's up to you.

Quote


Where have I said anything that suggests that I think my position is "morally superior"?



It's inferred. Granted. But not enforcing laws as some solution because doing so would harm these 'victims' smacks of hubris.

Quote

I did address it:

"Subsidies/incentives work this way when people weigh different choices and make a decision to go a certain route.

The problem is, people generally don't choose to be option in spite of having alternatives that are clear are to them. Note that I'm talking about their perception of what their choices are, not necessarily what the actual choices are. It's usually a downward spiral that they get dragged into, not a deliberate choice.
"



That's not addressing it at all. You're sentence "they get dragged into" is false. It implies they are passive victim of some active force that drags them. They are either adults capable of making decisions and living with those consequences. Or they aren't, in which case some other entity should take charge. In which they are no longer independent adults.

It's very simple. And it's reality. Denying it by suggesting they are both adults and passive victims at the same moment is contradictory.


Quote

I realize rereading it that I mangled the first sentence. Correcting that: People experiencing homelessness generally don't believe that they have a viable alternative to being homeless.

To expound on it: That's why a strategy of creating disincentives doesn't work. It's already really bad even without the ways you say we are "enabling" it. If disincentives worked, they would already be working.


They were working. Leftists either removed them, or restricted law enforcement from enforcement. 20 years ago, there were homeless in Seattle and Austin. They were just much smaller populations, because back then being homeless was harder. It was harder because vagrancy was treated as a crime. And homeless knew it, and had incentive to no longer be homeless. Leftists have removed those incentives. And this why we have more homeless.


Quote


Where have I said they should be "left to do whatever the hell they want wherever they want"?



Once again it's inferred, granted. But saying this shouldn't be removed and the residents arrested in lieu of a fine doesn't solve anything.
https://communityimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/8.27-Homelessness-2.jpg

This post has been edited by Tikk: 18 September 2019 - 08:38 PM

0

#52 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,711
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 18 September 2019 - 09:01 PM

there was a homeless man that hung out on the streetcorners near my work with the sign "Please Help". I would frequently give him a few bucks, or buy an extra burger and give it to him, or even a buy one get one coupon. After a few weeks of that, I noticed that he wrote "Cash Only" on his sign.

In Honolulu, which has an unreal homeless problem, the state---to its credit---has conducted a lot of interviews and research into the demographics and reasons behind homelessness. The results of one of the studies were published in the local rag (which is so bad it makes the NYT look respectable), which surprisingly printed a pretty decent summary. Well over half of those interviewed did not want to move into a shelter or the planned "shed village" that was being constructed for them because they didn't want to "live under somebody else's rules". Another popular reason given was not wanting to obey the work requirement for living in the "shed village".
0

#53 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,711
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 18 September 2019 - 09:03 PM

View PostTimothy, on 18 September 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

I agree with institutionalizing the insane.


:welldone: :thumbsup:




we can start with Maxine Waters :P
0

#54 User is offline   stick 

  • The 'Little Genius' giving thanks
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 16,737
  • Joined: 24-November 03

Posted 19 September 2019 - 08:03 AM

View PostHowsithangin, on 18 September 2019 - 09:01 PM, said:

there was a homeless man that hung out on the streetcorners near my work with the sign "Please Help". I would frequently give him a few bucks, or buy an extra burger and give it to him, or even a buy one get one coupon. After a few weeks of that, I noticed that he wrote "Cash Only" on his sign.

In Honolulu, which has an unreal homeless problem, the state---to its credit---has conducted a lot of interviews and research into the demographics and reasons behind homelessness. The results of one of the studies were published in the local rag (which is so bad it makes the NYT look respectable), which surprisingly printed a pretty decent summary. Well over half of those interviewed did not want to move into a shelter or the planned "shed village" that was being constructed for them because they didn't want to "live under somebody else's rules". Another popular reason given was not wanting to obey the work requirement for living in the "shed village".


I see a guy panhandling that Iíve seen for DECADES. Heís been doing it ever since we moved into our area in 1998.

Think about that, Tim, he does so well at it that itís his career. Ainít because of me, I donít give them a dime and mainly because of this guy. He doesnít need to be a beggar, he chooses it. He probably owns a nice home nearby. And you canít tell me he couldnít find a real job in 21 years, itís just not possible here in Portland.
0

#55 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 36,743
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 19 September 2019 - 08:11 AM

View Poststick, on 19 September 2019 - 08:03 AM, said:

I see a guy panhandling that I've seen for DECADES. He's been doing it ever since we moved into our area in 1998.

Think about that, Tim, he does so well at it that it's his career. Ain't because of me, I don't give them a dime and mainly because of this guy. He doesn't need to be a beggar, he chooses it. He probably owns a nice home nearby. And you can't tell me he couldn't find a real job in 21 years, it's just not possible here in Portland.


There was an article in the Austin newspaper a few years ago about the 'homeless' in Austin. Many of them were interviewed for the article. The 'homeless' that admitted it, CHOSE to be 'homeless' and panhandled for a living. Many of them made $50,000-75,000 a year doing so.
0

#56 User is online   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 12,861
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 19 September 2019 - 09:28 AM

View PostMTP Reggie, on 19 September 2019 - 08:11 AM, said:

There was an article in the Austin newspaper a few years ago about the 'homeless' in Austin. Many of them were interviewed for the article. The 'homeless' that admitted it, CHOSE to be 'homeless' and panhandled for a living. Many of them made $50,000-75,000 a year doing so.

How is this possible when they have been ďdragged intoĒ a downward spiral?
0

#57 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,711
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 19 September 2019 - 09:55 AM

View PostJerryL, on 19 September 2019 - 09:28 AM, said:

How is this possible when they have been ďdragged intoĒ a downward spiral?

they only interviewed the white ones? :shrug:





<sarc>

View PostMTP Reggie, on 19 September 2019 - 08:11 AM, said:

There was an article in the Austin newspaper a few years ago about the 'homeless' in Austin. Many of them were interviewed for the article. The 'homeless' that admitted it, CHOSE to be 'homeless' and panhandled for a living. Many of them made $50,000-75,000 a year doing so.

same type of study in NYC in the 1990s. Same result, too
0

#58 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 18,655
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 19 September 2019 - 10:05 AM

View PostJerryL, on 19 September 2019 - 09:28 AM, said:

How is this possible when they have been ďdragged intoĒ a downward spiral?


The only downward spiral in this thread is Timothy's credibility. Apparently, he has resorted to lying to maintain is position.

View Postcorporal_little, on 18 September 2019 - 03:17 PM, said:

Tim - you can't sit here and tell us that the homeless problem hasn't gotten way worse in Austin over the last couple years. You might be able to BS others on here, but I'm in Austin every other week. Have several construction projects underway down there.


I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Anybody trying to defend the progressive position will eventually run out of facts in their favor. At that point they can either lie or agree we're correct. Their smug conceit prevents them from agreeing we're correct.
0

#59 User is offline   stick 

  • The 'Little Genius' giving thanks
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 16,737
  • Joined: 24-November 03

Posted 19 September 2019 - 12:01 PM

View PostJerryL, on 19 September 2019 - 09:28 AM, said:

How is this possible when they have been ďdragged intoĒ a downward spiral?


It's an easy way to be an addict. It can go anywhere from there and many times does. I'm sure there are those that make it a business but I think many more use it to hide from society and responsibility. How's THAT for socialism in your deep blue cities?
0

#60 User is offline   Timothy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 10,042
  • Joined: 12-December 03

Posted 19 September 2019 - 12:46 PM

Tikk, I'll respond to your post separately when I have time tonight, and to keep my post from being too long.

View Postzurg, on 18 September 2019 - 06:14 AM, said:

Timothy, I donít remember that youíve blamed the leftist government for any of the homeless problems. Thatís my point in case you missed it.

That specific context didn't come up. If that is a point you wanted to make, you could make it without assuming my position on the issue. I hope that isn't the type of thing you do outside of politics, it's a really bad way to try and convince anyone of anything because you're creating a degree of antagonism unnecessarily.

View PostNatural Selection, on 18 September 2019 - 08:21 AM, said:

That doesn't make any sense. Social Services in every city are aware of where the homeless people sleep and spend their time. I bet 99% of homeless people have been contacted by Social Services or have been referred to Social Services by the police. The homeless people in the woods and under the bridge all know where to go for shelter. They don't go because of the restrictions on drug use in the shelter or other rules they don't like. The only "help" they are seeking is money via panhandling.

I'm more than willing to give a few bucks to any bum with a sign that says "Looking For Work". I've never seen one so I haven't given away a penny yet.

Assuming there isn't a shortage of shelter space or social service personnel. There often is.

Quote

It's called a "deterrent". Everybody has a minimum standard of living they are not willing to go below. If you keep raising the standard of living for people who don't want to work you will only add to the number of homeless. People who are not willing to live in the woods or under a bridge may be willing to quit work if they could set up a nice campsite with no rent payments.

Progressives need to stop giving more and more stuff to people they feel sorry for. It only increases the number of people they feel sorry for.

Also a "nice" campsite with no running water, no immediate access to bathrooms, no air conditioning (not insignificant when it's 100 during the day and 85-90 at night!), no electricity, etc.

View PostNatural Selection, on 18 September 2019 - 08:27 AM, said:

He doesn't qualify for the Medicaid program that already exists?

I don't know, but probably. He might have been signed up but had problems with copays or things not being covered. I just know he told me he had trouble paying for it. It's definitely possible he wasn't getting all of the assistance he was eligible for.

View Postcorporal_little, on 18 September 2019 - 03:17 PM, said:

Tim - you can't sit here and tell us that the homeless problem hasn't gotten way worse in Austin over the last couple years. You might be able to BS others on here, but I'm in Austin every other week. Have several construction projects underway down there. One, over on Shoreline Drive, we had to have the police come out 5 times to remove a giant homeless encampment from the site so we could clear it. It's not like these homeless people are evil or anything, but I sat right there and watched them shoot up drugs, leave the needles on the ground and I even saw one lady give a guy a BJ right out in the open, with (what I assume were) her kids standing right there. It was unreal.

To be fair..... the issue has gotten pretty bad in more conservative Fort Worth too. Go over off Lancaster west of 35w and south of 30....hundreds of homeless laying every where.

I won't say it hasn't gotten worse over the last couple of years. The question is causation. Just the growing overall population is part of it. Rising housing prices is a part of it (And I'm a big advocate of the land development code rewrite to make it easier to build housing.) As you say it's a problem that's been growing for years, not the result of ordinance changes past 3 months ago.

One element of this that hasn't come up yet is that they often got ticketed for camping. Those tickets turn into arrest warrants when they weren't paid. That gets on their record and makes it harder to get a job or housing. If people are creating lots of litter or committing lewd acts, charge them for that.

Also this doesn't allow them to camp on private property without the owners permission, which I assume is where you are building.

PS: Let me know if you want to grab a beer some time when you're in town!
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users