Giuliani 08

[amber]

Originally Posted by sparky

There is a lot to be said for having a surplus of money.

I am puzzled by homelessness and have scant ideas about :

a) why it exists
b) what can be done about it, if anything
c) whose problem it really is.

I had an uncle who died homeless. Why? He was a drunk. He wanted to be a drunk. He refused help, he stole from everyone, he was a bad egg from the nursery on is how my Aunt described him. (But man was he a beautiful young man...I digress.) My brother was homeless for awhile. Why ? He is a junkie. He stole from everyone, burned every bridge available, quit rehab many times, and now lives in a trailer in the driveway of a friend's mother. She feels sorry for him. He currently uses his disability checks to buy booze and from what I hear, drugs when he can find them. That's the extent of my experience with homelessness.

What I would love to know is why certain other civilized countries - European in particular - don't have this problem. God knows our government is loathe to take direction from ANY OTHER COUNTRY who has solved the problems that plague us, however, just for my own information I would be curious to know why it is such a problem here and not in other places.

Wow, I'm suprised Diss didn't answer this.
Well, little Sparky, it all starts with a lesson in how Capitalism works, and why....
Seriously, it does, but it's pretty complicated.
But in the simple way, it comes down to: The gov't, and most other people, don't give a crap about the homeless, or why they are homeless, etc. And they certainly don't want to allocate money to take care of the problem. I believe that statistics will back up the fact that most homeless people are mentally ill somehow. I mean, it's hard to care about homeless people, or even education, when there is huge money to be spent on defense.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

Wow, I'm suprised Diss didn't answer this.

I just now saw it after you bumped it up, that's why.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

I just now saw it after you bumped it up, that's why.

Oh - I thought you trailed Sparky like a dog after a tasty bone.













Since I can't write anymore, I was looking forward to your take.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

Wow, I'm suprised Diss didn't answer this.
Well, little Sparky, it all starts with a lesson in how Capitalism works, and why....
Seriously, it does, but it's pretty complicated.
But in the simple way, it comes down to: The gov't, and most other people, don't give a crap about the homeless, or why they are homeless, etc. And they certainly don't want to allocate money to take care of the problem. I believe that statistics will back up the fact that most homeless people are mentally ill somehow. I mean, it's hard to care about homeless people, or even education, when there is huge money to be spent on defense.

True for the most part, but then there is the problem of once you put someone on the public tit, they do not want to get off of it; or, they get put in govt. housing, turn to drugs and get thrown out'or, they are mentally ill, get put in meds, get released, stop taking the meds, etc. I fully realize not everyone on welfare thinks that way or is in this situation, but clearly that problem exists and it is part of welfare that has to be fixed. Yet, when any politician has the sand to say that, they are branded an uncaring racist and when any person not on welfare ever in their lives says it, they are told they have no clue whay they are talking about and are an elitist.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by sparky

There is a lot to be said for having a surplus of money.

Of course there is, but I'm not too keen on electing a politician who can give us a surplus of money but also allows rampant corruption and misuse of power in his police force, leads crusades against art that he doesn't like and wants censored, forces the homeless out of shelters only to round them up when they start living on the street, and so on. Giuliani is a bad apple to me, and the worst kind because he comes across as so uncaring.

And what's the point of having a surplus if you're unwilling to help those who can benefit from it? I didn't see Giuliani coming up with any comprehensive housing policies once New York had money again.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

True for the most part, but then there is the problem of once you put someone on the public tit, they do not want to get off of it; or, they get put in govt. housing, turn to drugs and get thrown out'or, they are mentally ill, get put in meds, get released, stop taking the meds, etc. I fully realize not everyone on welfare thinks that way or is in this situation, but clearly that problem exists and it is part of welfare that has to be fixed. Yet, when any politician has the sand to say that, they are branded an uncaring racist.

I was thinking of more intensive rehabilitation. What you said is the danger that everyone always brings up. But, last I read a statistic, welfare was about.....01% of the national budget, whereas defense was like....20%
I think there's room to spread it out there, even if some people do have to be "on the tit" their whole life. And when I'm saying that I'm thinking more in terms of mentally ill homeless people, and not so much of Welfare recipients.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

True for the most part, but then there is the problem of once you put someone on the public tit, they do not want to get off of it; or, they get put in govt. housing, turn to drugs and get thrown out'or, they are mentally ill, get put in meds, get released, stop taking the meds, etc. I fully realize not everyone on welfare thinks that way or is in this situation, but clearly that problem exists and it is part of welfare that has to be fixed. Yet, when any politician has the sand to say that, they are branded an uncaring racist and when any person not on welfare ever in their lives says it, they are told they have no clue whay they are talking about and are an elitist.

Very well said

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

I could live with him as well. Although I dont know what the hell the far right would do, assuming Hilary is the nominee for the Democrats. He might be the only Republican who can beat her, but they'd be in a quandry over his social policies.

I still say she aint running for President. That is smoke and mirrors on the part of the GOP and I cant believe how many people are falling for it.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Of course there is, but I'm not too keen on electing a politician who can give us a surplus of money but also allows rampant corruption and misuse of power in his police force, leads crusades against art that he doesn't like and wants censored, forces the homeless out of shelters only to round them up when they start living on the street, and so on. Giuliani is a bad apple to me, and the worst kind because he comes across as so uncaring.

And what's the point of having a surplus if you're unwilling to help those who can benefit from it? I didn't see Giuliani coming up with any comprehensive housing policies once New York had money again.

From everything I've heard/read, he's incredibly fascist, and possibly corrupt. I think he's smart, but he stanks. I mean, he's waaaaaaaaaay too fascist. Like, Mussolini and him would be friends....

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

True for the most part, but then there is the problem of once you put someone on the public tit, they do not want to get off of it; or, they get put in govt. housing, turn to drugs and get thrown out'or, they are mentally ill, get put in meds, get released, stop taking the meds, etc. I fully realize not everyone on welfare thinks that way or is in this situation, but clearly that problem exists and it is part of welfare that has to be fixed. Yet, when any politician has the sand to say that, they are branded an uncaring racist and when any person not on welfare ever in their lives says it, they are told they have no clue whay they are talking about and are an elitist.

I think it's a bigger issue than that. Before politicians start decrying the woes of the government because they have poor bums sucking off of it's tits, maybe they should start addressing exactly why so many people are in those predicaments to begin with. They should be addressing what is going on in our society that leaves so many people poor, without health insurance, and jobs that cannot support them. They should be addressing why so many people are living out on the streets. Surely they aren't all drunks and bastards, there are too many impoverished people for that to be the case.

But they will not address any of that because it all comes down to money. They're beholden to capitalism and the insurance companies (which is why we'll never have socialized medicine) and all that other jazz. So they blame it all on the people who abuse public assistance, as if they make up the majority of people who are on public assistance because they have no other option. They give everyone on public assistance bad names so that the rest of the country gets into the act and gets furious that people are taking money out of their pockets to buy Timberland shoes and bling bling, as if those people doing so are the majority. Government should be there to help people and it's currently doing a shameful job of that.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

I was thinking of more intensive rehabilitation. What you said is the danger that everyone always brings up. But, last I read a statistic, welfare was about.....01% of the national budget, whereas defense was like....20%
I think there's room to spread it out there, even if some people do have to be "on the tit" their whole life. And when I'm saying that I'm thinking more in terms of mentally ill homeless people, and not so much of Welfare recipients.

I think mentally ill people should be in institutions as well. But, what do you do when they get better through medication and want to be released with the promise that they will take their meds. Then they do not and they go back or become some random homeless person. The only solution there is to make them check in daily and inject their medication or keep sane people institutionalized for their own good - both of which are rather Unconstitutional.

[amber]

I agree with you, but did you read my stats on the actual money involved? That even makes it more ridiculous. *although they are old stats - current ones should be found, but I can't imagine it's changed too much*

Sesly, it makes it flaming ridiculous.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think mentally ill people should be in institutions as well. But, what do you do when they get better through medication and want to be released with the promise that they will take their meds. Then they do not and they go back or become some random homeless person. The only solution there is to make them check in daily and inject their medication or keep sane people institutionalized for their own good - both of which are rather Unconstitutional.

well....for one thing, I assume they would only come to get the gov't help when they needed it. So, basically, if they don't take their meds, they'll be homeless again. I don't think they should "have to check in", but I do think their meds should always be available to them. And perhaps therapy. Job training/placement. Whatever, they should have a lot of tools available to them is my point, and then if they don't utilize them, at that point it is their problem. I don't think there are enough intensive tools available to them, though. I don't just think that, I know it's true. And if someone is hella crazy ( ) then they should just be institutionalized, like "crazy" criminals are.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I think it's a bigger issue than that. Before politicians start decrying the woes of the government because they have poor bums sucking off of it's tits, maybe they should start addressing exactly why so many people are in those predicaments to begin with. They should be addressing what is going on in our society that leaves so many people poor, without health insurance, and jobs that cannot support them. They should be addressing why so many people are living out on the streets. Surely they aren't all drunks and bastards, there are too many impoverished people for that to be the case.

I agree and am pretty sure I never said as much. But, many are and that issue needs to be addressed

Originally Posted by dissention

But they will not address any of that because it all comes down to money. They're beholden to capitalism and the insurance companies (which is why we'll never have socialized medicine) and all that other jazz. So they blame it all on the people who abuse public assistance, as if they make up the majority of people who are on public assistance because they have no other option. They give everyone on public assistance bad names so that the rest of the country gets into the act and gets furious that people are tkaing money out of their pockets to buy Timberland shoes and blinb bling, as if those people doing so are the majority. Government should be there to help people and it's currently doing a shameful job of that.

Aren't you guilty of that as well though? I get that you have said you give large amounts to charity; I am not asserting otherwise. I give too and I have given not only money but my time as well and have done so for many years. But, at what point is it enough when the govt. already takes like 35% or more of our income? I think the answer is that is a personal choice no one should comment on lest they want that high powered judgment turned on them. I am sure that there are homeless people who would scoff at me having a computer while they haven't eaten in days. Should I sell my computer and all my extraneous (however defined) possessions and live in a one room box with no decoration at all because somewhere someone will have less than I do I realize that is an extreme example, but the logic is the same.

Having said that, I certainly think people should be as chartiable as possible and I think most are, despite your assertion that few care. I base that on the staggering amount of private donations in this country.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by sparky

I would prefer McCain, but I doubt he will run. The R establishment doesn't appreciate him. He is too straight of a shooter and too authentic a human being to get much much support from the insiders. When it comes down to it, he is more of an old school republican...i.e. not owned by religious extremists and corporations.

which is exactly why we would be better off with HIM (if any R, that is)
than the current crop of favor curriers...........ACK