Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that the government takes about 40% of my wages in the form of taxes of some sort. That's money that I exchange my time for. That's time I spend away from my children, my wife, my home, my hobbies, my interests, and any number of other activities that I would prefer to be doing. How much more would you like me to pay in taxes? Is 40% not enough? Would 50% be better? How about 60%? When does it stop? When I can't pay my mortgage because my taxes are 70% and I'm homeless too? When? For real?
Meanwhile, people like you are telling me that I should send more of the money I work for to pay the living expenses of people who are laying in a tent getting high. No thanks. There are jobs EVERYWHERE. They can get a job. If they starve, they starve. If they have children they should be taken away by the state. I don't mind feeding the kids until they are 18, but the parents... NOPE.
Enough of the pity party for the homeless. People need to take personal responsibility for their situation. I do. It's not my job to support other people's bad choices. Figure it out, or go hungry. But get the heck out of my neighborhood and stop harassing children in the park. I don't feel bad for the homeless. NOT AT ALL.
Well, you just reinforced my previous observation: you clearly know absolutely nothing about homelessness … so what you are doing is typical social-media cultural damage by spreading myths and memes.
First off, I didn’t say anything about taxes or how much I think you should pay, yadda yadda yadda.
Second, I didn’t suggest you support the homeless financially at all, nor in any other way (though it would be good if you’d stop ranting about something you know nothing about.)
Third, you apparently think all homeless people are “in tents getting high” … (many are not … in fact approximately 75% will be rehoused in less than a year)
Fourth, you have exactly no understanding of the relationship between homelessness and working … consider, for example, that Many homeless ARE employed: “ Employment alone isn’t enough to solve homelessness, study suggests … About 40% of unhoused individuals in the U.S. had earnings from formal employment, according to new findings from the Comprehensive Income ...” - https://news.uchicago.edu/story/empl...study-suggests
Nor do you understand any of the other factors that limit the homeless from working as easily as you suggest they can and should (no, I didn’t just say it’s okay for the homeless to lie around unemployed).
Fifth, you don’t grasp what’s really involved in “taking personal responsibility” … you simply like to look down on those without the requisite tools and background and health to achieve in the manner you prescribe should be benchmark.
Sixth, you seem to think if the homeless aren’t in your own neighborhood all will be fine in the world because they’re down the road apiece.
Well, you just reinforced my previous observation: you clearly know absolutely nothing about homelessness … so what you are doing is typical social-media cultural damage by spreading myths and memes.
First off, I didn’t say anything about taxes or how much I think you should pay, yadda yadda yadda.
Second, I didn’t suggest you support the homeless financially at all, nor in any other way (though it would be good if you’d stop ranting about something you know nothing about.)
Third, you apparently think all homeless people are “in tents getting high” … (many are not … in fact approximately 75% will be rehoused in less than a year)
Fourth, you have exactly no understanding of the relationship between homelessness and working … consider, for example, that Many homeless ARE employed: “ Employment alone isn’t enough to solve homelessness, study suggests … About 40% of unhoused individuals in the U.S. had earnings from formal employment, according to new findings from the Comprehensive Income ...” - https://news.uchicago.edu/story/empl...study-suggests
Nor do you understand any of the other factors that limit the homeless from working as easily as you suggest they can and should (no, I didn’t just say it’s okay for the homeless to lie around unemployed).
Fifth, you don’t grasp what’s really involved in “taking personal responsibility” … you simply like to look down on those without the requisite tools and background and health to achieve in the manner you prescribe should be benchmark.
Sixth, you seem to think if the homeless aren’t in your own neighborhood all will be fine in the world because they’re down the road apiece.
Lol?
So basically you’re saying they’re not all drug addicts, but rather that many of them are low-skilled workers who struggle to afford living in one of the most expensive metros in the World while working part time. You’re right. I guess I don’t understand homelessness. It seems to me that if you can’t afford to live somewhere, you should move. If the city suddenly loses a chunk of its workforce, wages will rise to meet demand. If wages don’t rise, then nobody wants what you’re selling and again, you should move. I understand that.
Also, we both know drug use is rampant amongst the homeless, let’s not pretend otherwise. I understand that.
Finally, if someone is so mentally ill or addicted to drugs that they can’t work, then they need to be institutionalized and given the health care they need. It’s cruel to leave them in the alleys of our cities. I understand that.
What I don’t understand is why anyone would think it’s okay for children to have to step over human feces on the sidewalk. I don’t understand why the left supports leaving these people to live in our city parks, but would never allow them into their wealthy liberal neighborhoods. I don’t understand why allowing hordes of homeless people to block the entrances of our small businesses and overrun our public infrastructure isn’t a bad idea. I also don’t understand why hard-working taxpayers should have to support people who refuse to make better choices and support themselves. And I really don’t understand why the left thinks being condescending is an effective way to communicate their ideas to people who see things differently.
But there’s no need to worry about my thoughts. I’m probably just a bigot, or a misogynist, or poorly educated, or untraveled, or privileged, or whatever other “lesser-than” label open-minded and inclusive progressives like to use to describe suspected “deplorables” with whom they disagree. They’re all just so much smarter than the rest of us. Just ask one.
So basically you’re saying they’re not all drug addicts, but rather that many of them are low-skilled workers who struggle to afford living in one of the most expensive metros in the World while working part time. You’re right. I guess I don’t understand homelessness. It seems to me that if you can’t afford to live somewhere, you should move. If the city suddenly loses a chunk of its workforce, wages will rise to meet demand. If wages don’t rise, then nobody wants what you’re selling and again, you should move. I understand that.
Also, we both know drug use is rampant amongst the homeless, let’s not pretend otherwise. I understand that.
Finally, if someone is so mentally ill or addicted to drugs that they can’t work, then they need to be institutionalized and given the health care they need. It’s cruel to leave them in the alleys of our cities. I understand that.
What I don’t understand is why anyone would think it’s okay for children to have to step over human feces on the sidewalk. I don’t understand why the left supports leaving these people to live in our city parks, but would never allow them into their wealthy liberal neighborhoods. I don’t understand why allowing hordes of homeless people to block the entrances of our small businesses and overrun our public infrastructure isn’t a bad idea. I also don’t understand why hard-working taxpayers should have to support people who refuse to make better choices and support themselves. And I really don’t understand why the left thinks being condescending is an effective way to communicate their ideas to people who see things differently.
But there’s no need to worry about my thoughts. I’m probably just a bigot, or a misogynist, or poorly educated, or untraveled, or privileged, or whatever other “lesser-than” label open-minded and inclusive progressives like to use to describe suspected “deplorables” with whom they disagree. They’re all just so much smarter than the rest of us. Just ask one.
. So basically you’re saying they’re not all drug addicts, but rather that many of them are low-skilled workers who struggle to afford living in one of the most expensive metros in the World while working part time. You’re right. I guess I don’t understand homelessness. It seems to me that if you can’t afford to live somewhere, you should move. If the city suddenly loses a chunk of its workforce, wages will rise to meet demand. If wages don’t rise, then nobody wants what you’re selling and again, you should move. I understand that.
Also, we both know drug use is rampant amongst the homeless, let’s not pretend otherwise. I understand that.
Finally, if someone is so mentally ill or addicted to drugs that they can’t work, then they need to be institutionalized and given the health care they need. It’s cruel to leave them in the alleys of our cities. I understand that.
What I don’t understand is why anyone would think it’s okay for children to have to step over human feces on the sidewalk. I don’t understand why the left supports leaving these people to live in our city parks, but would never allow them into their wealthy liberal neighborhoods. I don’t understand why allowing hordes of homeless people to block the entrances of our small businesses and overrun our public infrastructure isn’t a bad idea. I also don’t understand why hard-working taxpayers should have to support people who refuse to make better choices and support themselves. And I really don’t understand why the left thinks being condescending is an effective way to communicate their ideas to people who see things differently.
But there’s no need to worry about my thoughts. I’m probably just a bigot, or a misogynist, or poorly educated, or untraveled, or privileged, or whatever other “lesser-than” label open-minded and inclusive progressives like to use to describe suspected “deplorables” with whom they disagree. They’re all just so much smarter than the rest of us. Just ask one.
Right. As I said: you don’t understand homelessness. Yet you think it’s fine to define it in your misunderstandings.
Among other things:
You associate what you don’t understand as bad consequences of *the left* … which frames you as ideologically polarized. Right there you isolate yourself from understanding the issues: homelessness isn’t ideological, it’s economics.
For example: the *left* doesn’t support “leaving these people to live in our parks.” The nation’s courts, all the way up to SCOTUS rule that our Constitution allows ‘these people’ to live in our parks. Our Constitution isn’t leftist.
You don’t like the idea of “hard working taxpayers [supporting people who have made bad choices]”? Well, we have that in common. I don’t either. But guess what, those among the homeless who are homeless because of bad choices are there, whether we approve of them or not. The question isn’t one of *approval* … the question is one of *management*. And persons who don’t understand that, frankly have no constitutionally legal solutions to offer. Go ahead: try some solutions on me.
But, beyond your objection to people who made bad choices, would you like me to list all the many many many ways that lots of people end up homeless who didn’t make *bad choices*? You of course are obsessing on the ones who have fallen to addictions. But there are MANY also with physical and mental disabilities, illnesses that wiped out their finances, spouses who turned on them, accidents, … and more … that are not any result of *bad choices*. I realize “you don’t understand that.”
Get this: there are approximately 22 million Americans who suffer alcohol / drug addictions. Yet, there are but 500,000 homeless Americans. What does this tell you besides that *you don’t understand*? It should tell you that millions and millions more Americans who “make bad choices” don’t end up on the streets.
The issue isn’t simply *bad choices.*
The issue is affordable housing.
And you don’t want to pay for affordable housing for anyone.
Neither do I.
Guess what? 500,000 people are homeless whether you and I like it or approve / disapprove of it or not.
It’s not *leftist*. It’s reality.
And not liking it doesn’t make it go away … only affordable housing does.
And the only way housing can be provided to get these folks out of our way, off the streets, out of the parks, is if we DO pay for it.
By the way, I am FAR from *leftist*. Retired enlisted military (how I got involved in homeless outreach). Strong state’s rights supporter, anti-welfare, anti-immigration, blue-collar self-employed second career.
I just don’t buy into the stupid laziness of ideological identity.
Right. As I said: you don’t understand homelessness. Yet you think it’s fine to define it in your misunderstandings.
Among other things:
You associate what you don’t understand as bad consequences of *the left* … which frames you as ideologically polarized. Right there you isolate yourself from understanding the issues: homelessness isn’t ideological, it’s economics.
For example: the *left* doesn’t support “leaving these people to live in our parks.” The nation’s courts, all the way up to SCOTUS rule that our Constitution allows ‘these people’ to live in our parks. Our Constitution isn’t leftist.
You don’t like the idea of “hard working taxpayers [supporting people who have made bad choices]”? Well, we have that in common. I don’t either. But guess what, those among the homeless who are homeless because of bad choices are there, whether we approve of them or not. The question isn’t one of *approval* … the question is one of *management*. And persons who don’t understand that, frankly have no constitutionally legal solutions to offer. Go ahead: try some solutions on me.
But, beyond your objection to people who made bad choices, would you like me to list all the many many many ways that lots of people end up homeless who didn’t make *bad choices*? You of course are obsessing on the ones who have fallen to addictions. But there are MANY also with physical and mental disabilities, illnesses that wiped out their finances, spouses who turned on them, accidents, … and more … that are not any result of *bad choices*. I realize “you don’t understand that.”
Get this: there are approximately 22 million Americans who suffer alcohol / drug addictions. Yet, there are but 500,000 homeless Americans. What does this tell you besides that *you don’t understand*? It should tell you that millions and millions more Americans who “make bad choices” don’t end up on the streets.
The issue isn’t simply *bad choices.*
The issue is affordable housing.
And you don’t want to pay for affordable housing for anyone.
Neither do I.
Guess what? 500,000 people are homeless whether you and I like it or approve / disapprove of it or not.
It’s not *leftist*. It’s reality.
And not liking it doesn’t make it go away … only affordable housing does.
And the only way housing can be provided to get these folks out of our way, off the streets, out of the parks, is if we DO pay for it.
By the way, I am FAR from *leftist*. Retired enlisted military (how I got involved in homeless outreach). Strong state’s rights supporter, anti-welfare, anti-immigration, blue-collar self-employed second career.
I just don’t buy into the stupid laziness of ideological identity.
Well, I'd like to hear more. You make a lot of good points, although I suspect we might disagree on several things, I'd still like to hear more. I'm also former military, so at the very least we can share Marine and Air Force jokes. I sent you a friends request on here. Have a good day.
So nobody read the article, I see.
The city is providing everyone in the encampment a place to go. Some 'residents' and their advocates are decrying the type of alternative housing being offered. The one spokesperson quoted mentions that the offers don't "provide living situations comparable to the ones they’ve created (illegally) for themselves near the airport". That's quite a statement. A tent propped up in the weeds in the flight path of an airport is better than a trailer with developed facilities? Umm, ok.
This is beggars trying to be choosers at its finest. It's not unique to this story or locale either.
Agreed on both counts. This is why we can't have nice things....the loudest immediately run off with predawn records of how they stand.
The homeless have to be moved. They've been offered places in tiny housing communities. Those communities are supervised.....which is a good thing because many of the mentally ill need a little extra help anyway. As to the advocate who is concerned about trauma of being watched after incarceration.....that guy can house them all at his house.
Another fire started by these encampments over here in Berryessa the other week. The city's making a decent offer for folks that they wouldn't have to offer. We're a long way from the Grapes of Wrath here. The homeless can either comply or leave town. This ridiculous allowance of setting up Hoovervilles wherever has to stop.
In case people weren't sure, the Bay Area is an expensive place to live. There are plenty of less expensive areas, however, where people also live wonderful lives.
So basically you’re saying they’re not all drug addicts, but rather that many of them are low-skilled workers who struggle to afford living in one of the most expensive metros in the World while working part time. You’re right. I guess I don’t understand homelessness. It seems to me that if you can’t afford to live somewhere, you should move. If the city suddenly loses a chunk of its workforce, wages will rise to meet demand. If wages don’t rise, then nobody wants what you’re selling and again, you should move. I understand that.
I have a friend who's been unhoused (or unstable in his housing situation) on and off for years now... he moved from IA to CA (back) to IA to OR to CO. Got housing vouchers in Denver for an apartment which lasted about 6 months, before his bipolar behaviors led to him being evicted. So now he's back to living in his car, and working 40+ hours/week doing DoorDash.
Oh, he's also in his late 40s and gay. If that matters. He was my roommate about 15 years ago in SF, and had a good job in the tech industry. Then a series of both physical and mental illnesses, plus exorbitant student loans, led him to where he is now. That coupled with a messed-up childhood, including a father who literally tried to "beat the gay out of him" until he finally got big enough to fight back.
Just trying to paint you a picture of what's more typical of the unhoused; it's not all "lazy entitled GenZers who'd rather get high than work." They are not a monolith, but your continued use of terms like "the homeless" show you seem to believe they are. They're people, humans, and each have a story to tell. Learn them, if you really care to develop some understanding.
I know that the government takes about 40% of my wages in the form of taxes of some sort. That's money that I exchange my time for. That's time I spend away from my children, my wife, my home, my hobbies, my interests, and any number of other activities that I would prefer to be doing. How much more would you like me to pay in taxes? Is 40% not enough? Would 50% be better? How about 60%? When does it stop? When I can't pay my mortgage because my taxes are 70% and I'm homeless too? When? For real?
Meanwhile, people like you are telling me that I should send more of the money I work for to pay the living expenses of people who are laying in a tent getting high. No thanks. There are jobs EVERYWHERE. They can get a job. If they starve, they starve. If they have children they should be taken away by the state. I don't mind feeding the kids until they are 18, but the parents... NOPE.
Enough of the pity party for the homeless. People need to take personal responsibility for their situation. I do. It's not my job to support other people's bad choices. Figure it out, or go hungry. But get the heck out of my neighborhood and stop harassing children in the park. I don't feel bad for the homeless. NOT AT ALL.
It's not a question of more taxes. It's a matter of spending the funds properly.
I don't know about you, but I'm old, and tax revenue has NEVER been spent properly and effectively in this country. People in general who b*tch about taxes are really b*tching about the way tax money is spent. Read: Wasted.
But let's blame it on the homeless, many of whom got there through no fault of their own! Especially lately.
Go ahead and explain it simplistically (i.e. "bad choices") if it makes you feel better. Doesn't solve anything.
And thank your lucky stars that you've always been able to work and provide for yourself and your family.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,345 posts, read 8,557,056 times
Reputation: 16679
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangeRover20
"The richest 1 percent of Americans evade as much as $163 billion in taxes every year." - Robert Reich, Berkeley professor, former Secretary of Labor.
Imagine how many people this country could help with even a fraction of that money, were these overly entitled, self-absorbed pinheads not so calloused, greedy, and indifferent. These homeless people deserve much more consideration. The fact that they're homeless in the first place is a poor reflection on this society. There should be an endless amount of resources to help them, whatever the cause of their predicament. At the very least, they should have a place to stay, food to eat, a safe place they can rest comfortably, and resources to help them out. They shouldn't have to form these encampments.
The Bay Area is no better than any other area in this regard. Quite disappointing.
The overly greedy 1% you are criticizing pay close to 40% of the taxes collected. It seems like they are pulling their weight and then some.
I have a friend who's been unhoused (or unstable in his housing situation) on and off for years now... he moved from IA to CA (back) to IA to OR to CO. Got housing vouchers in Denver for an apartment which lasted about 6 months, before his bipolar behaviors led to him being evicted. So now he's back to living in his car, and working 40+ hours/week doing DoorDash.
Oh, he's also in his late 40s and gay. If that matters. He was my roommate about 15 years ago in SF, and had a good job in the tech industry. Then a series of both physical and mental illnesses, plus exorbitant student loans, led him to where he is now. That coupled with a messed-up childhood, including a father who literally tried to "beat the gay out of him" until he finally got big enough to fight back.
Just trying to paint you a picture of what's more typical of the unhoused; it's not all "lazy entitled GenZers who'd rather get high than work." They are not a monolith, but your continued use of terms like "the homeless" show you seem to believe they are. They're people, humans, and each have a story to tell. Learn them, if you really care to develop some understanding.
If he is staying in his car, I doubt people have a problem with him. Homelessness will always exist. I truly wish him the best of luck. That said, rent is a lot cheaper in Iowa. Plenty of places to choose from in the $$$/mo range as opposed to out here. Unemployment rate there is 2.6% vs 4.1% here. What entitles your friend to live in one of the most expensive parts of the country?
People, myself included, would be more sympathetic to the plight of the unhoused if actions were simply policed. I've got no problems with and plenty of empathy for the guy sleeping in a well kept area. But these groups now take over entire park areas, sidewalks, sections of downtown and sprawl mess all over. When I go camping, I clean up after myself. The lot looks better after I've used it. I can setup a tent in a few minutes and would probably be better if I had to do it daily. Beyond not strewing garbage all over, I don't break electrical circuits attempting to steal electricity to run a television all day. I don't have unleashed dogs running about. I'm not pooping on sidewalks. I'm not building uncontrolled fires that eventually require the fire department. That is what people want stopped.
If you read the article, you'll see that city is offering people a place to go. A place where they can legally be....because you can't have a tent city in the middle of a flight path. The indignation is that this housing is considered not good enough for the homeless by some. That's ridiculous. Take the option or leave town.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
