Why Are So Many Young People Becoming Socialists? - Page 30 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15166689
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-46891392

    The city with no homeless on its streets
    By Mat Trewern
    BBC Radio Manchester
    Published31 January 2019


    The number of people sleeping rough in the UK has multiplied since 2010. But in Finland's capital Helsinki rough sleeping has been almost eradicated thanks to a groundbreaking scheme. What can cities in the UK learn from the Finns?

    Emerging from Helsinki's grandiose central railway station on a bitterly cold evening, it does not take long before you notice something unusual.

    There are no rough sleepers and no-one is begging.

    The contrast with the UK's major towns and cities - where rough sleepers curled up in sleeping bags, blankets or tents are a common sight - is striking.

    "In my childhood I remember there were hundreds, or even thousands of people sleeping in the parks and forests," says Helsinki's deputy mayor Sanna Vesikansa.

    "It was visible, but we don't have it any more. Street homelessness doesn't exist in Helsinki."

    For the past 30 years, tackling homelessness has been a focus for successive governments in Finland.

    In 1987, there were more than 18,000 homeless people there. The latest figures from the end of 2017 show there were about 6,600 people classified as without a home.

    The vast majority are living with friends or family, or are housed in temporary accommodation. Only a very small number are actually sleeping on the streets.

    So how have the Finns managed it?

    Since 2007, their government has built homeless policies on the foundations of the "Housing First" principle.

    Put simply, it gives rough sleepers or people who become homeless a stable and permanent home of their own as soon as possible.

    It then provides them with the help and support they need. That may be supporting someone trying to tackle an addiction, assisting them to learn new skills, or helping them get into training, education or work.


    This is very different to the traditional approach in the UK, where a permanent home is only offered after a homeless person has sought help in a homeless hostel or temporary accommodation.

    One person who has benefited is Thomas Salmi, who became homeless when he turned 18 and had to leave his orphanage.

    He spent three years on the streets of Helsinki, where the average minimum temperature in February is -7C (19F).

    "When you lose everything, it really doesn't matter," he says. "You're thinking about suicide, am I going to die? Is it safe?

    "It is cold, especially in the middle of winter. If you're sleeping outside you might die."

    For the past two years, Thomas has had an apartment of his own at a large complex run by the Helsinki Deaconess Institute (HDI), one of several organisations providing accommodation for otherwise homeless Finns.

    Now 24, he says living at the HDI has helped him turn his life around. He used to drink heavily while living on the streets but now only touches alcohol at the weekend.

    Under Housing First, the offer of a home is unconditional. Even if someone is still taking drugs or abusing alcohol they still get to stay in the house or flat, so long as they are interacting with support workers.

    They can pay rent through state housing benefit and people can even opt to stay for the rest of their lives.


    "They told me that it's my house," says Thomas. "And I asked them - is someone going to tell me, 'we need this house and you have to go'? But they told me 'No, it's your house, you can do whatever you want.'

    "When I have a stable home, I can try to build everything else around it like work, studying, family, friends. But when you're on the streets, you don't have any of that."

    HDI has a total of 403 apartments in Helsinki and the neighbouring city of Espoo.
    Tenants get together in the communal kitchen to make lunch and socialise in the lounge areas. Support workers are always on hand.

    Pia Rosenberg, 64, has lived in the same Housing First project since 2014 after being homeless for two years.

    "It suits me good because I'm an alcoholic and I'm allowed to drink in my room," she says. "And if I need help, then I get it.

    "You don't feel good if you don't have a home."

    According to official figures, the number of rough sleepers in England has risen from 1,768 in 2010 to 4,677 in 2018.

    Charities such as Shelter say the real number of people sleeping rough is much higher. Official figures are based on the number of homeless people counted on the streets on a single autumn evening each year.

    Housing First's success has caught the attention of the UK government, which last year agreed to pay for pilot schemes in Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the West Midlands.

    There are already several small scale trials being carried out in Wales, some run by The Salvation Army, others by local authorities. Those behind the schemes say the results so far have been positive.

    Trials in England are due to start shortly and will be aimed at helping the most entrenched rough sleepers.

    But is it a good idea to essentially hand over the keys to accommodation, without any obligation to give up alcohol or drugs?

    "We can see that it works in Finland, so why can't it work here," says Neil Cornthwaite, head of operations at the homeless charity Barnabus Manchester.

    "There are a lot of barriers to people getting into accommodation and certain groups of people are excluded from projects because of their addictions and/or their mental health.

    "So if we've got another option where we can put people into a home and not just a bed, despite their issues, then I think that's a really positive step forward."

    Will it work in the UK? While the scheme is regarded as successful in Finland, it does have drawbacks. Homes are not always available immediately and figures show roughly one in five people return to homelessness at some stage.

    Housing people in this way does not come cheap. Finland has spent about £262m (300m euros) over the past decade, providing 3,500 new homes for the homeless and more than 300 new support workers.

    The UK government is spending £28m on the three Housing First schemes and hopes about 1,000 homes will be provided.

    One of the key architects of Housing First in Finland, Juha Kaakinen, believes it will only work if the UK authorities are fully committed.

    "In many places, Housing First are small projects with a small number of flats available. You need to make it much bigger to end homelessness and for that reason it should be a national policy otherwise it won't work."

    Mr Kaakinen suggests the UK's priority should be tackling the housing crisis.

    "The main issue seems to be the lack of affordable social housing. To solve homelessness, that's something that you need otherwise it's going to be a very difficult task."

    Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is convinced the scheme is the right answer though.

    "You cannot have good health or a good life without good housing," he says.
    "I'm confident we will show that Housing First can work. I will be asking the government to make this permanent."

    The Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Heather Wheeler, insists the government is listening and taking action.

    "No-one is meant to spend their lives on the streets, or without a home to call their own.

    "And evidence shows that Housing First has an incredible rate of success in helping people rebuild their lives."

    Back in Helsinki, deputy mayor Ms Vesikansa believes tackling homelessness and ending rough sleeping is not only a moral obligation but may also save money in the long-run.

    "We know already that it pays back because we have expenses elsewhere if people are homeless. They have more severe health problems which are then taken to emergency care and hospital.

    "Homelessness and rough sleeping is something we just can't have in our cities, people dying on the streets. It's not the type of society or city we want to live in."
#15166690
Unthinking Majority wrote:The elderly do not make up a high % of the homeless. Yes obviously there are many varied examples of why people become homeless, at least temporarily.

I do believe in a strong social safety net and social programs and government regulation of capitalism, but i'm saying we need to address why people become homeless and help those people, not simply give them free housing with no strings attached, unless they are disabled to the point they truly can't contribute to society in full-time employment. We need to be compassionate and help people while at the same time not enabling them. There are many, many very kind people in our society who are enablers that do more harm than good.


if you believe in a strong safety net then you can't be a conservative. They don't believe in one. Blackjack21 and Grover Norquist believe in no safety net whatsoever. At all. Cut the entire thing out. The problem is the backlash politically will be very very grave. Because the regular people do believe in it and want MORE of it. Not less. The issue is that the corporations want safety nets that keep people skating on the edge of fear of losing housing, health care and are willing to accept lower and lower wages in the fear of not having any kind of stability. The homelessness fear. I feared it while I worked. All of us do.

I happen to think the anxiety with that threat of losing jobs? Does lead to people reaching for means of self medicating, whether that is substance abuse, fights with couples regarding money issues or lack thereof, and fights about who has to raise children and sacrifice for them because they can't afford child care of $2000 dollars a month, easily more than mortgage and rent payments for many couples. So?

I don't think putting tremendous pressure on adults helps society at all. You fear normal working people being lazy and unproductive and not being deserving of supported housing units? But the fucks who are living with twenty luxury homes all over the world and Black Credit Cards and total power and BILLIONS and millions should be left unmolested because they are never satisfied with one home and two cars and two million dollars in the bank....because? They should not feel anxiety for their lack of understanding that the rest of society has ENORMOUS burdens and pressures (the working class and middle class) and their freedom to be abusive fucks has to be respected? I don't respect people with a lack of corazon, compassion and empathy for the people who are suffering and struggling in a bad economy through no fault of their own.

You worry too much about if some person battling drug addiction might get a lower-cost apartment and be lazy when they got a life-threatening horrific addiction that might spell the end for them? where is your head at Unthinking?

Put the damn pressure on the control freak, power maniacs with billions and millions and who are never satisfied and continue to push for MORE power and MORE money. Those are the Demons in this world. They always are.

Get some emotional intelligence. It is critical in this world Unthinking.
#15166691
B0ycey wrote:Then it should be a right as my sentence suggested as it is a basic human need. Besides, only humans live in a society with the notion of cost or payment. I doubt the pride charges the cub to sit in the den in the Serengeti.


The moment your right penalizes another citizen it is not a right anymore. Your right requires coercion of another citizen to pay your way. That is not a right.
#15166692
Julian658 wrote:The moment your right penalizes another citizen it is not a right anymore. Your right requires coercion of another citizen to pay your way. That is not a right.


This would then get rid of most of your rights. Your right to vote or even buy things from a store, for example, requires public funding through taxes.
#15166693
Julian658 wrote:The moment your right penalizes another citizen it is not a right anymore. Your right requires coercion of another citizen to pay your way. That is not a right.


Then you are a web of contradictions as you previously said on the last page that you would build homes for people that needed them. :roll:

The only natural right anyone has is the right to free will. Anything else is an artificial right. Bare arms, vote, assembly, speech, movement, religion, all of them are not natural at all. They also could be argued to take freedoms away from someone else who would have to accommodate these rights in any case. Which is fine because we live under a social contract. So to adapt basic human needs, which are protected by UN convention that nations should do for their citizens in any case, and say housing becomes a right, that isn't coercion but an alteration and a moral one at that.
#15166697
Julian658 wrote:
The moment your right penalizes another citizen it is not a right anymore. Your right requires coercion of another citizen to pay your way. That is not a right.



It's a horrible country!!!

You need to leave right now!
#15166699
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Finland



I talked about how Finland solved the problem earlier in the thread.

He doesn't want things to get better. He wants worse, as long as it doesn't hurt him.

Zero Sum thinking, with a twist of sadism to spice things up.
#15166701
Pants-of-dog wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-46891392

    The city with no homeless on its streets
    By Mat Trewern
    BBC Radio Manchester
    Published31 January 2019


    The number of people sleeping rough in the UK has multiplied since 2010. But in Finland's capital Helsinki rough sleeping has been almost eradicated thanks to a groundbreaking scheme. What can cities in the UK learn from the Finns?



This is exactly what I told Boycee. Give them a home in the country and create a beautiful compound with cafeterias,, swimming pools, gyms, etc. The can obtain employment by simply maintaining the compound.
#15166702
late wrote:I talked about how Finland solved the problem earlier in the thread.

He doesn't want things to get better. He wants worse, as long as it doesn't hurt him.

Zero Sum thinking, with a twist of sadism to spice things up.

Finland is tiny and with little diversity. This makes it a little but easier. Small nations where there is a lot of kinship tend to do better. They do not have the problem of tribalism.
#15166703
Tainari88 wrote:if you believe in a strong safety net then you can't be a conservative. They don't believe in one. Blackjack21 and Grover Norquist believe in no safety net whatsoever. At all. Cut the entire thing out. The problem is the backlash politically will be very very grave. Because the regular people do believe in it and want MORE of it. Not less. The issue is that the corporations want safety nets that keep people skating on the edge of fear of losing housing, health care and are willing to accept lower and lower wages in the fear of not having any kind of stability. The homelessness fear. I feared it while I worked. All of us do.

I don't consider myself a leftist or a conservative. I'm somewhere in the middle, there is some value in some of each approach. My approach is basically: if you need help, I will gladly help you. But if you don't want to help yourself, I won't help you. I will help my neighbor find a job, get back to school, maybe even let them stay in my house for a week or 2 if they lose their home. But i'm not going to let them live in my basement for free longterm and eat my groceries while they sit unemployed and watch TV and do nothing to improve themselves. I'm not an enabler. There's a very fine line between being kind & generous vs being taken advantage of, and the trick is knowing that line, when to give and when to pull back. I have seen people in my life be DESTROYED by very kind and generous people who gave them money because they felt sorry for them and their kids and enabled them to sit unemployed and mooch for decades while being absolutely useless to themselves and anyone else while drinking/drugging their life away. It's intolerable and not doing them any favors, and I will not support that.

That said, I believe in solid gov regulation, universal healthcare, quality schools for all communities especially poor neighbourhoods, destroying expensive for-profit post-secondary education and having affordable education for all, affordable housing etc., and tax the billionaires more to pay for it. So yes I believe in some socialism. And yes the banks are wolves and I would regulate the crap out of them too.

You worry too much about if some person battling drug addiction might get a lower-cost apartment and be lazy when they got a life-threatening horrific addiction that might spell the end for them? where is your head at Unthinking?

My priority, above all else, is getting that person better, which means getting them off of those drugs so they can get educated, get a job, and have human dignity and self-esteem which comes from being a healthy self-sufficient adult. If they need to live off the government dime for some time to do that (social safety net) and get free counseling and schooling etc i have no problem providing that, but they need to try to help themselves while this is being done. Maybe they never get there, but they need to give an honest effort. That's a pretty good deal wouldn't you say?

Put the damn pressure on the control freak, power maniacs with billions and millions and who are never satisfied and continue to push for MORE power and MORE money. Those are the Demons in this world. They always are.

Yes I agree. No reason both can't be done. The lambs always need to be protected from the wolves of this world. Believe me, I'm not a wolf and I despise them as much as you do.
Last edited by Unthinking Majority on 14 Apr 2021 19:12, edited 1 time in total.
#15166704
Pants-of-dog wrote:This would then get rid of most of your rights. Your right to vote or even buy things from a store, for example, requires public funding through taxes.

Nope, I have the right to buy as long as I have money to exchange with a seller. Voting is more of a privilege than a right. It is not in the first Bill of Rights in the USA.
#15166707
@Julian658

You fid not read the article I quoted, since you did not catch the point that successful housing programs provide housing unconditionally.

And yes, you need me to pay taxes to pay cops and judges so that you can buy things in a store. Your definition of rights is unrealistic and is not reflected in actual government policy.
#15166710
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Julian658

You fid not read the article I quoted, since you did not catch the point that successful housing programs provide housing unconditionally.

Why would you provide free housing unconditionally? It's insane. My housing comes with conditions: I have to work and pay my mortgage.

Here are some possible conditions: don't wreck the place, attend drug treatment if you're an addict (on government's dime), upgrade your education (on gov dime), upgrade your resume and interview skills, apply to jobs...

Would you let your 30 year old child keep living in your basement for free while unemployed, not looking for work, not doing anything to improve themselves, and doing drugs all day? Because that should be considered abuse, or the exact opposite of neglect in the other extreme, and just as damaging.
#15166715
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Julian658

You fid not read the article I quoted, since you did not catch the point that successful housing programs provide housing unconditionally.


I would require the tenants to clean and maintain their living quarters. I would also hope they can cook their own meals. Or eat in the compound cafeteria. I would also give them a job in the community to maintain common grounds, the swimming pool, and the golf course. If they refuse I would just put them in a standard homeless shelter, Your approach encourages people to go homeless so they don't ever have to work. Tsk, tsk!

And yes, you need me to pay taxes to pay cops and judges so that you can buy things in a store. Your definition of rights is unrealistic and is not reflected in actual government policy.


If I pay a fee that allows me to shop that is fine. I am getting something from my investment. However, if you decide you have other rights and i have to pay for you that is a bit problematic. I do not think that is a right. I would call that a government granted privilege that is paid by my taxes. I have to pay the tax, otherwise I go to prison. That is a form of coercion. I suggest you read the Bill of Rights, they cost NOTHING.

Why do lefties feel so entitled? Where is your individualism and self reliance?
#15166717
Unthinking Majority wrote:Why would you provide free housing unconditionally?


Because that is what has been shown to work in real life.

You might feel like people should “earn” it, but your feelings are not a good basis for making policy.
#15166719
Pants-of-dog wrote:Because that is what has been shown to work in real life.

You might feel like people should “earn” it, but your feelings are not a good basis for making policy.


POD

Your understanding of the human condition is a bit flawed. There is enormous benefit in self accomplishment and independence. You are treating this people in a condescending discriminatory manner by assuming they cannot take care of the most basic things on their own. I say give them a free house, but i would expect them to maintain it. I guess we have to disagree on this one. But your method would simply create a monstrous number of "prima-donna" type citizens.
#15166720
Option 1; Basic housing, heat and water. Free healthcare (incl. mental health) and education. Yes, these things cost money but would be a fantastic start of having a civilized society.

Option 2; Gated communities and militarized police forces. Privatized prisons with huge incarceration rates and overall class segregation.

Yeah, I know what option I would prefer. Giving poor countries a chance to develop would be another avenue. Perhaps start with massive debt relief/cancellation by the IMF/World Bank?
#15166721
If providing unconditional housing creates “a monstrous number of "prima-donna" type citizens” then Finland would have these types of people.

This is not the case.

So, providing unconditional housing does not create “a monstrous number of "prima-donna" type citizens”.

Simple.
  • 1
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 34

This is ridiculous. Articles showing attacks on s[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab […]

Pretty clear France will be taking a leading role […]

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]