[QatzelOk]

Here is something from a link that you posted earlier that I'd like to respond to:

...Chicago’s Mercy Hospital, which serves the impoverished working class on the city’s South Side, is slated for closure in the coming months because it cannot turn a profit in the midst of the pandemic.

A hospital will close because it can't turn a profit.

I am going to throw my wife out on the street because she can't turn a profit.

I am thinking about cutting down all the trees in the forest next to my house because they're unable to turn a profit.

I will have my elbows removed because they can't seem to turn a profit.

This statue of the Virgin Mary has to go because it isn't turning a proft.

We must blow up the universe because it isn't turning a profit.

The WSWS website quote at the top of this post was preceded by "It is the height of capitalist irrationality that," but I think the irrationality of capitalism has many plateaus of irrationality becauase "an entrepreneur is unable to learn anything that will stop him from making a profit."

[Wolvenbear]

I don't understand why you're *psychologizing* the issue of homelessness -- it's rather like *individualizing* the issue of *health care*, like this person has diabetes, while that one has Alzheimer's, etc.

What *prevails*, unfortunately, is that people *have no homes*. Why can't we *focus* on the issue itself instead of always *dramatizing* it with anecdotes?

If society was addressing this situation adequately there would be *no* people on the streets because they would all find a *better* alternative, readily-available. Maybe it's an in-home *chocolate* stand, for some, or *refrigeration*, for others -- but *something* could certainly be provided as a more-*desirable* alternative to being on the streets, so that people aren't on the streets. Does that make any sense?

I'm not a moralist, so I don't look at the issue in terms of who-deserves-housing, I look at it in terms of what-housing-is-vacant. If there's vacant housing -- and there *is* -- then it shouldn't be vacant because there are people on the street who could *make use of* that vacant housing.

Well, I have actually been homeless, and lived in a shelter during the covid lockdowns. So I feel I have a little more knowledge than a random guy on the topic.

Yet, even ignoring my experiences, the question of "why" people are homeless is clearly relevant to the debate as to how to solve homelessness. If people are choosing to be homeless (as the majority are), then there is no "fix" to the problem. I cannot force you to stop bad habits. It's not a matter of "deserving" housing...it's a matter of refusing responsibility.

I understand this is a hard concept for normal people to grasp. But most of the homeless choose their fate. More than 100 million is spent on homeless in St. Louis alone...and yet the number of people who choose to improve their lives is depressingly small.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, I have actually been homeless, and lived in a shelter during the covid lockdowns. So I feel I have a little more knowledge than a random guy on the topic.

Yet, even ignoring my experiences, the question of "why" people are homeless is clearly relevant to the debate as to how to solve homelessness. If people are choosing to be homeless (as the majority are), then there is no "fix" to the problem. I cannot force you to stop bad habits. It's not a matter of "deserving" housing...it's a matter of refusing responsibility.

I understand this is a hard concept for normal people to grasp. But most of the homeless choose their fate. More than 100 million is spent on homeless in St. Louis alone...and yet the number of people who choose to improve their lives is depressingly small.

Okay, noted, but in my understanding the housing options that homeless people have are *substandard*. And if people *do* want to live on the street maybe they shouldn't be harassed by cops, with their stuff confiscated. Maybe some 'on-street' 'outdoor housing' options should be made available, with electricity, Internet, toilets, etc., for some kind of modern civilized standard.

On another thread I mentioned that perhaps real estate agents should be sent out to find homeless people, to provide transportation to various vacant housing locations, for their selection -- like regular clients.

[Wolvenbear]

Okay, noted, but in my understanding the housing options that homeless people have are *substandard*. And if people *do* want to live on the street maybe they shouldn't be harassed by cops, with their stuff confiscated. Maybe some 'on-street' 'outdoor housing' options should be made available, with electricity, Internet, toilets, etc., for some kind of modern civilized standard.

On another thread I mentioned that perhaps real estate agents should be sent out to find homeless people, to provide transportation to various vacant housing locations, for their selection -- like regular clients.

Well, all of that is already done.

But let's look at this from the other side. Why should people be provided with cush, swanky housing when they don't want to work for it? Why should the city go out of its way to provide for people who won't provide for themselves? Why shouldn't police "harass" vagrants who are taking up the entire sidewalk or other public place and being a nuisance? And why should the city encourage squatting?

Homeless shelters may not be the nicest hotel...but there's no reason they should be. They are meant to be temporary accomodations for people to get back on their feet and in their own place. They feed you, keep a roof over your head and allow you to shower and store your stuff. If you genuinely want to get back on your feet, they give you all the tools you need.

Having been in a shelter, it's an ugly truth that homelessness is not a failure of society, but of individuals. Every now and then, you'll see someone in a shelter who genuinely had hard times and needed help. More than 90% of them are cronic drunks/druggies who refuse to hold a job, and are net losses to society. They are mostly leeches who live off of charity.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, all of that is already done.

Can you provide a reference to a news article, or any other corroboration for this claim of yours?

But let's look at this from the other side. Why should people be provided with cush, swanky housing when they don't want to work for it?

Why should cush, swanky housing that's already produced just be left sitting there, vacant and unused? Isn't that some kind of humanitarian *crime* or something? Shouldn't politicians be *prosecuted* over this for not acting and preferring to let people suffer?

Why should the city go out of its way to provide for people who won't provide for themselves? Why shouldn't police "harass" vagrants who are taking up the entire sidewalk or other public place and being a nuisance? And why should the city encourage squatting?

Maybe if there was decent and available *housing* -- and why haven't the police been *defunded* yet?

Homeless shelters may not be the nicest hotel...but there's no reason they should be. They are meant to be temporary accomodations for people to get back on their feet and in their own place. They feed you, keep a roof over your head and allow you to shower and store your stuff. If you genuinely want to get back on your feet, they give you all the tools you need.

Having been in a shelter, it's an ugly truth that homelessness is not a failure of society, but of individuals. Every now and then, you'll see someone in a shelter who genuinely had hard times and needed help. More than 90% of them are cronic drunks/druggies who refuse to hold a job, and are net losses to society. They are mostly leeches who live off of charity.

Let's see how far you'll go with this -- what about *unemployed* people? Is that *also* due to 'individuals' / 'individual responsibility' -- ?

If so then why is there *always* a solid percentage of the workforce that is unemployed? Why doesn't the capitalist economy and its politicians strive to get that figure down to *zero*, with *fervor* -- ? (I'll reveal the answer on my next response.)

[Wolvenbear]

Can you provide a reference to a news article, or any other corroboration for this claim of yours?

Here is one service (that I personally used):
https://www.bjcbehavioralhealth.org/Ser ... r-Outreach

BJC drives you to appointments, provides laundry and showers, helps you obtain ID, food and employment, among other things. They give you free health care, group therapy, and more.

If you're going to decry the lack of homeless services, though, shouldn't you look it up before you comment?

Why should cush, swanky housing that's already produced just be left sitting there, vacant and unused? Isn't that some kind of humanitarian *crime* or something? Shouldn't politicians be *prosecuted* over this for not acting and preferring to let people suffer?

Condemned and vacant properties are usually not cush or swanky. That said, how is it a crime to not let people trespass?

Maybe if there was decent and available *housing* -- and why haven't the police been *defunded* yet?

If your available funds are zero, you are stuck with the freebies kind people give you. Having been in the shelter, it is beyond ridiculous to hear someone who hasn't complain that the free stuff we were given wasn't nice enough.

And, while I am generally in favor of reducing police funding, I see no relevance to this conversation.

Let's see how far you'll go with this -- what about *unemployed* people? Is that *also* due to 'individuals' / 'individual responsibility' -- ?

If so then why is there *always* a solid percentage of the workforce that is unemployed? Why doesn't the capitalist economy and its politicians strive to get that figure down to *zero*, with *fervor* -- ? (I'll reveal the answer on my next response.)

I'm sure you think you have a point. I'm struggling to see what it is, and I doubt you could explain if you wanted to. Obviously, most unemployed people choose to be unemployed. Even if quitting a bad job is the only logical choice...it is beyond question a choice. If you get fired for cause, you have chosen to be a bad employee. If you are unemployed for years, that is clearly your choice.

There will always be transitions, hence why there will always be a percentage of the workforce that is unemployed. Few people are unemployed for long periods of time (outside of recessions). And most of those are problem cases. Businesses close; layoffs occur, but those people usually find another job within six months.

Of course, comparing layoffs to homeless people is like comparing apples to hubcaps, but I'm seeing that you're more interested in pushing socialist agitprop than discussing reality.

[ckaihatsu]

Here is one service (that I personally used):
https://www.bjcbehavioralhealth.org/Ser ... r-Outreach

BJC drives you to appointments, provides laundry and showers, helps you obtain ID, food and employment, among other things. They give you free health care, group therapy, and more.

If you're going to decry the lack of homeless services, though, shouldn't you look it up before you comment?

Okay, but that's just *one* place -- I meant what I said *politically*, as in why aren't there consistent services like that one that are as available as checking out books from a library? And housing placement, etc.

Condemned and vacant properties are usually not cush or swanky. That said, how is it a crime to not let people trespass?

Okay, but why should *any* housing go vacant and unused when it could be made *available* to those who are homeless?

Why are you so for *criminalizing* the seeking of shelter?

If your available funds are zero, you are stuck with the freebies kind people give you. Having been in the shelter, it is beyond ridiculous to hear someone who hasn't complain that the free stuff we were given wasn't nice enough.

And, while I am generally in favor of reducing police funding, I see no relevance to this conversation.

You're merely describing the *current reality* -- what good is that while people have no homes?

I'm sure you think you have a point. I'm struggling to see what it is, and I doubt you could explain if you wanted to. Obviously, most unemployed people choose to be unemployed. Even if quitting a bad job is the only logical choice...it is beyond question a choice. If you get fired for cause, you have chosen to be a bad employee. If you are unemployed for years, that is clearly your choice.

There will always be transitions, hence why there will always be a percentage of the workforce that is unemployed. Few people are unemployed for long periods of time (outside of recessions). And most of those are problem cases. Businesses close; layoffs occur, but those people usually find another job within six months.

I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly *blase* attitude to have for something that's so important -- why should there always be a percentage *unemployed*? Can't that be aggressively *eliminated* as a matter of government policy? Or is it that if everyone's employed then the working class would have a *monopoly* on labor, and it could no longer be threatened / blackmailed with layoffs -- ?

There's the FDR 'New Deal' as a precedent, during the Great Depression, which was a ruling-class tactic to ward off outright *revolution*.

Of course, comparing layoffs to homeless people is like comparing apples to hubcaps, but I'm seeing that you're more interested in pushing socialist agitprop than discussing reality.

I have a socialist *politics*, if that's what you're referring to, and guess where we are? That's right -- a political *discussion board*, yet my having a political *line* surprises you for some reason.

[Wolvenbear]

Okay, but that's just *one* place -- I meant what I said *politically*, as in why aren't there consistent services like that one that are as available as checking out books from a library? And housing placement, etc.

It's a nationwide chain that provides homeless services. And it provides virtually everything you requested. It also gets federal and state funding, so it's a "political" solution as well.

Have you ever looked into what we do for the homeless? We spend billions every year, just at the federal level on housing grants, food programs, work programs and the like. There are tens of thousands of charities, all funded by the government, which provide services to homeless people.

Okay, but why should *any* housing go vacant and unused when it could be made *available* to those who are homeless?

Why are you so for *criminalizing* the seeking of shelter?

Cops don't go around checking abandoned buildings for the homeless. And, if the building is abandoned, the only way one can get charged is if the owner presses charges...which usually doesn't happen...since most abandoned buildings don't have active owners. So your "look over there" is BS. Even businesses which are actively in use simply ask the individual to leave.

Not wanting the government to encourage squatting is not the same as wanting people to be locked up. And since 100% of homeless shelters are nicer than 100% of abandoned buildings, your demand that government take people out of the better option to the inferior one is ridiculously stupid. That you demean those who disagree with you as not being humanitarian....even as your "solution" will lead to bad results is shameful.

You're merely describing the *current reality* -- what good is that while people have no homes?

If one doesn't accept reality, what good is their contribution to the discourse? This is the problem with people like you. You ignore what is, and demand utopia.

I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly *blase* attitude to have for something that's so important -- why should there always be a percentage *unemployed*? Can't that be aggressively *eliminated* as a matter of government policy? Or is it that if everyone's employed then the working class would have a *monopoly* on labor, and it could no longer be threatened / blackmailed with layoffs -- ?

I'm currently unemployed due to my personal choices. While I am looking for work, I made the conscious decision to quit my job before I found new employment. Should government have prevented me from quitting? Should it provide me make shift work because my choice hurts my pocket book? What about people who refuse to work? What about people who are trash employees? Again, you don't live in reality.

There's the FDR 'New Deal' as a precedent, during the Great Depression, which was a ruling-class tactic to ward off outright *revolution*.

The New Deal caused the Great Depression. You had an idiot in the White House demanding that food be destroyed while there was wide spread unemployment. Washington caused prices of food, housing, and other basic necessities to skyrocket when people had no money. The New Deal is exactly what people should scorn, not emulate.

I have a socialist *politics*, if that's what you're referring to, and guess where we are? That's right -- a political *discussion board*, yet my having a political *line* surprises you for some reason.

I'm not "surprised" at you having a political opinion on a politics board. I am commenting on your lack of understanding of basic every day reality to push socialist policies that clearly don't work. But since you have no idea what you're talking about, and can't be bothered to do five seconds of research before you comment, it's not terribly surprising.

[Rancid]

Fuck democracy.

What we need is a police state.

[QatzelOk]

Have you ever looked into what we do for the homeless? We spend billions every year, just at the federal level on housing grants, food programs, work programs and the like. There are tens of thousands of charities, all funded by the government, which provide services to homeless people.

I am trying to understand your point in this thread.

You were homeless yourself, and you don't support providing homes for the homeless?

Even if this is true, one masochist who enjoys suffering doesn't *prove* anything about the advantages of other courses of action.

Billions of dollars given to charities isn't what homeless people need. They need homes, stability and autonomy. Like every mammal.

That our civilization doesn't provide them is because our civilization is a cascading failure of greed-based lies.

[Wolvenbear]

I am trying to understand your point in this thread.

You were homeless yourself, and you don't support providing homes for the homeless?

Even if this is true, one masochist who enjoys suffering doesn't *prove* anything about the advantages of other courses of action.

Billions of dollars given to charities isn't what homeless people need. They need homes, stability and autonomy. Like every mammal.

That our civilization doesn't provide them is because our civilization is a cascading failure of greed-based lies.

People are always so quick to villify those who disagree with them. Nothing I have said is either masochistic (I think you meant sadistic) or a denial of basic human rights. Indeed, what I said was:

Yet, even ignoring my experiences, the question of "why" people are homeless is clearly relevant to the debate as to how to solve homelessness. If people are choosing to be homeless (as the majority are), then there is no "fix" to the problem. I cannot force you to stop bad habits. It's not a matter of "deserving" housing...it's a matter of refusing responsibility.

We spend billions on doing exactly what you say you want: providing food and shelter for the homeless. And yet many of them return to the streets. The two major reasons are mental illness and drug/alcohol abuse. You are not being humanitarian in ignoring this. You are simply patting yourself on the back while making no difference whatsoever in the problem. You feel good without doing good.

So, it's illegal to forceably medicate someone just because they make bad choices. Should we change that? Somehow I think that's too intrusive for your tastes. Do we warehouse the homeless in hospitals or prisons? That gives them guaranteed shelter, but I doubt you like that idea either. They already have the option of shelters, but if they choose to leave, or if they violate the rules, what then?

These are tough questions, which you guys don't want to face because it means that maybe we're doing pretty much the best we can. Or maybe even that we should focus less on people who deliberately make bad choices and focus more on people who are down on their luck and just need help. Or is that too grown up of an idea for this conversation?

[ckaihatsu]

It's a nationwide chain that provides homeless services. And it provides virtually everything you requested. It also gets federal and state funding, so it's a "political" solution as well.

Have you ever looked into what we do for the homeless? We spend billions every year, just at the federal level on housing grants, food programs, work programs and the like. There are tens of thousands of charities, all funded by the government, which provide services to homeless people.

Okay, cool, it's not a regular political issue for me, and I don't mean to make 'hay' out of discussing it. Nonetheless there's still a 'presence' on the streets, like L.A.'s Skid Row, which readily comes to mind -- your initial attitude was to blame the homeless, so that's not very encouraging from your side of things.

Can you explain why there are still homeless people living on the streets despite all of these billions being spent, *without* resorting to blaming the homeless?

Cops don't go around checking abandoned buildings for the homeless. And, if the building is abandoned, the only way one can get charged is if the owner presses charges...which usually doesn't happen...since most abandoned buildings don't have active owners. So your "look over there" is BS. Even businesses which are actively in use simply ask the individual to leave.

Not wanting the government to encourage squatting is not the same as wanting people to be locked up. And since 100% of homeless shelters are nicer than 100% of abandoned buildings, your demand that government take people out of the better option to the inferior one is ridiculously stupid. That you demean those who disagree with you as not being humanitarian....even as your "solution" will lead to bad results is shameful.

I made no such 'demand' -- you're *misconstruing* my politics. I'm all for *options*, so wherever people find best for their own situation is fine by me, *and* I have no problem with navigating around people on sidewalks, either.

It could be abandoned buildings, it could be homeless shelters, it could be full regular housing units.

If one doesn't accept reality, what good is their contribution to the discourse? This is the problem with people like you. You ignore what is, and demand utopia.

You consider full-housing to be 'utopia'? More to the point is why didn't that 'utopia' arrive once we had industrialized home construction (pre-fab) -- ? It's almost an *assembly line* process now, so why isn't the government providing such housing, with open doors, to the point of *surplus* so that there's no question that it's available?

I'm currently unemployed due to my personal choices. While I am looking for work, I made the conscious decision to quit my job before I found new employment. Should government have prevented me from quitting? Should it provide me make shift work because my choice hurts my pocket book? What about people who refuse to work? What about people who are trash employees? Again, you don't live in reality.

You still haven't responded to my 'supply side' observation, so-to-speak, meaning that there's *plenty* of supply, and *vacant* housing units -- why should these be ignored and forcibly kept vacant?

I don't think society should sink to *micromanagement* of each individual's personal situation -- what matters is that they have access to the *basics* of modern living so that they can then go from there with their lives. People shouldn't have to *scrounge* for housing when city living is now the norm.

The New Deal caused the Great Depression.

Note the dates:

The Wall Street Crash of 1929, also known as the Great Crash, was a major American stock market crash that occurred in the fall of 1929. It started in September and ended late in October, when share prices on the New York Stock Exchange collapsed.

It was the most devastating stock market crash in the history of the United States, when taking into consideration the full extent and duration of its aftereffects.[1] The Great Crash is associated with October 25, 1929, called Black Friday, the day after the largest sell-off of shares in U.S. history.[2] The crash, which followed the London Stock Exchange's crash of September, signaled the beginning of the Great Depression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929

The New Deal was a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms, and regulations enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States between 1933 and 1939.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

---

You had an idiot in the White House demanding that food be destroyed while there was wide spread unemployment. Washington caused prices of food, housing, and other basic necessities to skyrocket when people had no money. The New Deal is exactly what people should scorn, not emulate.

This is all bullshit, so you *may* want to provide some source material to corroborate all of these baseless contentions.

Also:

Unsurprisingly, this exuberance lured more investors to the market, investing on margin with borrowed money. By 1929, 2 out of every 5 dollars a bank loaned were used to purchase stocks.

The market peaked on September 3, 1929. Steel production was down, several banks had failed, and fewer homes were being built, but few paid attention — the Dow stood at 381.17, up 27% from the previous year. Over the next few weeks, however, prices began to move downward. And the lower they fell, the faster they picked up speed.

In the last hour of trading on Thursday, Oct. 23, 1929, stock prices suddenly plummeted. When the closing bell rang at 3 p.m. people were shaken.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 69,00.html

---

I'm not "surprised" at you having a political opinion on a politics board. I am commenting on your lack of understanding of basic every day reality to push socialist policies that clearly don't work. But since you have no idea what you're talking about, and can't be bothered to do five seconds of research before you comment, it's not terribly surprising.

You're obviously favoring the politics of the *nation-state*, over people's lives, and of real estate market *pricing* (economics), over people's lives, as well.

My 'socialist policies' are simply to expand the public sector to provide an egalitarian basis for *all*, for all basic needs so that that's not an issue anymore for anyone. After that, or even *before* it, all social production should be collectively controlled by the workers of the world so that production isn't for profit-making and endless private accumulations.

[Wolvenbear]

Okay, cool, it's not a regular political issue for me, and I don't mean to make 'hay' out of discussing it. Nonetheless there's still a 'presence' on the streets, like L.A.'s Skid Row, which readily comes to mind -- your initial attitude was to blame the homeless, so that's not very encouraging from your side of things.

Can you explain why there are still homeless people living on the streets despite all of these billions being spent, *without* resorting to blaming the homeless?

So, in other words, can I describe the problem in a way you like, whether or not that is an accurate description? What is the point in such an exercise? I can discuss wife beating without blaming the wife beater...but it's not a very useful project. This is especially true if you're trying to come up with solutions.

I cannot accurately describe homelessness without addressing the fact that more than half are either unwilling or unable to function in society. If I give you a 700 check every month and you blow it on things other than food and housing, it's your fault you're still homeless.

For those who don't fall in this category, the simplest answer is that most homeless services do not deal with people until they are in need. Losing your job is not enough to get you services, you have to either become homeless or be at serious risk of homelessness. Unfortunately, if you are not a drug addict, prostitute, riddled with STDs, or some other undesirable category, you have to wait for services, which can take 6 months or more. While many private charities are getting better at this, and are trying to prevent homelessness from occuring to begin with, federal funding often discourages this.

Because the root causes of homelessness-sudden misfortune, lack of social help, businesses closing, release from prison, etc- will always be there with us, there will always be homeless. While private charities do an all right job of cycling people who want help back into society, many political solutions exacerbate the problem for the genuinely needy.

Of course, the fact that some people refuse help and prefer to be a drunk or drug addict in a shelter rather than holding a job means that there will always be long term homeless, no matter what we do.

It could be abandoned buildings, it could be homeless shelters, it could be full regular housing units.

You did kind of demand that, but whatever...

So, again, we already have the solution you are requesting. There are homeless shelters everywhere. Private organizations put people in hotels temporarily until a bed becomes available somewhere, even if they have to transport them.

You consider full-housing to be 'utopia'? More to the point is why didn't that 'utopia' arrive once we had industrialized home construction (pre-fab) -- ? It's almost an *assembly line* process now, so why isn't the government providing such housing, with open doors, to the point of *surplus* so that there's no question that it's available?

This simply goes back to the earlier question that I already answered. If you refuse to hold a job and pay your bills, it's nonsense to expect free everything for your entire life while other people earn theirs. You make this choice, you can live in a church basement for the rest of your life. That shelters keep you from starving and freezing is more than generous enough.

You still haven't responded to my 'supply side' observation, so-to-speak, meaning that there's *plenty* of supply, and *vacant* housing units -- why should these be ignored and forcibly kept vacant?

I have responded to it. You just didn't like the response.

First there's people's property rights. Homeless people have no right to your property and it is immoral to take it from you and give it to them. Second, vacant buildings are always less desirable than shelters. So your "solution" creates a problem that doesn't already exist, and is, as such, something we shouldn't do.

I don't think society should sink to *micromanagement* of each individual's personal situation -- what matters is that they have access to the *basics* of modern living so that they can then go from there with their lives. People shouldn't have to *scrounge* for housing when city living is now the norm.

Without such micromanagement, there is no solution. So without your utopia where people stop making bad, self destructive choices, the problem is inevitable. Moreover, simply demanding that bad behaving people not suffer consequences not only creates moral hazard, which encourages the problem to persist, it actively tramples others' rights to have stable housing because their crackhead neighbor who steals everything not bolted down can't be evicted.

Hardly a moral solution.

This is all bullshit, so you *may* want to provide some source material to corroborate all of these baseless contentions.

Oh, yes, I'll be happy to provide you with the IDs of the hobos who lived in the shelter with me, and video testimony of their bad decisions. Eye roll.

No offense, my good man, but you don't really seem to know ANYTHING about the situation, and you have been provided with evidence that you're out of the loop. So, it's a little much to be called bullshit on well known facts. You're literally sitting there saying "I'm too lazy to look up anything on a subject that I'm so passionate about, but I'll cast aspersions on people who have been there." Wow.

It's such a secret that homeless people do drugs:
https://sunrisehouse.com/addiction-demo ... opulation/
https://addictionresource.com/guides/su ... elessness/

But you know, facts...things you're not interested in.

You're obviously favoring the politics of the *nation-state*, over people's lives, and of real estate market *pricing* (economics), over people's lives, as well.

My 'socialist policies' are simply to expand the public sector to provide an egalitarian basis for *all*, for all basic needs so that that's not an issue anymore for anyone. After that, or even *before* it, all social production should be collectively controlled by the workers of the world so that production isn't for profit-making and endless private accumulations.

Ah the age old "I'm a saint and everyone who disagrees with me is tripe" line that socialists always resort to.

It might mean more if you could be bothered to look at the problem you want to solve and come up with actual solutions, instead of just telling everyone who disagrees that they're bad people and throwing out nonsense jingoism. If only you cared enough to debate whether your solution would actually help anyone....or if it hurts anyone else....maybe I'd take your faux-humanitarianism more seriously.

[QatzelOk]

I can discuss wife beating without blaming the wife beater

Here you are comparing people who live on the streets to wife-beaters, two very different things.

I cannot accurately describe homelessness without addressing the fact that more than half are either unwilling or unable to function in society. If I give you a 700 check every month and you blow it on things other than food and housing, it's your fault you're still homeless.

First you mention millions of dollars. Then you mention cheques for 700 dollars.

But homeless people need homes, not million-dollar charity infra, or a monthly cheque. A home.

The monthly cheque is a good idea if the person is sane. But if not, then food should be provided as well.

That you seem willing to let mentally-ill people "die in the cold" is beyond anti-social and callous. Your judging of other people's mental or financial fragility is really useless. We are not born to impress banks and chartered accountants with our clever way of making money fly for us. Some of us require a home and food in order to live and socialize with others.

The only reason I am typing this post is because I was accepted into a housing coop a number of years ago. Without that, I don't know if I would have had the stability and comfort to pursue university, better jobs, and a better social life than when I was young and miserably immature.

[Rancid]

Is it time to waive the white flag? Is it time to give up on democracy?

[QatzelOk]

Is it time to waive the white flag? Is it time to give up on democracy?

It's time to admit that capitalism isn't democracy and never can be because of income inequality.

North Americans have no idea what they're really voting for, and their media lies so much that it's not a reliable source of information - information that is needed to make democratic choices.

[Rancid]

It's time to admit that capitalism isn't democracy and never can be because of income inequality.

North Americans have no idea what they're really voting for, and their media lies so much that it's not a reliable source of information - information that is needed to make democratic choices.

Is the thread about democracy or capitalism?

[QatzelOk]

Is the thread about democracy or capitalism?

Capitalism.

Also known as "Western Democracy."

Capitalism is the only kind of "democracy" that banking dictators can live with.

[ckaihatsu]

The monthly cheque is a good idea if the person is sane. But if not, then food should be provided as well.

Thanks for this, by the way -- this happens to be the argument (that I was looking for), for why the universal basic income (UBI) (cash subsidies) is actually *inadequate*, socially / realistically.

I heard that the right-wing-originating UBI is actually a way to then make cuts to government social services, because-you-took-the-cash, whereas having some kind of social-services *infrastructure* preserves jobs and more-robust *services* to people with various particular needs.

[QatzelOk]

Thanks for this, by the way -- this happens to be the argument (that I was looking for), for why the universal basic income (UBI) (cash subsidies) is actually *inadequate*, socially / realistically.

I heard that the right-wing-originating UBI is actually a way to then make cuts to government social services, because-you-took-the-cash, whereas having some kind of social-services *infrastructure* preserves jobs and more-robust *services* to people with various particular needs.

A UBI and more-than-adequate social services for the dignity of all... is possible if infrastructure monopolies like Amazon and Microsoft are nationalized and put to public purpose.

What is lost in our current system of intense greedbaggery is the human dignity of the victims of this kind of racketeering. And almost all large piles of money are made through racketeering.

For the racketeers who run the West (with help from Jeffrey Epstein, and mafia)... the Internet is just a means of Digital Usury. That's all they can see in it.