Amergin posted:

Yes, by sending them to work in Bangladeshi factories.

Cabbit posted:

If 80% of the top 10% hosed off with all their money, I wonder how much we'd have to tax the people who stuck around to break even.

Amergin posted:

Yes, I think the government should prevent children from being homeless. I do not, however, think the government should prevent adults from being homeless.

Amergin posted:

...ultra-liberal browbeating...

Amergin posted:

Yes, I think the government should prevent children from being homeless. I do not, however, think the government should prevent adults from being homeless.

Tatum Girlparts posted:

I legit don't understand how a person can have this view. So ok, what about poor adults with children, do the kids get government housing on the condition they leave their parents to freeze on the street?

CheesyDog posted:

If it were cheaper to prevent homelessness rather than deal with results (use of law enforcement and emergency medical resources to deal with exposures, assaults, drug use on the street, etc.) would you change your mind?

SedanChair posted:

OK. Since homeless kids tend to have homeless parents, the most effective and efficient way to cut youth homelessness is to provide their parents with housing. Now, people like you can't abide that, so what we have is a patchwork of shelters, some that take women with families, some that take only kids, and very few that take adult men over 24. Long-term housing programs are similarly sparse and chaotic. This is the definition of an inefficient system, and it's not inefficient because of the size of government, it's inefficient because politicians and nonprofits have to pander to ignorant swine like yourself.

Accretionist posted:

Not really. There's nothing about being right wing that obligates you to have crappy positions, and they're piling on you because you've got crappy positions.

Amergin posted:

I don't say "don't provide free housing to the homeless" because I look down on the homeless, I do it because I don't think it's solving the issue of what causes homelessness, it's spending money on a bandaid that can then lead to other issues. But if you were to tell me the cost of a possible-ghetto is cheaper than having homeless people then sure.

Amergin posted:

Certainly, and if you were able to get good evidence to support this then I'd be all for it.

However again, I'd want evidence. I don't, from my perspective and experience, expect law enforcement costs to be that high and I don't expect the medical expenses to reduce that much just because you have a roof over your head. There are also other things I'd consider - you give the homeless housing, great, but what prevents that housing area from becoming a low-income ghetto with a hard-to-break cycle of poverty, crime/gang activity, etc.

I don't say "don't provide free housing to the homeless" because I look down on the homeless, I do it because I don't think it's solving the issue of what causes homelessness, it's spending money on a bandaid that can then lead to other issues. But if you were to tell me the cost of a possible-ghetto is cheaper than having homeless people then sure.

quote:

It is cheaper to give homeless people a home than it is to leave them on the streets.
That’s not just the opinion of advocates working to end homelessness, nor is it the opinion of homeless people themselves. It is a fact that has been borne out by studies across the country, from Florida to Colorado and beyond.
The latest analysis to back up this fact comes out of Charlotte, where researchers from the University of North Carolina Charlotte examined a recently constructed apartment complex that was oriented towards homeless people.
Moore Place opened in 2012 with 85 units. Each resident is required to contribute 30 percent of his or her income, which includes any benefits like disability, veterans, or Social Security, toward rent. The rest of the housing costs, which total approximately $14,000 per person annually, are covered by a mix of local and federal government grants, as well as private donors.
In the first year alone, researchers found that Moore Place saved taxpayers $1.8 million. These savings comes from improvements in two primary areas: health care and incarceration.
Residents of Moore Place collectively visited the emergency room, an expensive but not uncommon way homeless people access health care, 447 fewer times in the year after getting housing, the study discovered. Similarly, they spent far less time running afoul of the law, with the number of arrests dropping 78 percent.
Though opponents worried that homeless people would cause problems in the subsidized apartments, only 15 tenants have gotten in trouble and been asked to leave Moore Place.
Due in large part to the complex’s success, the Charlotte City Council unanimously approved appropriating $1 million to Moore Place in order to expand to 120 units.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/24/3418140/charlotte-homeless-study/


you moron

e: it's that you go on about "oh, well hrmmery the evidence doesn't show" when it's right there with a loving cursory google search

Amergin posted:

Certainly, and if you were able to get good evidence to support this then I'd be all for it.

However again, I'd want evidence. I don't, from my perspective and experience, expect law enforcement costs to be that high and I don't expect the medical expenses to reduce that much just because you have a roof over your head. There are also other things I'd consider - you give the homeless housing, great, but what prevents that housing area from becoming a low-income ghetto with a hard-to-break cycle of poverty, crime/gang activity, etc.

I don't say "don't provide free housing to the homeless" because I look down on the homeless, I do it because I don't think it's solving the issue of what causes homelessness, it's spending money on a bandaid that can then lead to other issues. But if you were to tell me the cost of a possible-ghetto is cheaper than having homeless people then sure.

Amergin posted:

"Moore Place opened in 2012 with 85 units. Each resident is required to contribute 30 percent of his or her income, which includes any benefits like disability, veterans, or Social Security, toward rent. The rest of the housing costs, which total approximately $14,000 per person annually, are covered by a mix of local and federal government grants, as well as private donors."

So we'll get homeless people across the nation to pay 30% of their rent and we'll also get private donors to help cover the difference?

Nessus posted:

The rest of what you say seems to imply that you'd rather have dead homeless people than the risk of creating a possible-ghetto, and I think that's monstrous.

Amergin posted:

"Moore Place opened in 2012 with 85 units. Each resident is required to contribute 30 percent of his or her income, which includes any benefits like disability, veterans, or Social Security, toward rent. The rest of the housing costs, which total approximately $14,000 per person annually, are covered by a mix of local and federal government grants, as well as private donors."

So we'll get homeless people across the nation to pay 30% of their rent and we'll also get private donors to help cover the difference?

And if the homeless can't pay, then...?

Also, I'm the one with a condescending smug tone but I'm also being called a moron by the entire thread. I'm missing something here.

Amergin posted:

No, I'd rather local governments work with local businesses and shelters/social workers to figure out what training could be provided to the homeless, what skills they currently have, and what roles they could fill in finding jobs to find an apartment themselves.

Jackson Taus posted:

I realize you're trying to distinguish between actual veterans of war and violence and "Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers", but you're doing a really lovely job of it. Plenty of soldiers come home with psychological, not physical, wounds and are really hosed up when they get back, and they need care just as much as the guys who lost a leg if they're going to function in society and lead a normal-ish life after the service. On the flip side, some of the more crucial jobs don't involve shooting people (medic for starters). And the reality of today's counter-insurgency warfare means that many "non-combat" roles are still fairly dangerous - the enemy (much less an IED) doesn't care if you're officially designated as a truck driver or as a combat trooper, he's still gonna go at you for wearing the flag.

Also, offering what amounts to a bounty to our troops for killing foreigners seems like a terrible idea incentive-wise. US Foreign Policy goals (and hence US Military goals) are almost never measured in body counts.

Lemming posted:

The guy above addressed your lack of reading comprehension, but I'll give you a crash course in basic human interaction: being a smug dick will in fact make people hate you more, so the fact that people are calling you a moron because they hate you when you are using a condescending smug tone should not be surprising.

Amergin posted:

No, I'd rather local governments work with local businesses and shelters/social workers to figure out what training could be provided to the homeless, what skills they currently have, and what roles they could fill in finding jobs to find an apartment themselves.

Amergin posted:

"Moore Place opened in 2012 with 85 units. Each resident is required to contribute 30 percent of his or her income, which includes any benefits like disability, veterans, or Social Security, toward rent. The rest of the housing costs, which total approximately $14,000 per person annually, are covered by a mix of local and federal government grants, as well as private donors."

So we'll get homeless people across the nation to pay 30% of their rent and we'll also get private donors to help cover the difference?

And if the homeless can't pay, then...?

Also, I'm the one with a condescending smug tone but I'm also being called a moron by the entire thread. I'm missing something here.

Amergin posted:

No, I'd rather local governments work with local businesses and shelters/social workers to figure out what training could be provided to the homeless, what skills they currently have, and what roles they could fill in finding jobs to find an apartment themselves.

Axetrain posted:

Businesses want there to a large segment of society impoverished and desperate so they can keep them paid as little as possible.

Anyway you were just given a link proving that it would save the government money to simply give housing to the homeless instead of keeping them on the streets, which is why I used quotations around the word efficiency in my last post, you don't actually want it and in fact support government waste as long as it keeps the homeless just that.

Amergin posted:

I understand I mistyped.

Nobody has responded to my comment on the private donors.

Aerox posted:

Absolutely. 1.0s probably won't be detected, 2.5-3 you generally can if you're pretty close to the epicenter, and 3s, while mild and not really causing any damage, can be strong enough to be felt normally or even to wake you if you're sleeping. I've had 3.2s and 3.3s wake me up before.

Amergin posted:

I understand I mistyped.

Nobody has responded to my comment on the private donors.

Amergin posted:

what prevents that housing area from becoming a low-income ghetto with a hard-to-break cycle of poverty, crime/gang activity, etc.

Nessus posted:

If you think private charity would magically fill in the gaps and provide equal or greater levels of service, I think you have a high bar to prove. Now you may well prefer private charity for other reasons, although I think preferring the moral virtue of private charity to "the actual relief of the needy" tends to go against most theories of morality. And there is certainly a role for private charity in these operations.

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Why should people's lives rely on private whims when the government is much more stable? If the government has a contract that says they will always give you x amount, why would a life where you have to hope private whims hold out be better?

Amergin posted:

You're both misreading.

I was told that, from a government expenditure standpoint, it is cheaper to provide the homeless with housing than it is to leave them on the streets.

Great. However, private donations helped cover some of the cost in that article. I don't think it's wise to make a statement "It is cheaper" based off an example where private donations helped cushion some of the cost as that is assuming that private donation cushion will be there across the country, which obviously isn't true.

Amergin posted:

You're both misreading.

I was told that, from a government expenditure standpoint, it is cheaper to provide the homeless with housing than it is to leave them on the streets.

Great. However, private donations helped cover some of the cost in that article. I don't think it's wise to make a statement "It is cheaper" based off an example where private donations helped cushion some of the cost as that is assuming that private donation cushion will be there across the country, which obviously isn't true.

Amergin posted:

Amergin posted:

EDIT: Reading the Colorado linked story, however, that is a great idea on using available resources to house the homeless.

Joementum posted:

Yogurt is now the official state snack of New York by a vote of 52-8. Andy Kaczynski has been live tweeting the debate tonight, in which questions were raised about whether raisins, potatoes, pretzels, and kale chips had been adequately considered. Also, "snack" was defined as not breakfast, lunch, or dinner.

JT Jag posted:

I think they maybe had a point about the pretzels.