Homelessness being criminalized

[edwardmurphy]

So was mine. Sarcasm is hard on the internet.

[RickD]

So was mine. Sarcasm is hard on the internet.

I realized you were being sarcastic, that's why I responded with sarcasm.

Never mind.

The interesting thing about sarcasm, is that it's often used to convey a truth. So calling Mel a commie...

Just sayin.

[RickD]

Any thoughts on solutions to the problems of poverty, drug addiction, lack of mental health care, and homelessness?

Ed,

I thought of you when I watched this gem. It pertains to your question of what to do about poverty. What do you think?

[LittleHamster]

Any thoughts on solutions to the problems of poverty, drug addiction, lack of mental health care, and homelessness?

Ed,

I thought of you when I watched this gem. It pertains to your question of what to do about poverty. What do you think?

Whooah. I just read some of the 4000+ posts under that youtube video. Lots of arguments (in all directions).

Here is one interesting point I remember from a while back - Some studies had shown that if every person in a particular country were suddenly given an equal amount of wealth then, after some time, the distribution of that wealth will mostly revert back to what is was - i.e., a similar amount of people being rich, being middle class and being poor.

That tells me that if you want to lift up the baseline living standard for a capitalist society in particular, then welfare handouts alone are not necessarily the answer. But I'm not a social/economics expert. I reckon we need a combination of support/training/opportunities/etc.. for the most disadvantaged in our society. But what that sweet-spot combination is exactly ?

Amazingly, there are enough raw materials in the state of NY alone, for everyone on earth to have and live in their own mansion. Just need someone to dig it up and build them.

[edwardmurphy]

Ed,

I thought of you when I watched this gem. It pertains to your question of what to do about poverty. What do you think?

Ok, my thoughts...

First off, I'm sick of conservatives attacking public education. I've worked in a number of inner city schools, and the teachers, paras, and administrators there work damned hard. The problem in those neighborhoods isn't the schools, it's everything. There are no good jobs to be had. The only employers are often fast food restaurants and WalMart. Street crime and gang violence are major issues. Families are often unstable, frequently with single mothers. Abuse, neglect, and addiction are the norm rather than the exception. In that environment the schools are the centers of the communities. For many kids school is the only place where they consistently get fed and the only place where they feel safe. I've been to several schools that had nurse practitioners, dental clinics, and pharmacies on site, because the kids were unable to get medical and dental treatment elsewhere. Over summer "vacation" many of the kids rarely get a good meal, much less crack a book. Poor performance in school is a symptom of a much larger, more complex problem. Unfortunately, the people who want to blame public schools aren't interested in complex problems. They have an agenda - the privatization of education - and attacking public education is their best strategy.

That takes us to charter schools. Comparing charter schools to public schools is unfair. Charter schools get to pick and choose who they take, and if they don't accept public money they don't have to bother with special education, ESOL, 504 plans, or any of the many other things that public schools are required to do to meet the needs of diverse student populations. Charter schools cherry pick the best students from the most stable families and drop them if things aren't working. Public schools have to take everybody and figure out how to meet their needs. The result is that public schools have to do the hardest work for the neediest students, then get crapped on by conservatives if they don't meet testing goals, while charter schools get to stack the deck and reap the praise. Beyond that, when a charter school fails - and many have - the result can be kids arriving at school to find the lights off and the doors locked. It's happened, not that privatization advocates would ever bring that up. And who's required to clean up the mess - that's right, it's public schools.

Long story short, anybody who lays the plight of inner city kids at the feet of the schools and leaves it at that is either ignorant or a liar with an agenda.

Regarding minimum wage keeping "the negro" (or anybody else) from getting a job, I'm not buying that either. Back in the day, Henry Ford -who I think we can all agree was neither a liberal - realized he had a problem. He was making all these cars on the assembly line, but he wasn't selling them. He thought about it and came to a realization - people didn't have the money to buy his cars and they they had no time to drive anyway. His solution - which today would be decried as communism, or a handout, or class warfare - was to raise wages for his workers and give them Saturdays off. Suddenly they could afford cars, and they had a day to use them. Not only that, but they could afford to buy other things as well, which buoyed other businesses and helped more people to earn enough money to buy cars. And as a result Mr. Henry Ford sold a lot of cars and got filthy, stinking rich.

Unfortunately, today's rich guys seem to have forgotten that lesson. They don't want to pay workers, they want to cut costs and pay shareholders. The result is that, even with Wall Street booming under Obama* (and following the same trend under Trump), most of us aren't seeing the benefit. The reason for that is no mystery.

From the article:

President Donald Trump’s top economic adviser, Gary Cohn, has said that lower corporate taxes — the GOP plan calls for cutting them from 35% to 20% — would stimulate the economy, and that with the money they save on taxes, businesses could hire more people and pay better wages.

Sounds great! Anybody disagree?

“As a CEO and member of the Board of Directors at a public company, I can tell you that if we had an increase in profitability we would have been delighted but it would not lead in and of itself to more hiring or an increase in wages,” Mendels wrote. “Again, we would hire more people if we saw growing demand for our products and services. We would raise salaries if that is what it took to hire and retain great people. But if we had a tax cut that led to higher profits absent those factors, we would ‘pocket it’ for our investors.”

Get that? Businesses hire people to meet demand, not because they have some extra cash. They give them raises in order to keep good workers in a competitive job market. If we want more jobs and better pay we need a way to increase demand for goods and services. According to history - see Henry Ford's example above - we can increase demand by giving people more money to spend and more time to spend it. The government has the power to do that by lowering taxes for the middle and working classes and raising taxes for the rich to offset the difference in revenue. It's not a handout or redistribution of wealth, it's the reactivation of wealth that's been deactivated and hoarded in offshore accounts. The rich will still own the factories, the patents, the stock, and all of that. What they put in they'll get back with interest. The rich could get richer without leaving the rest of us behind.

But wait, you may be asking - how do I, some schlub on the Internet - know more about economics than the great Milton Friedman? I don't. Not even close. But that doesn't mean I can't spot a self-serving lie when I see one. Friedman is telling a slice of the truth and leaving out the parts that don't work for his argument. Republican economic policy is about short-term gains for their patrons, not the long-term health of the nation or the prosperity of the people.

That's all I've got for now.







*

If the President gets to take credit for a boom on Wall Street then this one belongs to Obama and the Democrats. Unlike Obama, Trump inherited a strong economy. Not that Sideshow Don would ever admit that.

[Philip]

The proper equation for solving poverty has no simple solutions - despite what the left, right, Republicans, Democrats, progressives, and socialist would have us believe. There is an immense amount of inherited, generational problems that are widespread and getting worse. Yes, public education has problems and some bad policies. But it's counterproductive to burn the house down when what you really need is extensive renovations and inspired tweaks. But throwing money at poor people doesn't work - it's got to be a combination of things and incentives. And no approach should be above criticism. A lot of hardworking bureaucrats, teachers, etc. have ideas and policies that DO need rethinking. But just pointing fingers left and right and demonizing those you disagree with doesn't solve anything - it's not leadership. And if we don't have a comprehensive approach and adequate funding to mental illness, things will only worsen.

Having a hardcore political mentality about those we wish to change the thinking of, without maturely and innovatively engaging them is clueless - and that's much of what I see going on in this country that's only spreading more and more fires and disunity. On all sides of the political spectrum, I see some who only wish to hate and not listen - those people are only creating major problems and ill will. There ARE people that have great hearts and legitimate concerns who truly care about those in need - but they often have different ideas about how to politically and procedurally approach our challenges. Doesn't mean they are bad people, but it does mean we have to come together and have mature discussions to solve things.

[Philip]

BTW, the stock market is WAY over-valued and there is immense intentional for a major correction. We continue to mindlessly build debt. George W basically put a major war on a credit card with a folly of nation-building. Obama wracked up more debt than we can imagine. Trump is strangely silent about our spending habits and having a strong budget policy. There's a lot of blame all around. But we can't solve anything if we ignore the ticking timebomb of our debt!

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Or just even being down on your luck and say having to stay under a bridge to keep safe if you're traveling. Just minding your business, nothing bad, just staying there. No, that's illegal too. And seeing how from my experience a lot of ppl r flaky n stuff, well it pees me off that people have to so pathetic.

They are easy pickings for police arrest quota's.

As I've gotten older I've realized police are being used as a way to keep people economically down and out. Especially the poor. They get hit hardest.

I am white and was pulled over a few weeks ago in the all white rich part of town for a "dim license plate light". I had a handgun in the center consol with no permit and a tobacco pipe in the car.

I've never been arrested before. But a handgun is a felony here. 1-5 years prison. That would be a death sentence for my business and possibly myself (I would be raped or killed or end my life with dignity to avoid being raped) simply for exercising what I believe is a God given right and a Constitutional 2nd right.

He could've used the tobacco pipe as an excuse to search the car. Thank God he didn't. I will need to be more careful in the future. The cop just wanted to see who I was and if I had friends or family in the area. Basically why was I there. He just let me go with no ticket. Had I been homeless walking in the park; I would have been cited or arrested for "prowling" or "loitering" for sure.

My cousin is mentally ill but harmless. Yet the cops would arrest him just for walking down the street. He was arrested many times. Someone would call the cops just because of his behavior or that he made them uneasy. Then arrest him for trespassing when no complaint was made by the property owner, or they would escalate the situation then arrest him for resisting. loitering, prowling. One time it was "resisting arrest without violence". I found out this is an actual charge in the USA. The police arrest you for "resisting arrest without violence" and when you ask why you're being arrested they repeat this charge. Your being arrested for nothing. Basically.

Down here, I've never been arrested, though I was questioned once due to some misunderstanding about me walking in a field. I have a lot of eccentric quirks and I carry this canteen around with a rope attached since I couldn't get it on my belt loop. Well anyhow I've got a few looks, but nothing much.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Ed,

I thought of you when I watched this gem. It pertains to your question of what to do about poverty. What do you think?

Ok, my thoughts...

First off, I'm sick of conservatives attacking public education. I've worked in a number of inner city schools, and the teachers, paras, and administrators there work damned hard. The problem in those neighborhoods isn't the schools, it's everything. There are no good jobs to be had. The only employers are often fast food restaurants and WalMart. Street crime and gang violence are major issues. Families are often unstable, frequently with single mothers. Abuse, neglect, and addiction are the norm rather than the exception. In that environment the schools are the centers of the communities. For many kids school is the only place where they consistently get fed and the only place where they feel safe. I've been to several schools that had nurse practitioners, dental clinics, and pharmacies on site, because the kids were unable to get medical and dental treatment elsewhere. Over summer "vacation" many of the kids rarely get a good meal, much less crack a book. Poor performance in school is a symptom of a much larger, more complex problem. Unfortunately, the people who want to blame public schools aren't interested in complex problems. They have an agenda - the privatization of education - and attacking public education is their best strategy.

That takes us to charter schools. Comparing charter schools to public schools is unfair. Charter schools get to pick and choose who they take, and if they don't accept public money they don't have to bother with special education, ESOL, 504 plans, or any of the many other things that public schools are required to do to meet the needs of diverse student populations. Charter schools cherry pick the best students from the most stable families and drop them if things aren't working. Public schools have to take everybody and figure out how to meet their needs. The result is that public schools have to do the hardest work for the neediest students, then get crapped on by conservatives if they don't meet testing goals, while charter schools get to stack the deck and reap the praise. Beyond that, when a charter school fails - and many have - the result can be kids arriving at school to find the lights off and the doors locked. It's happened, not that privatization advocates would ever bring that up. And who's required to clean up the mess - that's right, it's public schools.

Long story short, anybody who lays the plight of inner city kids at the feet of the schools and leaves it at that is either ignorant or a liar with an agenda.

Regarding minimum wage keeping "the negro" (or anybody else) from getting a job, I'm not buying that either. Back in the day, Henry Ford -who I think we can all agree was neither a liberal - realized he had a problem. He was making all these cars on the assembly line, but he wasn't selling them. He thought about it and came to a realization - people didn't have the money to buy his cars and they they had no time to drive anyway. His solution - which today would be decried as communism, or a handout, or class warfare - was to raise wages for his workers and give them Saturdays off. Suddenly they could afford cars, and they had a day to use them. Not only that, but they could afford to buy other things as well, which buoyed other businesses and helped more people to earn enough money to buy cars. And as a result Mr. Henry Ford sold a lot of cars and got filthy, stinking rich.

Unfortunately, today's rich guys seem to have forgotten that lesson. They don't want to pay workers, they want to cut costs and pay shareholders. The result is that, even with Wall Street booming under Obama* (and following the same trend under Trump), most of us aren't seeing the benefit. The reason for that is no mystery.

From the article:

President Donald Trump’s top economic adviser, Gary Cohn, has said that lower corporate taxes — the GOP plan calls for cutting them from 35% to 20% — would stimulate the economy, and that with the money they save on taxes, businesses could hire more people and pay better wages.

Sounds great! Anybody disagree?

“As a CEO and member of the Board of Directors at a public company, I can tell you that if we had an increase in profitability we would have been delighted but it would not lead in and of itself to more hiring or an increase in wages,” Mendels wrote. “Again, we would hire more people if we saw growing demand for our products and services. We would raise salaries if that is what it took to hire and retain great people. But if we had a tax cut that led to higher profits absent those factors, we would ‘pocket it’ for our investors.”

Get that? Businesses hire people to meet demand, not because they have some extra cash. They give them raises in order to keep good workers in a competitive job market. If we want more jobs and better pay we need a way to increase demand for goods and services. According to history - see Henry Ford's example above - we can increase demand by giving people more money to spend and more time to spend it. The government has the power to do that by lowering taxes for the middle and working classes and raising taxes for the rich to offset the difference in revenue. It's not a handout or redistribution of wealth, it's the reactivation of wealth that's been deactivated and hoarded in offshore accounts. The rich will still own the factories, the patents, the stock, and all of that. What they put in they'll get back with interest. The rich could get richer without leaving the rest of us behind.

But wait, you may be asking - how do I, some schlub on the Internet - know more about economics than the great Milton Friedman? I don't. Not even close. But that doesn't mean I can't spot a self-serving lie when I see one. Friedman is telling a slice of the truth and leaving out the parts that don't work for his argument. Republican economic policy is about short-term gains for their patrons, not the long-term health of the nation or the prosperity of the people.

That's all I've got for now.







*

If the President gets to take credit for a boom on Wall Street then this one belongs to Obama and the Democrats. Unlike Obama, Trump inherited a strong economy. Not that Sideshow Don would ever admit that.

Yes.
Also, insurance rates are pretty high and stuff like Marine Fisheries are overregulating down here, making it easier for commercial fishermen but not the common person. People have complained but not much is done. Let's be thankful for what we got, as most of us can become homeless, even full time or just part time (like if one is in a pinch n has to hide somewhere cuz they r stranded or too far from their actual home-I have a camo tarp, first aid kit and a 3 speed bike for many reasons after all.)