Maybe we should just give homeless people Housing....

[OfTheCross]

Cities would spend money on hostile architecture so homeless people can't sleep on the sidewalks, rather than just give them housing.

550k homeless, 17 million vacant homes...

Local government doing what residents want, I suppose

 

[OfTheCross]

Foh with that liberatian bs

The Declaration of Independence guarantees "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as an unalienable right.
The preamble of the Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It's literally the only thing the federal government should be pursuing, the shyt states deal with is local laws. It's the federal government's job, according to the goddamn Constitution, to insure domestic tranquility and general welfare. A lot of homeless people get shipped interstate, which only furthers the argument that it's a federal matter.

But let the 'constitutional purists' tell it and the only thing the feds should be involved with is shooting people

There's a specific list of shyt the Federal government is in charge of.

All other matters are ran by the State.

Keep reading The Constitution and you'll see

 

[GPBear]

There's a specific list of shyt the Federal government is in charge of.

All other matters are ran by the State.

Keep reading The Constitution and you'll see

That's specifically why I quoted the Constitution, showing how the Federal Government founded itself on the basis of preserving the general welfare, etc. But like I said, you libertarian retards think the federal government should only deal with shooting people.

The fukkin irony of some guy with "OfTheCross" as his name being against feeding/sheltering the homeless

Jesus would be very proud

 

[OfTheCross]

That's specifically why I quoted the Constitution, showing how the Federal Government founded itself on the basis of preserving the general welfare, etc. But like I said, you libertarian retards think the federal government should only deal with shooting people.

The fukkin irony of some guy with "OfTheCross" as his name being against feeding/sheltering the homeless

Jesus would be very proud

Yes, keep reading the document you quoted. It doesn't end at the intro.

Your State exist for a reason.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

Dammit man. I can't leave a reply and come back to the page on mobile anymore without everything being erased.

So, no links and I'm just gonna summarize what I was going to previously say in a more eloquent manner.

Homelessness is a local issue and NY and Cali should handle their issue. I encourage them to do everything possible and any means possible.

Most "homeless" people already have a place to stay, so that 500k is less than 250k, or .0008 of Americans

Flint's water was also a local issue.

Yes, and if anything didn't COVID and Flint prove to us that not only does the "small government" trope not work. Some Local governments will ACTIVELY attempt to cause suffering to their populace. When that happens it's the federal governments job to step in and protect the citizens. It's a dereliction of duty not to do so.

The situation with homeless Americans is no different.

 

[DEAD7]

Yes, and if anything didn't COVID and Flint prove to us that not only does the "small government" trope not work. Some Local governments will ACTIVELY attempt to cause suffering to their populace. When that happens it's the federal governments job to step in and protect the citizens. It's a dereliction of duty not to do so.

The situation with homeless Americans is no different.

I think neither of those examples prove that… looking to The White House for Covid guidance was ridiculous, and Obama drinking flint water declaring it safe was embarrassing as well.
Govt. has failures at all levels doesn’t mean “it doesn’t work”.

But if you wanna say it doesn’t work I’m not gonna argue.

 

[OfTheCross]

Yes, and if anything didn't COVID and Flint prove to us that not only does the "small government" trope not work. Some Local governments will ACTIVELY attempt to cause suffering to their populace. When that happens it's the federal governments job to step in and protect the citizens. It's a dereliction of duty not to do so.

The situation with homeless Americans is no different.

That's a good comment but it's not a good argument.

The Federal government is limited in its' Powers. It's not their job to make sure that everyone in every State is happy.

Or to stop the States from hurting their residents. All the Federal government can do is work within the bounds that it's allowed.

Part of the "Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" is the ability to govern yourself locally.

The Liberty to handle things in your own way.

 

[OfTheCross]

I think neither of those examples prove that… looking to The White House for Covid guidance was ridiculous, and Obama drinking flint water declaring it safe was embarrassing as well.
Govt. has failures at all levels doesn’t mean “it doesn’t work”.

But if you wanna say it doesn’t work I’m not gonna argue.

Using the National government to coordinate Covid relief made sense because it was a virus that could easily spread nationwide.

It's smart for all of the States, via the Federal government, to work together on that.

 

[No1]

Using the National government to coordinate Covid relief made sense because it was a virus that could easily spread nationwide.

It's smart for all of the States, via the Federal government, to work together on that.

Not to respond to any individual post but you’re making yourself seem like a psycho in here. This is similar to your college education and rent positions, which alienate anyone who isn’t to the right or far right. Your argument basically boils down to - unless something reaches a critical mass where it effects me then we shouldn’t deal with it at all and I don’t want my tax dollars being spent on it. Now mind you, New York and California are two of the richest states in the country and our tax dollars are literally why states in your region of the country don’t have have the same problem. We are subsidizing your population and if we decided that it’s not our problem then your entire region would go to shyt. You’re remarkably shortsighted. Moreover, we have a bunch of people who are a foot away from being homeless or live in horrible public housing. We have a major problem of affordable and livable housing. Being homeless is just the worst case scenario and every serious analysis of the issue tackles both at once.

 

[OfTheCross]

Not to respond to any individual post but you’re making yourself seem like a psycho in here. This is similar to your college education and rent positions, which alienate anyone who isn’t to the right or far right. Your argument basically boils down to - unless something reaches a critical mass where it effects me then we shouldn’t deal with it at all and I don’t want my tax dollars being spent on it. Now mind you, New York and California are two of the richest states in the country and our tax dollars are literally why states in your region of the country don’t have have the same problem. We are subsidizing your population and if we decided that it’s not our problem then your entire region would go to shyt. You’re remarkably shortsighted. Moreover, we have a bunch of people who are a foot away from being homeless or live in horrible public housing. We have a major problem of affordable and livable housing. Being homeless is just the worst case scenario and every serious analysis of the issue tackles both at once.

You're assigning positions to me that I haven't taken.

Regarding this homelessness situation, I have not said that it needs to reach critical mass, or that I'm against my tax dollars paying for programs that help the homeless. There's protocol and a chain of command, though.

1. It's empirically a local issue, and an extremely small percentage of Americans that are homeless and unsheltered

2. Those States and cities should handle their homeless situations. I am all for my tax dollars handling it if I lived there.

3. If for whatever reason those States and cities are unable to handle the homelessness in their area, their Congressional Representatives can go to bat for them to get some funds allocated for a shelter or whatever else they need.

But this does not require the whole of the Federal government to move. It's not a National problem, it's local.

 

[Consigliere]

So basically free housing for the entire country?

 

[DEAD7]

So basically free housing for the entire country?

“Free” triggers people, but yes.

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

90% of this is drug addiction.

We need to give drug addicts a place to stay and allow them to get high.

If they want help to kick the addiction, we should fund that as well....but most don't. They just want to get high. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

90% of this is drug addiction.

We need to give drug addicts a place to stay and allow them to get high.

If they want help to kick the addiction, we should fund that as well....but most don't. They just want to get high. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Its a component of the drug war in that these addicts are viewed negatively in a war context instead of what they should be viewed as which is as medical patients.

 

[DEAD7]

90% of this is drug addiction.

We need to give drug addicts a place to stay and allow them to get high.

If they want help to kick the addiction, we should fund that as well....but most don't. They just want to get high. And there's nothing wrong with that.