Your scenario is already playing itself out. You're just creating a scenario for an even greater the gov't can help you if you are unwilling to help yourself scenario.
It isn't my scenario and I answered your question as best I could. I'm started to feel badgered and I'm not interested in this getting unfriendly, friend.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Your scenario is already playing itself out. You're just creating a scenario for an even greater the gov't can help you if you are unwilling to help yourself scenario.
It isn't my scenario and I answered your question as best I could. I'm started to feel badgered and I'm not interested in this getting unfriendly, friend.
You are correct. I should not have said "Your." All I was referring to was the idea you brought up which was from a friend. I also don't mean to badger you.
I am trying to help you see the fallacy of the plan. You asked for opinions, so opinions you should expect. But, you should probably have expected more negative opinions than positive. Whenever posting something, you are more likely to get - this is why that's wrong - than - wow! what a wonderful idea.
I actually like that you posted this "plan." It definitely would be a perfect place to live. I just wonder how it would work in reality considering what we have already experienced in similar instances.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
It isn't my scenario and I answered your question as best I could. I'm started to feel badgered and I'm not interested in this getting unfriendly, friend.
Don't let the badgering get to you. I see most posts (including mine) tend to follow party lines. But is does highlight the complexity in what is proposed.
In order for this to work, it's going to take private investment in developing a prototype. Be it a group that receives a grant from Bill Gates, or something personally managed by a philanthropist, a specific plan needs to be developed and then implemented. They need to monitor the test group and see what helps and what doesn't work. A group of motivated people need to spear-head this and they need the financial support of a donor.
The best way to do it is to come up with a good plan, and then establish three test sites in L.A., Chicago, and New York. The supervisors would need to coordinate weekly and see what works and what doesn't work. They could also find out that something that works well in L.A., may not work so well in Chicago. That way, you don't develop a successful blueprint in one city, and only find out it fails in different geographic areas.
It could take a few years of study, but once a good system is established, it can spread from city to city. Also, I don't believe that a government-run institution will be able to successfully complete this mission. This needs to be a group of highly motivated and educated individuals that are not bogged down in bureaucracy.
I think it's a good idea - or at least a pretty good start. You're really only talking about housing the homeless in what sounds similar to giant, better homeless shelters.
It's absolutely shameful that such a wealthy nation has so many people who have to live on the streets. I was recently talking to the Chief of a location in rural Kenya - one of the poorest areas of the world, with poverty like most of us will never even understand - and he was absolutely shocked that anyone in the US would go hungry or live on the streets. Even there, where many people don't have so much as a glass of drinkable water, people pitch in to help the least fortunate in their communities.
Anyway, I think the likelihood of half the population of people with real homes & jobs choosing to give up their homes & jobs to live here is about the same as the likelihood of half the people now saying we're not going to work because we could just move into a homeless shelter instead. And no one has a fear of that happening. No one WANTS to live in a homeless shelter.
My primary concern would be security & services for the mentally ill. I'm not saying that poor people are criminals or anything like that. But I am acknowledging that many of our nation's homeless are mentally ill (many, of course, being veterans). So we'd have to take special care for that. Of course, we should be providing that care anyway. If we did, we wouldn't have so many homeless people to begin with.
Here's the problem - there are many people taking that don't need to be taking. Thereby, taking up resources that could be going to folks that REALLY need the help. This plan only exacerbates that problem. If we could eliminate the "free loaders," the problem wouldn't exist. Nobody does not want to help. It's that the help is so broad and unwieldy that it's unsustainable.
I disagree. I think "free loading" is more of a problem of perception & prejudice than it is a legitimate problem. (That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that I don't think it's as big a problem as some people make it out to be.) We are the richest country in the world. We have enough resources to take care of everyone who needs help and some freeloaders, if that's what it takes. All we would need to do is get our priorities straight, and that includes not using freeloaders (mythical or real) as an excuse to not help those who really are in need.
Don't let the badgering get to you. I see most posts (including mine) tend to follow party lines. But is does highlight the complexity in what is proposed.
In order for this to work, it's going to take private investment in developing a prototype. Be it a group that receives a grant from Bill Gates, or something personally managed by a philanthropist, a specific plan needs to be developed and then implemented. They need to monitor the test group and see what helps and what doesn't work. A group of motivated people need to spear-head this and they need the financial support of a donor.
The best way to do it is to come up with a good plan, and then establish three test sites in L.A., Chicago, and New York. The supervisors would need to coordinate weekly and see what works and what doesn't work. They could also find out that something that works well in L.A., may not work so well in Chicago. That way, you don't develop a successful blueprint in one city, and only find out it fails in different geographic areas.
It could take a few years of study, but once a good system is established, it can spread from city to city. Also, I don't believe that a government-run institution will be able to successfully complete this mission. This needs to be a group of highly motivated and educated individuals that are not bogged down in bureaucracy.
I'll bet Google could do it.
Again, sounds good in theory. But, it would take a lot longer than a few years to get results. You would need an entire gernation to figure this out. And, what's more, it still wouldn't be broadly applicable. You would simply have your "control group" for the experiment. Yes, this could work on a smal, contralled scale. It has not worked on a citywide, let alone state or national level. NYC has a number of similar failed experiments like this.
And there would be a bureaucracy. Even if it's the educated, motivated individuals you hope for. They would still need to set up protocols, rules, procedures, etc. And that is a bureaucracy.
The "new" idea we need is not new at all. It's what Rudy Giuliani did with NYC (that Bloomberg is slowly undoing). He's done it. It's a shame the right is too worried about the religious implications of his divorces, et. al and the left is too scared of forcing people to help themselves.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,431
I just wonder how it would work in reality considering what we have already experienced in similar instances.
I'm sorry to say that's mostly likely true. I'm not even sure what could be done to make something like this work and it's easy to fall into a pessimistic view about anythings useful working but I'm obstinate that way- I always look for things that will or might work.
So let's assume you're right and the scenario doesn't work because it gets overwhelmed with to many numbers- I still don't think that would happen but let's it does... then what? Is there a better plan? Do we really just let people starve and die in the streets? Is there a way my friends plan can be refined so it does work?
This idea was brought up over a conversation about the number of Vietnam vets who are homeless. In a country that abandons even the men it sends off to wars (or anyone who is homeless for whatever reason) we really would do well to look for answers. As an citizen of a very wealthy country, I've always believed no one should go hungry or homeless.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I disagree. I think "free loading" is more of a problem of perception & prejudice than it is a legitimate problem. (That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that I don't think it's as big a problem as some people make it out to be.) We are the richest country in the world. We have enough resources to take care of everyone who needs help and some freeloaders, if that's what it takes. All we would need to do is get our priorities straight, and that includes not using freeloaders (mythical or real) as an excuse to not help those who really are in need.
I would guess what you think I'm defining as free loading is not right. There are free loaders (As you parenthetically admit to). I think that populace is bigger than you do, I'm guessing. I understand there are folks that need help. But, there are folks that think they need help that if pushed in the right direction would fend for themsleves.
You're ok taking care of many free loaders to help the broader good. I'm of the belief we need to devise ways to eliminate the incentive of being a free loader to help natural courses differentiate.
Again - look at David Dinkins' NYC and Rudy Giuliani's NYC. That's the difference in our perceptions. Dinkins did not believe you could reduce welfare rolls, and as a matter of fact thought they had to grow. Rudy said - to hell with that AND we are cleaning this town up. If you lived around NYC in both eras, it is clear which is the better place to live for EVERYONE.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I just wonder how it would work in reality considering what we have already experienced in similar instances.
I'm sorry to say that's mostly likely true. I'm not even sure what could be done to make something like this work and it's easy to fall into a pessimistic view about anythings useful working but I'm obstinate that way- I always look for things that will or might work.
So let's assume you're right and the scenario doesn't work because it gets overwhelmed with to many numbers- I still don't think that would happen but let's it does... then what? Is there a better plan? Do we really just let people starve and die in the streets? Is there a way my friends plan can be refined so it does work?
This idea was brought up over a conversation about the number of Vietnam vets who are homeless. In a country that abandons even the men it sends off to wars (or anyone who is homeless for whatever reason) we really would do well to look for answers. As an citizen of a very wealthy country, I've always believed no one should go hungry or homeless.
Rudy Giuliani. Teach to fish. Don't give the fish. And enforce the laws strictly.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Again, sounds good in theory. But, it would take a lot longer than a few years to get results. You would need an entire gernation to figure this out. And, what's more, it still wouldn't be broadly applicable. You would simply have your "control group" for the experiment. Yes, this could work on a smal, contralled scale. It has not worked on a citywide, let alone state or national level. NYC has a number of similar failed experiments like this.
And there would be a bureaucracy. Even if it's the educated, motivated individuals you hope for. They would still need to set up protocols, rules, procedures, etc. And that is a bureaucracy.
The "new" idea we need is not new at all. It's what Rudy Giuliani did with NYC (that Bloomberg is slowly undoing). He's done it. It's a shame the right is too worried about the religious implications of his divorces, et. al and the left is too scared of forcing people to help themselves.
So what did Giuliani do with NYC? I wasn't aware that they had eliminated homelessness.
This idea was brought up over a conversation about the number of Vietnam vets who are homeless. In a country that abandons even the men it sends off to wars (or anyone who is homeless for whatever reason) we really would do well to look for answers. As an citizen of a very wealthy country, I've always believed no one should go hungry or homeless.
100% - our parents did a crappy job taking care of their own (And their kids) after Vietnam. That's a disgrace. Due to that, there are much better programs for folks leaving the military now. Still needs to do better. But, that doesn't answer the entire question you originally were trying to answer. That's just a small (but important) part of it.
And, the mental health issue in this country (which is a lot of what you are talking about - not everything, but a lot) needs to be much better handled in general.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I disagree. I think "free loading" is more of a problem of perception & prejudice than it is a legitimate problem. (That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that I don't think it's as big a problem as some people make it out to be.) We are the richest country in the world. We have enough resources to take care of everyone who needs help and some freeloaders, if that's what it takes. All we would need to do is get our priorities straight, and that includes not using freeloaders (mythical or real) as an excuse to not help those who really are in need.
I would guess what you think I'm defining as free loading is not right. There are free loaders (As you parenthetically admit to). I think that populace is bigger than you do, I'm guessing. I understand there are folks that need help. But, there are folks that think they need help that if pushed in the right direction would fend for themsleves.
You're ok taking care of many free loaders to help the broader good. I'm of the belief we need to devise ways to eliminate the incentive of being a free loader to help natural courses differentiate.
Again - look at David Dinkins' NYC and Rudy Giuliani's NYC. That's the difference in our perceptions. Dinkins did not believe you could reduce welfare rolls, and as a matter of fact thought they had to grow. Rudy said - to hell with that AND we are cleaning this town up. If you lived around NYC in both eras, it is clear which is the better place to live for EVERYONE.
Regarding your middle paragraph, do you think we should "eliminate the incentive of being a free loader" even if it means failing to care for some people in need?
This idea was brought up over a conversation about the number of Vietnam vets who are homeless. In a country that abandons even the men it sends off to wars (or anyone who is homeless for whatever reason) we really would do well to look for answers. As an citizen of a very wealthy country, I've always believed no one should go hungry or homeless.
100% - our parents did a crappy job taking care of their own (And their kids) after Vietnam. That's a disgrace. Due to that, there are much better programs for folks leaving the military now. Still needs to do better. But, that doesn't answer the entire question you originally were trying to answer. That's just a small (but important) part of it.
And, the mental health issue in this country (which is a lot of what you are talking about - not everything, but a lot) needs to be much better handled in general.
Better watch what you say. I think Brian is of our parents' generation.
Again, sounds good in theory. But, it would take a lot longer than a few years to get results. You would need an entire gernation to figure this out. And, what's more, it still wouldn't be broadly applicable. You would simply have your "control group" for the experiment. Yes, this could work on a smal, contralled scale. It has not worked on a citywide, let alone state or national level. NYC has a number of similar failed experiments like this.
And there would be a bureaucracy. Even if it's the educated, motivated individuals you hope for. They would still need to set up protocols, rules, procedures, etc. And that is a bureaucracy.
The "new" idea we need is not new at all. It's what Rudy Giuliani did with NYC (that Bloomberg is slowly undoing). He's done it. It's a shame the right is too worried about the religious implications of his divorces, et. al and the left is too scared of forcing people to help themselves.
So what did Giuliani do with NYC? I wasn't aware that they had eliminated homelessness.
You are 100% correct. He did not totally solve the homeless problem. But, he minimized it. He cleaned up the streets, and lowered poverty, decreased welfare recipient rolls and increased revenue to the city to promote more services and a better quality of living. Was he perfect? By no means. But, his NYC is a guide that someone should use to put the nation on a much better course, so we can even begin to get to that level of the issue (i.e. eliminate ALL homelessness).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
This idea was brought up over a conversation about the number of Vietnam vets who are homeless. In a country that abandons even the men it sends off to wars (or anyone who is homeless for whatever reason) we really would do well to look for answers. As an citizen of a very wealthy country, I've always believed no one should go hungry or homeless.
100% - our parents did a crappy job taking care of their own (And their kids) after Vietnam. That's a disgrace. Due to that, there are much better programs for folks leaving the military now. Still needs to do better. But, that doesn't answer the entire question you originally were trying to answer. That's just a small (but important) part of it.
And, the mental health issue in this country (which is a lot of what you are talking about - not everything, but a lot) needs to be much better handled in general.
Better watch what you say. I think Brian is of our parents' generation.
Yeah. I don't say that to point out an individual or even a group. Just the fact that the US, in general did a poor job with all that. That doesn't indict everyone. It indicts us as a group.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Again, sounds good in theory. But, it would take a lot longer than a few years to get results. You would need an entire gernation to figure this out. And, what's more, it still wouldn't be broadly applicable. You would simply have your "control group" for the experiment. Yes, this could work on a smal, contralled scale. It has not worked on a citywide, let alone state or national level. NYC has a number of similar failed experiments like this.
And there would be a bureaucracy. Even if it's the educated, motivated individuals you hope for. They would still need to set up protocols, rules, procedures, etc. And that is a bureaucracy.
The "new" idea we need is not new at all. It's what Rudy Giuliani did with NYC (that Bloomberg is slowly undoing). He's done it. It's a shame the right is too worried about the religious implications of his divorces, et. al and the left is too scared of forcing people to help themselves.
So what did Giuliani do with NYC? I wasn't aware that they had eliminated homelessness.
You are 100% correct. He did not totally solve the homeless problem. But, he minimized it. He cleaned up the streets, and lowered poverty, decreased welfare recipient rolls and increased revenue to the city to promote more services and a better quality of living. Was he perfect? By no means. But, his NYC is a guide that someone should use to put the nation on a much better course, so we can even begin to get to that level of the issue (i.e. eliminate ALL homelessness).
But how did he accomplish this? And why do you think his plan that failed to eliminate homelessness is the best plan to eliminate homelessness? (And I wouldn't necessarily count decreasing welfare recipient rolls as an accomplishment, especially when we're talking about how to help more - not fewer - people. It depends on why they decreased.)
First off, I love Guilani, i worked in Manhattan even before he was Mayor, he was outstanding, but alot of the policies he gets credit for were programs that were going to be implemented by Dinkin's, but he didn't get the second term to prove himself. just sayin.
I would guess what you think I'm defining as free loading is not right. There are free loaders (As you parenthetically admit to). I think that populace is bigger than you do, I'm guessing. I understand there are folks that need help. But, there are folks that think they need help that if pushed in the right direction would fend for themsleves.
You're ok taking care of many free loaders to help the broader good. I'm of the belief we need to devise ways to eliminate the incentive of being a free loader to help natural courses differentiate.
Again - look at David Dinkins' NYC and Rudy Giuliani's NYC. That's the difference in our perceptions. Dinkins did not believe you could reduce welfare rolls, and as a matter of fact thought they had to grow. Rudy said - to hell with that AND we are cleaning this town up. If you lived around NYC in both eras, it is clear which is the better place to live for EVERYONE.
Regarding your middle paragraph, do you think we should "eliminate the incentive of being a free loader" even if it means failing to care for some people in need?
Unfortunately, some folks will probably "fall through the cracks," at least initially. But, I think that to get to that you have to solve the broader issue. I, too, would hope we could help every last person. But, unfortunately, I don't think that's possible unless we shut the borders and start limiting births (I am not suggesting either - for the record - I am opposed to both ideas - that is not DIRECTLY the problem). So, yes, I guess the unfortunate reality is there may be a small portion that goes unattended until we can fix the greater problem. But, my hope would be that could be addressed, as well.
We can provide greater for fewer. The more that need help, the less you can help. Again, until we get to the reality that there is only so much money in the till, none of this will be solved.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
First off, I love Guilani, i worked in Manhattan even before he was Mayor, he was outstanding, but alot of the policies he gets credit for were programs that were going to be implemented by Dinkin's, but he didn't get the second term to prove himself. just sayin.
Let's change a lot to a few, and you're correct. But, Giuliani put the money into the police. Dinkins insisted on greater welfare rolls. If Dinkins had been given a second term, I wonder what NYC would look like right now. That's an alternate reality that even Dinkins doesn't want....
Giuliani was far from perfect. He had missteps of his own. But, NYC was much better in pretty much any perspective because of him.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I have very little faith in humanity as a group. Individuals have proven me wrong many times, but groups rarely have...(hope that makes sense)
As such I have very little faith that a government could possibly run something like this no matter how good the intention. And I have very little faith that a populace as described by so many here at the AMT as greedy, apathetic, and selfish could possibly not abuse the shit out of this type of system. Certainly the logic that most people wouldn't want to give up what they have now to live in the free areas holds true, but that is right now. What about 2 - 3 generations down the road. We have generational poverty now...wouldn't it be feasible to think that we would have generational dorm users? that we would have whole families never leave them?
I think it is in our nature to provide for one's self, after all we are animals...if you take the need to provide for yourself, I have faith that people born and raised in these dorms will simply become like zoo animals. They are great in their environment, but if you bring them back out into the "wild" they will surely not be able to make it.
would be wonderful if we could all simply live lives and do what we love and not have to worry about where the next meal comes from...but that changes a fundamental aspect of nature...and messing with nature is a bad thing...as I have also heard here many many times I just don't think that we are any different from other animals in our most basic sense, and that alone is why I don't think something like this could ever work on a large scale.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,431
First off, I love Guilani, i worked in Manhattan even before he was Mayor, he was outstanding, but alot of the policies he gets credit for were programs that were going to be implemented by Dinkin's, but he didn't get the second term to prove himself. just sayin.
Let's change a lot to a few, and you're correct. But, Giuliani put the money into the police. Dinkins insisted on greater welfare rolls. If Dinkins had been given a second term, I wonder what NYC would look like right now. That's an alternate reality that even Dinkins doesn't want....
Giuliani was far from perfect. He had missteps of his own. But, NYC was much better in pretty much any perspective because of him.
Hey, who said I'm that much older than you guys? :evil:
Anyway, getting back to New York-- from what I hear, things really have improved there. The first time I visited NYC it was a disgrace- rutted muddy streets, horse shit everywhere, a soaring population of almost 2 million people yet only half the building had electricity and maybe 2/3 had running water. Things are definitely much better there today.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
It isn't my scenario and I answered your question as best I could. I'm started to feel badgered and I'm not interested in this getting unfriendly, friend.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
You are correct. I should not have said "Your." All I was referring to was the idea you brought up which was from a friend. I also don't mean to badger you.
I am trying to help you see the fallacy of the plan. You asked for opinions, so opinions you should expect. But, you should probably have expected more negative opinions than positive. Whenever posting something, you are more likely to get - this is why that's wrong - than - wow! what a wonderful idea.
I actually like that you posted this "plan." It definitely would be a perfect place to live. I just wonder how it would work in reality considering what we have already experienced in similar instances.
In order for this to work, it's going to take private investment in developing a prototype. Be it a group that receives a grant from Bill Gates, or something personally managed by a philanthropist, a specific plan needs to be developed and then implemented. They need to monitor the test group and see what helps and what doesn't work. A group of motivated people need to spear-head this and they need the financial support of a donor.
The best way to do it is to come up with a good plan, and then establish three test sites in L.A., Chicago, and New York. The supervisors would need to coordinate weekly and see what works and what doesn't work. They could also find out that something that works well in L.A., may not work so well in Chicago. That way, you don't develop a successful blueprint in one city, and only find out it fails in different geographic areas.
It could take a few years of study, but once a good system is established, it can spread from city to city. Also, I don't believe that a government-run institution will be able to successfully complete this mission. This needs to be a group of highly motivated and educated individuals that are not bogged down in bureaucracy.
I'll bet Google could do it.
I disagree. I think "free loading" is more of a problem of perception & prejudice than it is a legitimate problem. (That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that I don't think it's as big a problem as some people make it out to be.) We are the richest country in the world. We have enough resources to take care of everyone who needs help and some freeloaders, if that's what it takes. All we would need to do is get our priorities straight, and that includes not using freeloaders (mythical or real) as an excuse to not help those who really are in need.
Again, sounds good in theory. But, it would take a lot longer than a few years to get results. You would need an entire gernation to figure this out. And, what's more, it still wouldn't be broadly applicable. You would simply have your "control group" for the experiment. Yes, this could work on a smal, contralled scale. It has not worked on a citywide, let alone state or national level. NYC has a number of similar failed experiments like this.
And there would be a bureaucracy. Even if it's the educated, motivated individuals you hope for. They would still need to set up protocols, rules, procedures, etc. And that is a bureaucracy.
The "new" idea we need is not new at all. It's what Rudy Giuliani did with NYC (that Bloomberg is slowly undoing). He's done it. It's a shame the right is too worried about the religious implications of his divorces, et. al and the left is too scared of forcing people to help themselves.
I'm sorry to say that's mostly likely true. I'm not even sure what could be done to make something like this work and it's easy to fall into a pessimistic view about anythings useful working but I'm obstinate that way- I always look for things that will or might work.
So let's assume you're right and the scenario doesn't work because it gets overwhelmed with to many numbers- I still don't think that would happen but let's it does... then what? Is there a better plan? Do we really just let people starve and die in the streets? Is there a way my friends plan can be refined so it does work?
This idea was brought up over a conversation about the number of Vietnam vets who are homeless. In a country that abandons even the men it sends off to wars (or anyone who is homeless for whatever reason) we really would do well to look for answers. As an citizen of a very wealthy country, I've always believed no one should go hungry or homeless.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I would guess what you think I'm defining as free loading is not right. There are free loaders (As you parenthetically admit to). I think that populace is bigger than you do, I'm guessing. I understand there are folks that need help. But, there are folks that think they need help that if pushed in the right direction would fend for themsleves.
You're ok taking care of many free loaders to help the broader good. I'm of the belief we need to devise ways to eliminate the incentive of being a free loader to help natural courses differentiate.
Again - look at David Dinkins' NYC and Rudy Giuliani's NYC. That's the difference in our perceptions. Dinkins did not believe you could reduce welfare rolls, and as a matter of fact thought they had to grow. Rudy said - to hell with that AND we are cleaning this town up. If you lived around NYC in both eras, it is clear which is the better place to live for EVERYONE.
Rudy Giuliani. Teach to fish. Don't give the fish. And enforce the laws strictly.
So what did Giuliani do with NYC? I wasn't aware that they had eliminated homelessness.
100% - our parents did a crappy job taking care of their own (And their kids) after Vietnam. That's a disgrace. Due to that, there are much better programs for folks leaving the military now. Still needs to do better. But, that doesn't answer the entire question you originally were trying to answer. That's just a small (but important) part of it.
And, the mental health issue in this country (which is a lot of what you are talking about - not everything, but a lot) needs to be much better handled in general.
Regarding your middle paragraph, do you think we should "eliminate the incentive of being a free loader" even if it means failing to care for some people in need?
Better watch what you say. I think Brian is of our parents' generation.
You are 100% correct. He did not totally solve the homeless problem. But, he minimized it. He cleaned up the streets, and lowered poverty, decreased welfare recipient rolls and increased revenue to the city to promote more services and a better quality of living. Was he perfect? By no means. But, his NYC is a guide that someone should use to put the nation on a much better course, so we can even begin to get to that level of the issue (i.e. eliminate ALL homelessness).
But how did he accomplish this? And why do you think his plan that failed to eliminate homelessness is the best plan to eliminate homelessness? (And I wouldn't necessarily count decreasing welfare recipient rolls as an accomplishment, especially when we're talking about how to help more - not fewer - people. It depends on why they decreased.)
Unfortunately, some folks will probably "fall through the cracks," at least initially. But, I think that to get to that you have to solve the broader issue. I, too, would hope we could help every last person. But, unfortunately, I don't think that's possible unless we shut the borders and start limiting births (I am not suggesting either - for the record - I am opposed to both ideas - that is not DIRECTLY the problem). So, yes, I guess the unfortunate reality is there may be a small portion that goes unattended until we can fix the greater problem. But, my hope would be that could be addressed, as well.
We can provide greater for fewer. The more that need help, the less you can help. Again, until we get to the reality that there is only so much money in the till, none of this will be solved.
Let's change a lot to a few, and you're correct. But, Giuliani put the money into the police. Dinkins insisted on greater welfare rolls. If Dinkins had been given a second term, I wonder what NYC would look like right now. That's an alternate reality that even Dinkins doesn't want....
Giuliani was far from perfect. He had missteps of his own. But, NYC was much better in pretty much any perspective because of him.
Really? It seems like the OP is describing the exact opposite.
As such I have very little faith that a government could possibly run something like this no matter how good the intention. And I have very little faith that a populace as described by so many here at the AMT as greedy, apathetic, and selfish could possibly not abuse the shit out of this type of system. Certainly the logic that most people wouldn't want to give up what they have now to live in the free areas holds true, but that is right now. What about 2 - 3 generations down the road. We have generational poverty now...wouldn't it be feasible to think that we would have generational dorm users? that we would have whole families never leave them?
I think it is in our nature to provide for one's self, after all we are animals...if you take the need to provide for yourself, I have faith that people born and raised in these dorms will simply become like zoo animals. They are great in their environment, but if you bring them back out into the "wild" they will surely not be able to make it.
would be wonderful if we could all simply live lives and do what we love and not have to worry about where the next meal comes from...but that changes a fundamental aspect of nature...and messing with nature is a bad thing...as I have also heard here many many times
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Hey, who said I'm that much older than you guys? :evil:
Anyway, getting back to New York-- from what I hear, things really have improved there. The first time I visited NYC it was a disgrace- rutted muddy streets, horse shit everywhere, a soaring population of almost 2 million people yet only half the building had electricity and maybe 2/3 had running water. Things are definitely much better there today.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"