Plan for how to meet everyone's basic needs.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

_ wrote:

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?

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

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.

EdsonNascimento

_ wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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).

EdsonNascimento

_ wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

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.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

_ wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.)

BinauralJam

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.

EdsonNascimento

_ wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.

EdsonNascimento

BinauralJam wrote:

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.

CH156378

MayDay Malone wrote:

What the OP is describing, we already have.

It is called The Ghetto.

Really? It seems like the OP is describing the exact opposite.

mikepegg44

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.

brianlux

EdsonNascimento wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

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.