swgohome.com

I've seen that one before. OMG. I love it..

Yeah. That's one of the better ones.

Fun fact - giving food and houses to the homeless actually reduces their burden on society. In fact, it costs the state less than half as much to house them than it would to leave them. Reduced incentives for crime, fewer medical conditions, and it's easier for them to return to being productive members of society.

Darth Crater wrote:Fun fact - giving food and houses to the homeless actually reduces their burden on society. In fact, it costs the state less than half as much to house them than it would to leave them. Reduced incentives for crime, fewer medical conditions, and it's easier for them to return to being productive members of society.

I'll be happy to PM you my address if you want to earn $50. I have a LOT of leaves.

Darth Crater wrote:Fun fact - giving food and houses to the homeless actually reduces their burden on society. In fact, it costs the state less than half as much to house them than it would to leave them. Reduced incentives for crime, fewer medical conditions, and it's easier for them to return to being productive members of society.

Sure...Give them 'free [poo]' so they will want to work. Black americans do so well with that idea.

And how is it less of a 'burden' on 'society'?...And by 'society', I mean the 'tax payer'.

LOLOL That is awesome.

It's awesome because it's true in such a simple form. But this is what the country voted for. Al Sharpten said it best: "you knew what you voted for; he TOLD you this is what he was going to do."

Darth Crater wrote:Fun fact - giving food and houses to the homeless actually reduces their burden on society. In fact, it costs the state less than half as much to house them than it would to leave them. Reduced incentives for crime, fewer medical conditions, and it's easier for them to return to being productive members of society.

Essentially, it shifts the cost from the gov't to us (grants/programs at one level of help to a much higher level of help coming from higher taxes). Same [poo], different source. I do not want higher taxes to go to programs that help people who don't want to help themselves.

I'm for helping the homeless if the program forces them to help themselves.

When people tell me, at work, that they can stop paying their mortgage because of the new Socialist-type President (Obama, naturally), and then they DO stop paying, and they STILL get to live there 6 years later, I take issue with that.

imaim wrote:Essentially, it shifts the cost from the gov't to us (grants/programs at one level of help to a much higher level of help coming from higher taxes). Same [poo], different source. I do not want higher taxes to go to programs that help people who don't want to help themselves.

I'm for helping the homeless if the program forces them to help themselves.

The cost to the government is the cost to you - you fund it with your taxes. You are already paying for the homeless in the form of a bunch of less visible costs. Giving out homes reduces the cost to the government, so it reduces the cost to you. I keep hearing that you guys want to reduce government spending - here's a handy way to do it! Sure, it's a bit counter-intuitive, but it's already been proven to work.

Putting restrictions on the housing is apparently less effective than just giving them housing, and then working on their other issues. Again, it's not obvious, but the math is there.

Darth Crater wrote:

imaim wrote:Essentially, it shifts the cost from the gov't to us (grants/programs at one level of help to a much higher level of help coming from higher taxes). Same [poo], different source. I do not want higher taxes to go to programs that help people who don't want to help themselves.

I'm for helping the homeless if the program forces them to help themselves.

The cost to the government is the cost to you - you fund it with your taxes. You are already paying for the homeless in the form of a bunch of less visible costs. Giving out homes reduces the cost to the government, so it reduces the cost to you. I keep hearing that you guys want to reduce government spending - here's a handy way to do it! Sure, it's a bit counter-intuitive, but it's already been proven to work.

Putting restrictions on the housing is apparently less effective than just giving them housing, and then working on their other issues. Again, it's not obvious, but the math is there.

Okay...So...The USA is well over 17 Trillion in debt, and that's only the tip of the iceberg...And you actually believe we have an 'actual surplus' to absorb supporting countless homeless, and that's not including the illegals that are sure to get amnesty soon. There is no feasible way to financially support it. Personally, if you 'choose' to not work and leech off the taxpayer, you should be summarily executed, cremated, and your ashes dumped in the nearest land fill.