A $50 lesson

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

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.

OK Crater, let's say you have us sold on the idea. So what you propose to do is take what we already pay in taxes and spend that money by buying/building homes for the homeless. When that's paid for how much does my taxes get cut because we've saved all kinds of money with your plan?...Right, cause the savings notion is [poo]. You don't REALLY want the people who work hard to stop working for others. You want us to work harder and pay more to those who don't. "Spend more money making their lives easier NOW and they'll be less of a burden down the road, I promise," is the empty lie told by those who think they are being good and doing right but aren't fundamentally bright enough to wake up and smell what they're shoveling.

Whats been PROVEN is when you give someone something for free it has no value. The REAL solution is give people opportunities to do real work and those that can and will, will. Those that can't and won't, won't. They will always be a burden. Carry them, don't carry them...it actually doesn't er.

[Darth Crater]

OK Crater, let's say you have us sold on the idea. So what you propose to do is take what we already pay in taxes and spend that money by buying/building homes for the homeless. When that's paid for how much does my taxes get cut because we've saved all kinds of money with your plan?...Right, cause the savings notion is [poo]. You don't REALLY want the people who work hard to stop working for others. You want us to work harder and pay more to those who don't. "Spend more money making their lives easier NOW and they'll be less of a burden down the road, I promise," is the empty lie told by those who think they are being good and doing right but aren't fundamentally bright enough to wake up and smell what they're shoveling.

Whats been PROVEN is when you give someone something for free it has no value. The REAL solution is give people opportunities to do real work and those that can and will, will. Those that can't and won't, won't. They will always be a burden. Carry them, don't carry them...it actually doesn't er.

Actual experts have done the math. Then they tried it, and it worked. This saves money in both theory and practice, and works out better for the homeless too. Look up "Housing First" in Utah (a Republican state! No tricks here, this is literally a conservative policy!). I would find more for you now but I have to deal with:

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.

Holy [m'kay] you are an actual Nazi

Like, seriously, you just told me that you want to round up the undesirables and have them killed. And then cremated, just to drive it home.

What the [m'kay] is wrong with you?

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

OK Crater, let's say you have us sold on the idea. So what you propose to do is take what we already pay in taxes and spend that money by buying/building homes for the homeless. When that's paid for how much does my taxes get cut because we've saved all kinds of money with your plan?...Right, cause the savings notion is [poo]. You don't REALLY want the people who work hard to stop working for others. You want us to work harder and pay more to those who don't. "Spend more money making their lives easier NOW and they'll be less of a burden down the road, I promise," is the empty lie told by those who think they are being good and doing right but aren't fundamentally bright enough to wake up and smell what they're shoveling.

Whats been PROVEN is when you give someone something for free it has no value. The REAL solution is give people opportunities to do real work and those that can and will, will. Those that can't and won't, won't. They will always be a burden. Carry them, don't carry them...it actually doesn't er.

Actual experts have done the math. Then they tried it, and it worked. This saves money in both theory and practice, and works out better for the homeless too. Look up "Housing First" in Utah (a Republican state! No tricks here, this is literally a conservative policy!). I would find more for you now but I have to deal with:

PAY ATTENTION!! I'm saying that it saves NO money, because nothing is returned to those spending it (being taxed!) The programs which have reduced impacts don't cut their budgets and return the unused money! So NOTHING IS SAVED!

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.

Holy [m'kay] you are an actual Nazi

Like, seriously, you just told me that you want to round up the undesirables and have them killed. And then cremated, just to drive it home.

What the [m'kay] is wrong with you?

Please read Jonathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal" and find a classic version of sarcastic homeless hyperbole. I'm fairly certain WD's comments (being a well read and educated grownup) were in the same tradition and comedic spirit.

[FaiL.?]

I have to agree with Crater here.
First off, please regard these "illegals" with a little more respect. It's not their [m'kay]ing fault that they come into the country. America is seen as "The Land of Dreams" to most Mexicans. Also, their government is crumbling and the living conditions are horrible. Don't believe me? Take a trip to Mexico City, or some other spots, after you get past the hotels and resorts, there is some scary stuff there. So them leaving is because of opportunity at other places. Take me for example. I am an English immigrant, as is the rest of my family. We all came here because of my father's job, he is an engineer. Alright he already had a college degree and work experience, but it doesn't er. This is still a place of opportunity, no er where you're from, so let's have a little less disrespect in this debate.
Also, there is a 17 trillion dollar debt with America, but what stops them from spending over 398 billion dollars a year on defense????? Let me put it in perspective for you. $398,000,000,000. If the USA can fork out that much a year for being the world's babysitter, then I think that the collective population of America can help keeping THE WHOLE POPULATION in houses, and with food.
Thank you.

[WD-40]

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.

Holy [m'kay] you are an actual Nazi

Like, seriously, you just told me that you want to round up the undesirables and have them killed. And then cremated, just to drive it home.

What the [m'kay] is wrong with you?

It's called being
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
adjective: facetious

treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
I was Screwing with you. I wouldn't 'really' wack them, or do any of that. I concede, it was a bit much, but you took it hook, line and sinker.

However, there should be some penalty for lazy freeloaders.

[Darth Crater]

It's called being
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
adjective: facetious

treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
I was Screwing with you. I wouldn't 'really' wack them, or do any of that. I concede, it was a bit much, but you took it hook, line and sinker.

However, there should be some penalty for lazy freeloaders.

No.

You do not get to back off from that [poo] with a "lol totally kidding."

Even if your your delivery hadn't been totally sincere. (Which it was, by the way.) This is not something you [m'kay] joke about.

PAY ATTENTION!! I'm saying that it saves NO money, because nothing is returned to those spending it (being taxed!) The programs which have reduced impacts don't cut their budgets and return the unused money! So NOTHING IS SAVED!

That's hardly the program's fault, is it? If you think your administration is that stupid, vote in better ones.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

It's called being
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
adjective: facetious

treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
I was Screwing with you. I wouldn't 'really' wack them, or do any of that. I concede, it was a bit much, but you took it hook, line and sinker.

However, there should be some penalty for lazy freeloaders.

No.

You do not get to back off from that [poo] with a "lol totally kidding."

Even if your your delivery hadn't been totally sincere. (Which it was, by the way.) This is not something you [m'kay] joke about.

PAY ATTENTION!! I'm saying that it saves NO money, because nothing is returned to those spending it (being taxed!) The programs which have reduced impacts don't cut their budgets and return the unused money! So NOTHING IS SAVED!

That's hardly the program's fault, is it? If you think your administration is that stupid, vote in better ones.

What I'm trying to teach you is that only someone that IS stupid would make the promise that it will save money. Either stupid or lying. Both kinds of obnoxious do-gooder should be arrested and re-educated lest the gullible and impressionable try to enact such destructive fantasy.

[WD-40]

It's called being
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
adjective: facetious

treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
I was Screwing with you. I wouldn't 'really' wack them, or do any of that. I concede, it was a bit much, but you took it hook, line and sinker.

However, there should be some penalty for lazy freeloaders.

No. do not give a flying [m'kay] what you think or believe regarding what I wrote! (Your, nor anyone else's opinion does my nor will not influence my beliefs, opinions or motivations).

You do not get to back off from that [poo] with a "lol totally kidding."

Even if your your delivery hadn't been totally sincere. (Which it was, by the way.) This is not something you [m'kay] joke about.

PAY ATTENTION!! I'm saying that it saves NO money, because nothing is returned to those spending it (being taxed!) The programs which have reduced impacts don't cut their budgets and return the unused money! So NOTHING IS SAVED!

That's hardly the program's fault, is it? If you think your administration is that stupid, vote in better ones.

Okay...I shall put it another way...
I do not give a dang what you think or believe regarding what I wrote! Life is too short for that, and you're not a friend of mine.
Now...side note (And what I should have said in the first place...apologies) Genuine 'homeless' (I.e. Physical, emotional, or mental bad luck, etc), I have no problem supporting. Freeloading pan handlers who jump in their personally owned cars and drive home to their personally owned homes or trailers after a full day roadside collecting $$$, should be shot, cremated and their ashes dumped into a landfill! Zeek Heil!!

[Darth Crater]

What I'm trying to teach you is that only someone that IS stupid would make the promise that it will save money. Either stupid or lying. Both kinds of obnoxious do-gooder should be arrested and re-educated lest the gullible and impressionable try to enact such destructive fantasy.

Yes, if you construct a hypothetical government that refuses to ever spend less money on anything, this program will not cause it to spend less money. Shocking. If only there were some way to influence government policies, so that obviously stupid outcomes like this did not come to pass.

The patronizing tone is hilarious, by the way, since you obviously are not more qualified in economics than I am. *cough*gold*cough*

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

What I'm trying to teach you is that only someone that IS stupid would make the promise that it will save money. Either stupid or lying. Both kinds of obnoxious do-gooder should be arrested and re-educated lest the gullible and impressionable try to enact such destructive fantasy.

Yes, if you construct a hypothetical government that refuses to ever spend less money on anything, this program will not cause it to spend less money. Shocking. If only there were some way to influence government policies, so that obviously stupid outcomes like this did not come to pass.

The patronizing tone is hilarious, by the way, since you obviously are not more qualified in economics than I am. *cough*gold*cough*

Please name for me 5 American Governmental programs that were so successful they solved the problem they were created to address and simply ended themselves.

The lesson told by the story that began this thread was a patronizing one. One thing it was meant to illustrate is the "halfway thinking" (I think I'll coin that phrase) that the simply well meaning liberal (there are many kinds of liberals, the most benign of which is the "well-meaning" simpleton represented by the young child and her equally childish parents) engages in and is brilliantly proud of. The simple solution of giving the less fortunate what they are missing is called into question when the girl is asked to bear the burden of the giving by practicing the virtue of altruism's unrewarded labor.

The allegory is brilliant in that if upon posing the offer to the child two outcomes are possible. The first, while being a less entertaining story, would nonetheless be instructive, if the girl simply accepted the offer, did the hard work and gave away the money to the less fortunate. It would be a story of idealism, naivety and the carefree nature of youth and the sheltered.

Outcome number two demonstrates lessons learned and born out of experience and knowledge of motivations of people in the real world. Wisdom.
First, no one wants to give up the $50 earned by their own hard labor. The child who would seemingly have all her needs and wants taken care of by adoring parents and wouldn't NEED $50 is nonetheless reluctant to do the hard work necessary to earn the money just to give it away. Grownups with more mature responsibilities would find it MORE difficult to part with the fruits of their labor.

Second, persons are rightfully responsible for helping themselves, especially to get out of bad situations.

The parents anger at the child's questioning demonstrates how liberals are quick to give up other people's money and condone it by the sanctimonious nature of their superior motives.

Having you name 5 programs should less elegantly than the story elevate your thinking so you won't make wrong-headed claims like "by enacting a program like Housing First American Taxpayers will actually spend less on the homeless than they do now." Maybe you'll also learn that the "hypothetical government" is the one that organically shrinks in funding and sheds authority to coincide with the needs of the people.