Sixty thousand homeless in NYC


Off-Topic Discussions

351 to 400 of 751 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
please. You'd start screeching about government overreach in a second.
My dear Freehold, it isn't Big Government Oppression when the government is oppressing the right people.
Its not government oppression to tell you you cannot have a blank check of someone elses money

You do realize I was referring to mrs. O's initiative to get kids to eat healthy, right? Because..thats what YOU were talking about initally. It has NOTHING to do with money in the slightest! Are you so obstructionist that you can't keep your rants straight?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I was wondering how many people bought $20 worth of cookies with their welfare assistance last night, Citizen R.?

Also, how many children did you hear saying "I can't wait to be old enough to get my own EBT card?" yesterday?

I've decided to start a running tally.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
please. You'd start screeching about government overreach in a second.
My dear Freehold, it isn't Big Government Oppression when the government is oppressing the right people.
Its not government oppression to tell you you cannot have a blank check of someone elses money
You do realize I was referring to mrs. O's initiative to get kids to eat healthy, right? Because..thats what YOU were talking about initally. It has NOTHING to do with money in the slightest! Are you so obstructionist that you can't keep your rants straight?

You only just noticed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hee hee!

I went trawling through the archives, couldn't find exactly what I wanted, so maybe I'm mixing up Citizen R. and Citizen Aretas, but I could've sworn there was one day that Citizen R. was going on about how nobody wants to talk about or do anything about crime in the urban neighborhoods despite all the statistics showing that blacks commit more crime because that would make them a racist, and then, after Obama gave his (imho, quite crappy) Brother's Keeper speech, Citizen R. was all like "That's racist!"


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

IIRC, and I may not, you were considering voting for Huntsman.

Any particular insight into this creeping socialism in the Beehive State?

I always favor the so-called "RINOs" -- in politics, the way to success is by infiltration, not confrontation!

That said, Huntsman had me when he loosened alcohol restrictions (which I wish Corbett had been able to do here in PA). Then he went and said, "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy," and "The minute that the Republican Party becomes the anti-science party, we have a huge problem." It warms my heart!

I don't know anything about Utah's homeless housing initiative, though -- I'll have to read up on it. Mrs Gersen was in SLC not long ago but didn't bother telling me about any of the urban wonders except how good the roads were and how drunk her sister was.

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Hee hee!

I went trawling through the archives, couldn't find exactly what I wanted, so maybe I'm mixing up Citizen R. and Citizen Aretas, but I could've sworn there was one day that Citizen R. was going on about how nobody wants to talk about or do anything about crime in the urban neighborhoods despite all the statistics showing that blacks commit more crime because that would make them a racist, and then, after Obama gave his (imho, quite crappy) Brother's Keeper speech, Citizen R. was all like "That's racist!"

Cities are full of crime regardless of race, crime needs to be punished regardless of race. I think it is the fact that more blacks are concentrated in cities that leads to higher crime rate among black males than anything. I swear cities are bad for the soul.


Andrew R wrote:
I swear cities are bad for the soul.

I suspect that depends on the soul, and on the city. I always felt safer and happier in Houston TX or even Troy NY, for example, than out in the sticks. The only times I've run into problems with meth-heads, or been held up at gunpoint, have been out in the country.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Andrew R wrote:
Wow that was a lengthy load of BULL. No you do not deserve endless luxuries, be thankful other people are paying for you to not starve. yes, people that do not refuse to work and do not wallow in drugs and drink are better people. Canned fruits and veg are cheap and store for years and are actually food as opposed to doritos and redbull, and cheaper so you fail again.

Wow.

A) You really, REALLY need to stop equating anything that provides any level of comfort or quality of life for people with "Luxury", and it would be great if you could find a way to comprehend the idea that human dignity is not something that has a minimum income requirement. People should not "be thankful other people are paying for you to not starve". People should be OUTRAGED that you would let someone starve because you feel that the poor aren't ashamed enough of their condition to recognize that foods like cookies and Doritos are only for the real people, not serfs like them.

B) You need to understand that you, yourself, are basically exactly as much a "freeloader" as the people you hate so much (and please, don't try to pretend you don't hate poor people). First, you need to admit that you depend on society to function. I know it's hard to admit that sometimes, what with your myopic fascination with the myth of rugged individualism, but if you really believe you don't depend on society to function, I invite you to opt out and see how that goes. Second, you need to admit that poor people are just as much a part of that society as you are, and that your cheap fast food, cheap electronics, your consumer goods, your inexpensive, out of season produce - none of that would be possible without the labor of the people you erroneously treat as freeloaders. Hell, instead of poor people thanking you for your "compassion" in grudgingly offering up enough resources for them to survive (as long as they don't enjoy it!), YOU should be thanking THEM for allowing you to benefit from their labor for such a paltry sum.

C) You are non-responsive to my analysis of the economics of food. First, you miss the fact that I'm looking at food prices in terms of calories gained per dollar, not price per can or whatever. Yes, you can buy a can of vegetables for cheap, but a can of vegetables does not a meal make. Once you consider the need for preparation, for multiple ingredients, and for loss due to spoilage, the truth is that "healthy" food is simply a losing bet for poor people. Again, poor people aren't stupid - there are actually good reasons why they buy the things they do, and it's only your stubborn, prejudiced view that prevents you from seeing that. Trust me - if people could afford (taking into account all the costs per calorie, not just money per can of food) to eat better, they would. Why wouldn't they? Only if you automatically assume that the poor are especially irrational or immoral do you get to the conclusion that the motivations and responses of poor people are so different from your own.

D) Predictably enough, you've gone back to the "lazy drug addict" myth. I get that those stories have a sort of base, emotional resonance with the atavistic part of your psyche that reacts first and thinks second, but try (TRY) to understand - it's not real. It's a mirage. There aren't huge numbers of people who are gaming the system. Your tax dollars are not, in any meaningful way, going to drugs or booze or anything more pernicious than cookies and Doritos. There is simply no factual basis for your feelings, and while it may feel more psychologically comfortable to just write off poor people as your social and/or moral inferiors, that opinion is actively toxic, false, and unsupportable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bread & Roses

Dark Archive

For points A,B and C I am totally on board. The last one D I think a lot more people are using the system a lot longer than they should be. Now don't take me to mean we should cut back but I do feel the system needs a serious look into it to make it more effective.

People are using the system and the system is not helping them to be more self sufficient. I think the purpose of the system is originally and please correct me if I am wrong here and I know people will. That this is to help out the impoverished and allow them not to be impoverished any more. My wife was a product of the system and was able to get to a better place through it.

But I want to ask people do they think the current system works well? Does everyone think that it can't use some help to make it better? I think it would be horrible to cut it out ... but to say that people are taking advantage of the system I think is naïve people do and more than just the occasional person. It needs help it needs to be fixed and made better not gotten rid of but over hauled to make it more effective. My 2 cents take it for what it is worth.

Liberty's Edge

AndrewR wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Its not government oppression to tell you you cannot have a blank check of someone elses money
You do realize I was referring to mrs. O's initiative to get kids to eat healthy, right? Because..thats what YOU were talking about initally. It has NOTHING to do with money in the slightest! Are you so obstructionist that you can't keep your rants straight?

Dude, you've seen him go from "taxes are theft at the point if a gun" to "taxes for things I approve of are reasonable and appropriate" in the same thread with no apparent awareness of irony. Saying that the government should be expanded and spend more money on keeping poor people in line is nothing for him. He will not notice the contradiction. There's some sort of Contradiction Aversion Field involved.


Gruumash . wrote:

For points A,B and C I am totally on board. The last one D I think a lot more people are using the system a lot longer than they should be. Now don't take me to mean we should cut back but I do feel the system needs a serious look into it to make it more effective.

People are using the system and the system is not helping them to be more self sufficient. I think the purpose of the system is originally and please correct me if I am wrong here and I know people will. That this is to help out the impoverished and allow them not to be impoverished any more. My wife was a product of the system and was able to get to a better place through it.

But I want to ask people do they think the current system works well? Does everyone think that it can't use some help to make it better? I think it would be horrible to cut it out ... but to say that people are taking advantage of the system I think is naïve people do and more than just the occasional person. It needs help it needs to be fixed and made better not gotten rid of but over hauled to make it more effective. My 2 cents take it for what it is worth.

I think the underlying issue is that the threshold of disqualification is too low. If you are drawing unemployment you should be able to work AND still draw unemployment for 30 days. If you get SNAP benefits of $200 a month then a $100 raise shouldn't disqualify you. I think in all cases that changes in income should not impact your benefits for 30 days. This will give people an actual shot at getting ahead instead of getting a job/better job and then being worse off than they were on government assistance.


I think the current system is a result of compromises made to ensure that people "qualify" for aid. In our efforts to eradicate fraud and abuse, we've made the requirements stricter and tougher. People who are on the edge of qualifying end up having to lower themselves to meet the standard. People can't raise themselves up, because if they do they get into that zone where they're still poor, but no longer qualify for programs and their quality of life goes down.

That was one of the points about the article with just giving cash to homeless people.

1) It's cheaper. The cash is less money that you'd spend on aid programs per person.

2) The individual is able to address their direct needs. While those needs are similar between many people, the exact nature of those needs will differ.

The article isn't scientific, as has been addressed, but that isn't the value of it. Rather getting us to rethink how we give aid and distribute it.

A couple people have disagreed with this method though, saying we need strict requirements and controls on what people can do with the aid given. Which brings us right back to the compromises that have increased the culture of dependency.


Irontruth wrote:

I think the current system is a result of compromises made to ensure that people "qualify" for aid. In our efforts to eradicate fraud and abuse, we've made the requirements stricter and tougher. People who are on the edge of qualifying end up having to lower themselves to meet the standard. People can't raise themselves up, because if they do they get into that zone where they're still poor, but no longer qualify for programs and their quality of life goes down.

That was one of the points about the article with just giving cash to homeless people.

1) It's cheaper. The cash is less money that you'd spend on aid programs per person.

2) The individual is able to address their direct needs. While those needs are similar between many people, the exact nature of those needs will differ.

The article isn't scientific, as has been addressed, but that isn't the value of it. Rather getting us to rethink how we give aid and distribute it.

A couple people have disagreed with this method though, saying we need strict requirements and controls on what people can do with the aid given. Which brings us right back to the compromises that have increased the culture of dependency.

Because the entire point of those strict requirements and controls is controlling those people. Isn't that exactly what a culture of dependency is? Making them jump through hoops to prove they're worthy of help? Making them beg for aid?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gruumash . wrote:

For points A,B and C I am totally on board. The last one D I think a lot more people are using the system a lot longer than they should be. Now don't take me to mean we should cut back but I do feel the system needs a serious look into it to make it more effective.

People are using the system and the system is not helping them to be more self sufficient. I think the purpose of the system is originally and please correct me if I am wrong here and I know people will. That this is to help out the impoverished and allow them not to be impoverished any more. My wife was a product of the system and was able to get to a better place through it.

But I want to ask people do they think the current system works well? Does everyone think that it can't use some help to make it better? I think it would be horrible to cut it out ... but to say that people are taking advantage of the system I think is naïve people do and more than just the occasional person. It needs help it needs to be fixed and made better not gotten rid of but over hauled to make it more effective. My 2 cents take it for what it is worth.

This is a great example of a reasoned approach, albeit one I still disagree with.

I agree that the purpose of the program is to help people escape from poverty, but I think it's dangerous to equate "length of use" with "abuse" - after all, poverty is a very difficult problem to solve, and it might take a different strategy for every family. What might look like abuse (for example, someone using SNAP while purchasing consumer electronics like an iPad or laptop) may, in fact, be part of an extremely rational strategy to attempt to access the many economic and educational benefits of having reliable, available internet access.

Thus, I agree that the system is failing, and in dire need of an overhaul, but I don't think it needs to be overhauled in terms of stricter controls or tighter limitations, because I think those limitations tend to be based either in prejudicial ideas about what the "proper" behavior of a poor person should be, or else they are based on the frankly outmoded idea that the simple solution to poverty is basic employment.

This last point is really important, because many of the accusations of "laziness" I think stem from misunderstanding how our current economy actually (dis)incentivises labor. Gone are the days when one could reasonably expect that any full-time job would be enough, with some scrimping and careful planning, to cover the bills and allow a family to improve their lot. Nowadays, labor is so undervalued as a commodity that it is considered a dangerous and radical notion to suggest that we should increase the minimum wage so that if you work 40 hours a week, you will have an income sufficient to maintain an apartment, a car, food, and utilities (including internet and mobile phone service) for a family of four.

Instead, we have people being vilified for not accepting employment for a wage that doesn't actually allow them to improve their lives. The "lazy" people often would LOVE to work 40 hours a week - they would love to have something to do with their time, would love to "contribute" to society, but right now we've basically priced them out of doing so. If welfare systems were designed so that they were designed to allow people a certain basic standard of living, no matter what job they held, I think you would be shocked how fast people found productive ways to spend their time.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I highly doubt any agreement will ever be reached between a Trotskyist, a devotee of the Austrian school, a bunch of liberal and not-so-liberal Democrats and the occasional American social democrat or two.

And at least one person who is more for benevolent dictatorships...


Andrew R wrote:
Wow that was a lengthy load of BULL. No you do not deserve endless luxuries, be thankful other people are paying for you to not starve. yes, people that do not refuse to work and do not wallow in drugs and drink are better people. Canned fruits and veg are cheap and store for years and are actually food as opposed to doritos and redbull, and cheaper so you fail again.

And speaking as someone who lives on them? Thanks to what's put in them to help preserve them, they're also an easy way to end up seriously overweight. You need a constant supply of fresh fruits and vegetables with the cans as a supplemental.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I think the current system is a result of compromises made to ensure that people "qualify" for aid. In our efforts to eradicate fraud and abuse, we've made the requirements stricter and tougher. People who are on the edge of qualifying end up having to lower themselves to meet the standard. People can't raise themselves up, because if they do they get into that zone where they're still poor, but no longer qualify for programs and their quality of life goes down.

That was one of the points about the article with just giving cash to homeless people.

1) It's cheaper. The cash is less money that you'd spend on aid programs per person.

2) The individual is able to address their direct needs. While those needs are similar between many people, the exact nature of those needs will differ.

The article isn't scientific, as has been addressed, but that isn't the value of it. Rather getting us to rethink how we give aid and distribute it.

A couple people have disagreed with this method though, saying we need strict requirements and controls on what people can do with the aid given. Which brings us right back to the compromises that have increased the culture of dependency.

Because the entire point of those strict requirements and controls is controlling those people. Isn't that exactly what a culture of dependency is? Making them jump through hoops to prove they're worthy of help? Making them beg for aid?

It is. I pointed that out a few pages ago and the discussion didn't go anywhere.

Pretty much, that's the entire problem with the current system; it is not about helping people. That's why it is the U.S. is throwing the equivalent of entire GDPs at the problem and not making one single bit of difference. The U.S. spending on aid in this area exceeds that of the total economy of entire nations; there is no excuse for the problem not getting better and for the fact it keeps getting worse.


thejeff wrote:
Bread & Roses

[Clenched fist salute]

Dark Archive

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:

For points A,B and C I am totally on board. The last one D I think a lot more people are using the system a lot longer than they should be. Now don't take me to mean we should cut back but I do feel the system needs a serious look into it to make it more effective.

People are using the system and the system is not helping them to be more self sufficient. I think the purpose of the system is originally and please correct me if I am wrong here and I know people will. That this is to help out the impoverished and allow them not to be impoverished any more. My wife was a product of the system and was able to get to a better place through it.

But I want to ask people do they think the current system works well? Does everyone think that it can't use some help to make it better? I think it would be horrible to cut it out ... but to say that people are taking advantage of the system I think is naïve people do and more than just the occasional person. It needs help it needs to be fixed and made better not gotten rid of but over hauled to make it more effective. My 2 cents take it for what it is worth.

This is a great example of a reasoned approach, albeit one I still disagree with.

I agree that the purpose of the program is to help people escape from poverty, but I think it's dangerous to equate "length of use" with "abuse" - after all, poverty is a very difficult problem to solve, and it might take a different strategy for every family. What might look like abuse (for example, someone using SNAP while purchasing consumer electronics like an iPad or laptop) may, in fact, be part of an extremely rational strategy to attempt to access the many economic and educational benefits of having reliable, available internet access.

Thus, I agree that the system is failing, and in dire need of an overhaul, but I don't think it needs to be overhauled in terms of stricter controls or tighter limitations, because I think those limitations tend to be based either in prejudicial...

When I say abuse I mean those who are not working towards finding work and in fact are using the system to support themselves as a life not using the system as a support net to find a means to then support themselves and create their own lives outside of the system. When you have multiple generations of the same family requiring the system then something has broken down and needs repair.

I think the overhaul needs to do a few things it needs to help people find jobs to help support themselves and their families. Right now it encourages people not to do those things without the support.

When I say they are using the system not in the way it was designed I am not necessarily faulting them but the way the system has changed where it is safer to stay in the system then go out and work towards a job that can support your family and yourself. Then there are multiple generations of people doing this it does not help them grow and better themselves. That is the fault with the people and the system which has failed them.

The system needs to change so people are educated and helped to leave the nest right now it is encouraging those to stay in the nest which is now over crowded since there are less and less people leaving the system. But it needs to have both tied to it to push those out of the nest to be able to fly on their own.

The safety net needs to be flexible enough to allow for what ever needs that person needs to do in order to support themselves in society but they do need to get to the point where they can support themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I mentioned above, I recently read Michael Harrington's The Other America, the book which is credited with spurring the War on Poverty (although Harrington was not a big fan of the War on Poverty as waged) back in 1962. And over and over again, throughout the book, the thousands and tens of thousands of workers who were thrown into poverty by the loss of jobs due to automation and factory relocations kept coming up.

And that was fifty years ago.

Any single individual, of course, may have the potential to rise above the morass of state dependence (that is, of course, assuming they are able-bodied), but where are they all going to go?


MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I think the current system is a result of compromises made to ensure that people "qualify" for aid. In our efforts to eradicate fraud and abuse, we've made the requirements stricter and tougher. People who are on the edge of qualifying end up having to lower themselves to meet the standard. People can't raise themselves up, because if they do they get into that zone where they're still poor, but no longer qualify for programs and their quality of life goes down.

That was one of the points about the article with just giving cash to homeless people.

1) It's cheaper. The cash is less money that you'd spend on aid programs per person.

2) The individual is able to address their direct needs. While those needs are similar between many people, the exact nature of those needs will differ.

The article isn't scientific, as has been addressed, but that isn't the value of it. Rather getting us to rethink how we give aid and distribute it.

A couple people have disagreed with this method though, saying we need strict requirements and controls on what people can do with the aid given. Which brings us right back to the compromises that have increased the culture of dependency.

Because the entire point of those strict requirements and controls is controlling those people. Isn't that exactly what a culture of dependency is? Making them jump through hoops to prove they're worthy of help? Making them beg for aid?

It is. I pointed that out a few pages ago and the discussion didn't go anywhere.

Pretty much, that's the entire problem with the current system; it is not about helping people. That's why it is the U.S. is throwing the equivalent of entire GDPs at the problem and not making one single bit of difference. The U.S. spending on aid in this area exceeds that of the total economy of entire nations; there is no excuse for the problem not getting better and for the fact it keeps getting worse.

I disagree. I think people want to help, but it's just done ineffectually.

We also have a culture that abhors failure. If you're in charge of a program, it's not in your interests to report that it failed. Even though that would be useful information and help better inform future attempts to solve the issue. Reporting that you failed is how you get fired.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

This last point is really important, because many of the accusations of "laziness" I think stem from misunderstanding how our current economy actually (dis)incentivises labor. Gone are the days when one could reasonably expect that any full-time job would be enough, with some scrimping and careful planning, to cover the bills and allow a family to improve their lot. Nowadays, labor is so undervalued as a commodity that it is considered a dangerous and radical notion to suggest that we should increase the minimum wage so that if you work 40 hours a week, you will have an income sufficient to maintain an apartment, a car, food, and utilities (including internet and mobile phone service) for a family of four.

Instead, we have people being vilified for not accepting employment for a wage that doesn't actually allow them to improve their lives. The "lazy" people often would LOVE to work 40 hours a week - they would love to have something to do with their time, would love to "contribute" to society, but right now we've basically priced them out of doing so. If welfare systems were designed so that they were designed to allow people a certain basic standard of living, no matter what job they held, I think you would be shocked how fast people found productive ways to spend their time.

You also have to remember that the days you talk about were themselves a pretty short aberration. Essentially from the end of WWII until whenever you want to say it ended. Largely due to some combination of 3 factors: various government reforms including progressive taxation and safety nets, unions (those full time jobs that let you raise a family in comfort were pretty much union jobs. Unions also played a big role in government policy.), and the US's preeminent status after WWII which fueled the economic expansion.

Those days didn't just come by themselves. People fought for them and we'll have to fight to bring them back.
Or we can go back to the good old days where people didn't live on government hand-outs and workers didn't struggle to get "an apartment, a car, food, and utilities for a family of four", they struggled for food and a place to sleep.

Grinding poverty has been common for the working class for most of history. It takes a good deal of counter pressure to structure a society any other way.


Irontruth wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I think the current system is a result of compromises made to ensure that people "qualify" for aid. In our efforts to eradicate fraud and abuse, we've made the requirements stricter and tougher. People who are on the edge of qualifying end up having to lower themselves to meet the standard. People can't raise themselves up, because if they do they get into that zone where they're still poor, but no longer qualify for programs and their quality of life goes down.

That was one of the points about the article with just giving cash to homeless people.

1) It's cheaper. The cash is less money that you'd spend on aid programs per person.

2) The individual is able to address their direct needs. While those needs are similar between many people, the exact nature of those needs will differ.

The article isn't scientific, as has been addressed, but that isn't the value of it. Rather getting us to rethink how we give aid and distribute it.

A couple people have disagreed with this method though, saying we need strict requirements and controls on what people can do with the aid given. Which brings us right back to the compromises that have increased the culture of dependency.

Because the entire point of those strict requirements and controls is controlling those people. Isn't that exactly what a culture of dependency is? Making them jump through hoops to prove they're worthy of help? Making them beg for aid?

It is. I pointed that out a few pages ago and the discussion didn't go anywhere.

Pretty much, that's the entire problem with the current system; it is not about helping people. That's why it is the U.S. is throwing the equivalent of entire GDPs at the problem and not making one single bit of difference. The U.S. spending on aid in this area exceeds that of the total economy of entire nations; there is no excuse for the problem not getting better and for the fact it keeps getting worse.

I disagree. I think people want to help, but it's just done ineffectually.

We also have a culture that abhors failure. If you're in charge of a program, it's not in your interests to report that it failed. Even though that would be useful information and help better inform future attempts to solve the issue. Reporting that you failed is how you get fired.

I see a difference between the people and the system. The people do want to help... but the system itself is what is causing it to be so ineffective. The issue of failure reporting is part of the system itself.


MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I think the current system is a result of compromises made to ensure that people "qualify" for aid. In our efforts to eradicate fraud and abuse, we've made the requirements stricter and tougher. People who are on the edge of qualifying end up having to lower themselves to meet the standard. People can't raise themselves up, because if they do they get into that zone where they're still poor, but no longer qualify for programs and their quality of life goes down.

That was one of the points about the article with just giving cash to homeless people.

1) It's cheaper. The cash is less money that you'd spend on aid programs per person.

2) The individual is able to address their direct needs. While those needs are similar between many people, the exact nature of those needs will differ.

The article isn't scientific, as has been addressed, but that isn't the value of it. Rather getting us to rethink how we give aid and distribute it.

A couple people have disagreed with this method though, saying we need strict requirements and controls on what people can do with the aid given. Which brings us right back to the compromises that have increased the culture of dependency.

Because the entire point of those strict requirements and controls is controlling those people. Isn't that exactly what a culture of dependency is? Making them jump through hoops to prove they're worthy of help? Making them beg for aid?

It is. I pointed that out a few pages ago and the discussion didn't go anywhere.

Pretty much, that's the entire problem with the current system; it is not about helping people. That's why it is the U.S. is throwing the equivalent of entire GDPs at the problem and not making one single bit of difference. The U.S. spending on aid in this area exceeds that of the total economy of entire nations; there is no excuse for the problem not getting better and for the fact it keeps getting worse.

I was speaking specifically of the culture of making sure that aid only goes to the "worthy" and those who aren't abusing the system, not aid for the poor in general.


thejeff wrote:

Grinding poverty has been common for the working class for most of history. It takes a good deal of counter pressure to structure a society any other way.

Vive le Galt!


MagusJanus wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

It is. I pointed that out a few pages ago and the discussion didn't go anywhere.

Pretty much, that's the entire problem with the current system; it is not about helping people. That's why it is the U.S. is throwing the equivalent of entire GDPs at the problem and not making one single bit of difference. The U.S. spending on aid in this area exceeds that of the total economy of entire nations; there is no excuse for the problem not getting better and for the fact it keeps getting worse.

I disagree. I think people want to help, but it's just done ineffectually.

We also have a culture that abhors failure. If you're in charge of a program, it's not in your interests to report that it failed. Even though that would be useful information and help better inform future attempts to solve the issue. Reporting that you failed is how you get fired.

I see a difference between the people and the system. The people do want to help... but the system itself is what is causing it to be so ineffective. The issue of failure reporting is part of the system itself.

...

I know, I know, the quotes tab is all f$~+ed up.

I tend more towards Citizen Janus's position. Harrington was pretty disappointed in both his '72 and '82 afterwords that his call for national action, centering on a federal works and housing program, was watered down into food stamps and relief handouts.

And sometimes I cynically think we only got those because, kinda like Utah is allegedly discovering, it is cheaper to hand out free money than to pay for burning slums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

It is. I pointed that out a few pages ago and the discussion didn't go anywhere.

Pretty much, that's the entire problem with the current system; it is not about helping people. That's why it is the U.S. is throwing the equivalent of entire GDPs at the problem and not making one single bit of difference. The U.S. spending on aid in this area exceeds that of the total economy of entire nations; there is no excuse for the problem not getting better and for the fact it keeps getting worse.

I disagree. I think people want to help, but it's just done ineffectually.

We also have a culture that abhors failure. If you're in charge of a program, it's not in your interests to report that it failed. Even though that would be useful information and help better inform future attempts to solve the issue. Reporting that you failed is how you get fired.

I'd say it's more a larger problem. You can't solve the problem of poverty just by helping out the poor. (What does "solve the problem" mean anyway? No more poor?)

Not when the larger society is continually generating more of them and making it harder for those already down to get back up.

Even if everyone in any kind of aid program had or suddenly developed job skills and all the drive and ambition necessary, we're not creating enough jobs for them all. There are plenty of people with skills and drive who've been gainfully employed, even well paid, for most of their lives still looking for work.

The problem of poverty isn't just, and probably not even mostly, a problem with the poor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyway, today's story from peddling socialist newspapers on the mean streets of Lowell:

Middle-aged, portly, moustached white guy comes up to the table. I go into my pitch and before I get very far he hands me a dollar and takes the new issue of the paper. "I've been watching you guys for the past month," he says, ominously. "Oh yeah?" I ask, "Are you interested in socialism?" "I'm a revolutionary!," he replies. "Oh, that's great!" I exclaim. "Yes, I am going to take over the United States and become the dictator of America! Keep your eyes out for me, I'm gonna be huge!" "Oh, okay, that's great, but, uh, if I'm gonna keep my eyes out for you, what's your name?" "I am the Antichrist!" "Woah, no shiznit, the Antichrist, huh?" "Yes," then he recited some Biblical-sounding stuff. "I will come unannounced!" "But you just announced yourself." "What?" "Well, you just told me you're the Antichrist, so, now you're announced." He gave me a look that announced he was in no mindset to play, so I bid him adieu and wished him good luck in taking over the United States. He then wished me good luck in taking over the United States.

Lowell's awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I bid him adieu and wished him good luck in taking over the United States. He then wished me good luck in taking over the United States. Lowell's awesome.

"You meet the damnedest people in Hell." --Roger Zelazny


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Those pesky facts again:
Food Stamp Error Rates Drop to All Time Low!

Quote:
Less than 1 percent of SNAP benefits go to households that are ineligible. In other words, more than 99 percent of SNAP benefitsare issued to eligible households.


MagusJanus wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I think the current system is a result of compromises made to ensure that people "qualify" for aid. In our efforts to eradicate fraud and abuse, we've made the requirements stricter and tougher. People who are on the edge of qualifying end up having to lower themselves to meet the standard. People can't raise themselves up, because if they do they get into that zone where they're still poor, but no longer qualify for programs and their quality of life goes down.

That was one of the points about the article with just giving cash to homeless people.

1) It's cheaper. The cash is less money that you'd spend on aid programs per person.

2) The individual is able to address their direct needs. While those needs are similar between many people, the exact nature of those needs will differ.

The article isn't scientific, as has been addressed, but that isn't the value of it. Rather getting us to rethink how we give aid and distribute it.

A couple people have disagreed with this method though, saying we need strict requirements and controls on what people can do with the aid given. Which brings us right back to the compromises that have increased the culture of dependency.

Because the entire point of those strict requirements and controls is controlling those people. Isn't that exactly what a culture of dependency is? Making them jump through hoops to prove they're worthy of help? Making them beg for aid?

It is. I pointed that out a few pages ago and the discussion didn't go anywhere.

Pretty much, that's the entire problem with the current system; it is not about helping people. That's why it is the U.S. is throwing the equivalent of entire GDPs at the problem and not making one single bit of difference. The U.S. spending on aid in this area exceeds that of the total economy of entire nations; there is no excuse for the problem not getting better and for the fact it keeps

...

More than just the system though. The fear of failure is pretty strong in American culture. Being allowed to fail is incongruent with the ideal of rugged individualism, even though logically it should be inherent to it. You see it all the time in sports analysis too, athletes can't be "great" unless they win.

The other aspect is power. If I have money and I just give it to you without restrictions, I'm not using the power that it gives me. If I give it to you but say you can only use it for certain things, I maintain my power. I don't necessarily think this is done maliciously to poor people, but people are loathe to give up power when they have it. Why just give poor people money, when you can make them jump through hoops to get it? In addition, because of our culture of rugged individualism, if they're poor they must have failed, therefore those who have money know more and should make the decisions for the poor people.

I think we're pretty close overall on this though, you and I.

The Exchange

I so wish we could give you a state, say california, to turn into your socialist utopia. You can tax at 90% and claim all you want for the state. You can give as much as you want to anyone, without raiding the rest of the nation you are on your own. So you can just see how well your dreams work in reality. I can promise you anyone that wants to work and earn and have things would leave and the economy would be ussr in no time but hey you get your utopia. meanwhile free men that think we have the right to keep what we earn and do not like being used by leeches can go on in peace.

The Exchange

The problem is people basically want communist care of all so screw it lets give it to em just like cuba. a box of food rations for the month (rice, beans etc) and find more somewhere if you can. And of course Moore showed us that they have better medical care


Andrew R wrote:
The problem is people basically want communist care of all so screw it lets give it to em just like cuba. a box of food rations for the month (rice, beans etc) and find more somewhere if you can.

I agree, if we keep letting the government, cheered on by people like you, implement ever greater and more elaborate systems of state interference into what is and isn't acceptable for welfare recipients to do with their aid, that's probably where the system will end up. It's halfway there already.

I was pretty sure, though, that the state deciding your rations for the month was, like, exactly the opposite of what the whole "just cut people a check and let them decide what to spend it on" thing was for.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Andrew R wrote:
I so wish we could give you a state, say california, to turn into your socialist utopia. You can tax at 90% and claim all you want for the state. You can give as much as you want to anyone, without raiding the rest of the nation you are on your own. So you can just see how well your dreams work in reality. I can promise you anyone that wants to work and earn and have things would leave and the economy would be ussr in no time but hey you get your utopia. meanwhile free men that think we have the right to keep what we earn and do not like being used by leeches can go on in peace.

The only thing that could make your intellectual approach here more obvious would be a picture of a child covering his ears with his hands, shouting "la-la-la I can't hear you la-la-la"

I suggest that if you can't articulate a defense of your beliefs on this issue without resorting to base emotionalism, hyperbole, and childish attempts to wish your opposition away (to California, LOL!), you should probably ask yourself if you should continue to hold those beliefs.

Again, even though it might initially disgust you to admit it, and you might feel abject revulsion at the idea, there's really no legitimate reason for you to act like you are any better than "poor people". You do not have a superior work ethic than the median poor person, you are not smarter, you are not more moral, you are not more valuable, and you are not any less "guilty" of leeching off the products of others, since, you know, "You didn't build that".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gruumash . wrote:

When I say abuse I mean those who are not working towards finding work and in fact are using the system to support themselves as a life not using the system as a support net to find a means to then support themselves and create their own lives outside of the system. When you have multiple generations of the same family requiring the system then something has broken down and needs repair.

I think the overhaul needs to do a few things it needs to help people find jobs to help support themselves and their families. Right now it encourages people not to do those things without the support.

When I say they are using the system not in the way it was designed I am not necessarily faulting them but the way the system has changed where it is safer to stay in the system then go out and work towards a job that can support your family and yourself. Then there are multiple generations of people doing this it does not help them grow and better themselves. That is the fault with the people and the system which has failed them.

The system needs to change so people are educated and helped to leave the nest right now it is encouraging those to stay in the nest which is now over crowded since there are less and less people leaving the system. But it needs to have both tied to it to push those out of the nest to be able to fly on their own.

The safety net needs to be flexible enough to allow for what ever needs that person needs to do in order to support themselves in society but they do need to get to the point where they can support themselves.

What I'm saying is that I really and truly don't believe there are very many people, at all, who are using welfare and other social support services as a "way of life" by choice. I think the belief that such people exist in any kind of meaningful number stems from two problematic assumptions.

The first, as I said, was the assumption that merely "getting a job" is enough to get out of poverty. As was pointed out up thread, the era when hard work and gumption was enough to provide upward social mobility is basically dead - to the extent that the Horatio Alger myth was ever true to begin with, in the modern era in the USA, you probably have a better chance of getting rich by playing the lottery than you do by working your way up through the ranks on the strength of your personal labor. This assumption creates the mistaken impression that anyone can escape from poverty merely by trying hard enough. While on the surface that seems like a noble idea, it's actually probably not true, and certainly the logical corollary (that anyone who remains poor must not have worked hard enough) is pretty toxic.

That brings us to the second assumption, which is maybe more subtle, but more fundamental. It's not at all clear to me why it is that we all assume that the only (or at least primary) motivator for working is economic. I certainly wouldn't stop working even if I didn't need the money, simply because I would get bored, and feel useless. I would, however, be much more selective about what KIND of work I did, and would probably be more willing to do things like take risks and embark upon creative projects. I suspect the same is true for almost everyone in this thread, and I'm not sure why we should assume it would be any different generally for any other group of people, regardless of income level. I suspect that it has to do (in America, at least), with the cultural baggage of a Puritan work ethic that basically asserted that if you enjoyed your work, it didn't really count as "work", and thus you didn't deserve to profit from it. I find that notion silly, though.

Once we reject those two assumptions, I think the objections to comprehensive social services become a lot less powerful, because I think it helps us move past the myth that "poor people" are somehow different than "regular" people in terms of their behavior and motivations. If we give people a basic, acceptable standard of living, that doesn't mean they will stop trying to better themselves, it means they will finally be free to actually succeed in doing so.

The Exchange

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I so wish we could give you a state, say california, to turn into your socialist utopia. You can tax at 90% and claim all you want for the state. You can give as much as you want to anyone, without raiding the rest of the nation you are on your own. So you can just see how well your dreams work in reality. I can promise you anyone that wants to work and earn and have things would leave and the economy would be ussr in no time but hey you get your utopia. meanwhile free men that think we have the right to keep what we earn and do not like being used by leeches can go on in peace.

The only thing that could make your intellectual approach here more obvious would be a picture of a child covering his ears with his hands, shouting "la-la-la I can't hear you la-la-la"

I suggest that if you can't articulate a defense of your beliefs on this issue without resorting to base emotionalism, hyperbole, and childish attempts to wish your opposition away (to California, LOL!), you should probably ask yourself if you should continue to hold those beliefs.

Again, even though it might initially disgust you to admit it, and you might feel abject revulsion at the idea, there's really no legitimate reason for you to act like you are any better than "poor people". You do not have a superior work ethic than the median poor person, you are not smarter, you are not more moral, you are not more valuable, and you are not any less "guilty" of leeching off the products of others, since, you know, "You didn't build that".

Yes the person that works hard and doesn't do stupid things to dig their own grave is better

I pay taxes, i pay to use the roads and police. People that are on welfare take and take and many pay nothing into the system so no not alike at all.
You want a defense? here is the defense, you are not entitles to a life of luxury off someone else's labor. Free men have a right to earn without the government owning them and taking at whim to give (mostly as a vote earner) to people that refuse to work. We need to help people earn for themselves, incentive to WORK not incentive to laugh at the suckers paying for them. We need to fix this while we CAN.

The Exchange

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:

When I say abuse I mean those who are not working towards finding work and in fact are using the system to support themselves as a life not using the system as a support net to find a means to then support themselves and create their own lives outside of the system. When you have multiple generations of the same family requiring the system then something has broken down and needs repair.

I think the overhaul needs to do a few things it needs to help people find jobs to help support themselves and their families. Right now it encourages people not to do those things without the support.

When I say they are using the system not in the way it was designed I am not necessarily faulting them but the way the system has changed where it is safer to stay in the system then go out and work towards a job that can support your family and yourself. Then there are multiple generations of people doing this it does not help them grow and better themselves. That is the fault with the people and the system which has failed them.

The system needs to change so people are educated and helped to leave the nest right now it is encouraging those to stay in the nest which is now over crowded since there are less and less people leaving the system. But it needs to have both tied to it to push those out of the nest to be able to fly on their own.

The safety net needs to be flexible enough to allow for what ever needs that person needs to do in order to support themselves in society but they do need to get to the point where they can support themselves.

What I'm saying is that I really and truly don't believe there are very many people, at all, who are using welfare and other social support services as a "way of life" by choice. I think the belief that such people exist in any kind of meaningful number stems from two problematic assumptions.

The first, as I said, was the assumption that merely "getting a job" is enough to get out of poverty. As was pointed out up thread, the era when...

Getting a job might not be enough to get rich but if i work at mcdonalds and my buddy works at taco bell together we can get an apartment without stealing. Maybe we can rent a house and garden for some of our food, hunt and fish for some. is it living high on the hog? no but it is living honestly

The primary motivator of anything is meaningless. If you can take care of your own business without taking from others or breaking the law is what matters. Fun come secondary to responsibility but if you can do what you need to and still have fun that congratulations

When you understand that fun comes after responsibility you can work towards taking care of your self instead of wanting to live like an eternal child trading mommy for uncle sam in caring for your needs. Life isn't all fun, read the ant and the grasshoper (the old fable) the world cannot survive full of grasshopers. The ants cannot feed them all


Wanna live the "American dream" of upwards social mobility? Move to Denmark.


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

That brings us to the second assumption, which is maybe more subtle, but more fundamental. It's not at all clear to me why it is that we all assume that the only (or at least primary) motivator for working is economic. I certainly wouldn't stop working even if I didn't need the money, simply because I would get bored, and feel useless. I would, however, be much more selective about what KIND of work I did, and would probably be more willing to do things like take risks and embark upon creative projects. I suspect the same is true for almost everyone in this thread, and I'm not sure why we should assume it would be any different generally for any other group of people, regardless of income level. I suspect that it has to do (in America, at least), with the cultural baggage of a Puritan work ethic that basically asserted that if you enjoyed your work, it didn't really count as "work", and thus you didn't deserve to profit from it. I find that notion silly, though.

Once we reject those two assumptions, I think the objections to comprehensive social services become a lot less powerful, because I think it helps us move past the myth that "poor people" are somehow different than "regular" people in terms of their behavior and motivations. If we give people a basic, acceptable standard of living, that doesn't mean they will stop trying to better themselves, it means they will finally be free to actually succeed in doing so.

Yup.

The Exchange

GentleGiant wrote:
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

That brings us to the second assumption, which is maybe more subtle, but more fundamental. It's not at all clear to me why it is that we all assume that the only (or at least primary) motivator for working is economic. I certainly wouldn't stop working even if I didn't need the money, simply because I would get bored, and feel useless. I would, however, be much more selective about what KIND of work I did, and would probably be more willing to do things like take risks and embark upon creative projects. I suspect the same is true for almost everyone in this thread, and I'm not sure why we should assume it would be any different generally for any other group of people, regardless of income level. I suspect that it has to do (in America, at least), with the cultural baggage of a Puritan work ethic that basically asserted that if you enjoyed your work, it didn't really count as "work", and thus you didn't deserve to profit from it. I find that notion silly, though.

Once we reject those two assumptions, I think the objections to comprehensive social services become a lot less powerful, because I think it helps us move past the myth that "poor people" are somehow different than "regular" people in terms of their behavior and motivations. If we give people a basic, acceptable standard of living, that doesn't mean they will stop trying to better themselves, it means they will finally be free to actually succeed in doing so.

Yup.

the problem with that video is that it is talking about people in fields that took enough drive and thought to get into that they are not the people refusing training and education to make being a government taker an issue to begin with

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And sometimes I cynically think we only got those because, kinda like Utah is allegedly discovering, it is cheaper to hand out free money than to pay for burning slums.

A lot of reforms in the (Edit: early 1900s and late) 1800s came about due to fear of anarchists and other radicals. I think at this point that barely qualifies as cynical.

So... Can you do me a favor and start scaring The Man a bit more so He'll be willing to up the wages of class traitors such as myself?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Andrew R wrote:


Yes the person that works hard and doesn't do stupid things to dig their own grave is better

I pay taxes, i pay to use the roads and police. People that are on welfare take and take and many pay nothing into the system so no not alike at all.
You want a defense? here is the defense, you are not entitles to a life of luxury off someone else's labor. Free men have a right to earn without the government owning them and taking at whim to give (mostly as a vote earner) to people that refuse to work. We need to help people earn for themselves, incentive to WORK not incentive to laugh at the suckers paying for them. We need to fix this while we CAN.

Andrew, you are not actually responding to me, nor are you actually defending your claims. What you are doing is regurgitating slogans that rely more on their emotional resonance than their actual rational reasoning to drive their persuasive power. Do you understand the difference?

Once again, the problem you are imagining - that of parasitic people living the high life on your dime - DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. I won't even bother trying to convince you that you actually have no right to feel outraged if that really was happened, because it literally doesn't matter, since it's simply not happening now. This is like the voter fraud fears driving voter registration laws - it's all rumor and anecdote being passed around as fact.


Okay, enough.
Please provide solid evidence that this apparent huge number of people on welfare are just actual "moochers" with no intentions of doing anything but game the system. That they constantly refuse training, education in an effort to live a "life of luxury" on other people's dime.
Until you can do that you're just talking out of your ass, spouting personal opinion with nothing concrete to back it up. As to why you're doing it, well, the floating head has touched on some possible reasons.
So, put up or shut up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Andrew R wrote:
the problem with that video is that it is talking about people in fields that took enough drive and thought to get into that they are not the people refusing training and education to make being a government taker an issue to begin with

Yeah, no, actually, that's not a problem with the study, because you have no evidence that "people refusing training and education" even exist. You assume they exist because you are so wrapped up in your prejudice and intellectual poverty that you don't recognize the laughable tautology of asserting that the chronically poor must be subhuman monsters because only subhuman monsters would be chronically poor. Can you see how you are basically asserting that "the poor" are basically not human when you assert (entirely without evidence) that they don't have the same kind of internal psychology and motivations as "regular" people?

Liberty's Edge

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Once again, the problem you are imagining - that of parasitic people living the high life on your dime - DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. I won't even bother trying to convince you that you actually have no right to feel outraged if that really was happened, because it literally doesn't matter, since it's simply not happening now. This is like the voter fraud fears driving voter registration laws - it's all rumor and anecdote being passed around as fact.

A minor disagreement: it absolutely does exist, but that does not mean that it is as prevalent as some people want us to think.

The Exchange

GentleGiant wrote:

Okay, enough.

Please provide solid evidence that this apparent huge number of people on welfare are just actual "moochers" with no intentions of doing anything but game the system. That they constantly refuse training, education in an effort to live a "life of luxury" on other people's dime.
Until you can do that you're just talking out of your ass, spouting personal opinion with nothing concrete to back it up. As to why you're doing it, well, the floating head has touched on some possible reasons.
So, put up or shut up.

I see it every day. DAILY i sell redbull and chips often over $20 every day to the same person, multiple same persons. We have one that every month comes in and buys over a hundred dollars in 20 oz pop bottles when the money hits the card

The Exchange

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
the problem with that video is that it is talking about people in fields that took enough drive and thought to get into that they are not the people refusing training and education to make being a government taker an issue to begin with
Yeah, no, actually, that's not a problem with the study, because you have no evidence that "people refusing training and education" even exist. You assume they exist because you are so wrapped up in your prejudice and intellectual poverty that you don't recognize the laughable tautology of asserting that the chronically poor must be subhuman monsters because only subhuman monsters would be chronically poor. Can you see how you are basically asserting that "the poor" are basically not human when you assert (entirely without evidence) that they don't have the same kind of internal psychology and motivations as "regular" people?

i have no isue with "the poor" i am the poor, it is how they choose to handle it that is the issue


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Once again, the problem you are imagining - that of parasitic people living the high life on your dime - DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. I won't even bother trying to convince you that you actually have no right to feel outraged if that really was happened, because it literally doesn't matter, since it's simply not happening now. This is like the voter fraud fears driving voter registration laws - it's all rumor and anecdote being passed around as fact.
A minor disagreement: it absolutely does exist, but that does not mean that it is as prevalent as some people want us to think.

I suppose it depends on what you mean - are there people who have given up because they can't see any realistic chance of improvement? Sure. Are there people who "game" the system by attempting to maximize their own personal benefit? Of course. The thing is, neither of those are really the same as "lazy takers" who are content to live as parasites, are they? The first are people who WANT more, but don't see any way to get it, so they don't bother to expend energy chasing after the dream anymore. The second, well, they're basically just doing what we celebrate in our wealthy captains of industry - cleverly taking advantage of the system to improve their situation.

The rate at which people who are simply unmotivated, "worthless" lumps actually exists might not be literally zero, but it's likely so low that you are more likely to be killed by an asteroid than you are to actually meet one.

351 to 400 of 751 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Sixty thousand homeless in NYC All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.