interviews with homeless down on their luck

Homelessness isn't a choice. Also most of it is unseen. For example, our homeless are often put up by government into run down Bed and Breakfasts. It maintains social ills, while maximising costs.

 

Well isn't some of this poor urban planning here in Tampa Bay there is no dedication to long term urban plans with affordable housing to cover a wide range of incomes in Indianapolis there is for every higher end rental project you must agree to build cheaper more basic apartments you can make a profit on but are for those on lower incomes. They also support tenement motels in principle which house people to but there have been crime issues in some such motels. But I'm on SSI and get other support from taxpayers and could move there and find a place for what my half share of the rent and utilities are now and an SSI check is gold your not Section 8, your disabled, not in many cases a troublemaker and its assured rent each month. I could get a furnished room with utilities and internet included in a boarding house for a private furnished room and private bath $450 that is a bit over half my SSI but I don't have to worry about utilities and this would be a desirable safe neighborhood with a lease. Usually if you have a clean criminal check its a good deal to do this.

Where I live now such a room would cost $900 easily.

Now I'm just saying if you need help, have integrity and are truly in need ask for help I am a clean cut disabled man with nothing to worry anyone and asked for help when I needed it and the county helped me get on benefits and apply for my SSI.

 

It is a choice when you have an alternative but refuse it. Case in point- people who would rather collect entitlements and beg while sleeping on the beach so as to retain the freedom to use drugs and have no responsibilities while their families beg them to return home. Eventually, their homelessness does stop being a choice after they burn all their bridges, but the path to that reality was entirely of their own making.

 

You're referring to lifestyle choices which really aren't an issue for the homelessness debate. The homeless simply have no choice. Its a huge problem here because of a lack of housing, accentuated by companies buying land for 'investment' (i.e. refusing to develop as they wait for prices to rise further)

 

Yes housing is a HUGE issue. Real estate investing is part of what has driven the cost of housing relative to income up 1000% since the 1950s despite drastic improvements in land developement and building technologies that should have driven costs down instead. It also doesnt help that Federal land holdings continue to increase with virtually no methods of reprivatizing it, driving the supply down relative to increasing population that increases demand.

And there are many homeless out there who were driven so by these dynamics.

But there are many more who simply refuse the responsibility associated with self sufficiency and abandon any opportunity they once had.

 

That's a fib! There aren't "many more". Those that make a lifestyle decision are dwarved by the enforced homeless. That's just the nature of the housing market! No need to play pretend.

 

I created a thread some time ago promoting a revision to private property taxation with the goal of alleviating the dynamic of real estate investing. Essentially: reduce or eliminate property tax on two 'primary residences' for any individual AND corporation (one to live on, and one to have 'for sale') while drastically raising taxes on any additional properties, decentivizing the use of property as investment and making it more accessible for first-time buyers.

 

I lived among them for some time in a wide array of locations nationwide. Call 'fib' all you want, I know what I experienced.

 

You didn't live among them. You chose to live among a very few of them. The majority of the homeless are hidden. That is an empirical fact.

 

Then you can provide empirical evidence.

 

You want empirical evidence for the bleedin obvious? If you think homelessness just refers to those on the streets then you really aren't a cunning fellow. Take evidence from Shelter. They report that 1 in 200 Brits are homeless. They know that is an underestimate as that excludes 'hidden homelessness' (which aren't included in official figures). In 2017 they reported that 281,000 people were living in temporary accommodation, 21,300 were in single homeless hostels or social services housing, and 4,500 were rough sleeping.

 

Im sorry, I guess I was unclear that Im referring to the US.

Do you have empirical evidence for your claims regarding the dynamic of homelessness in the US?

 

obviously there are degrees of govt involvement and thus degrees of socialism. This is particularly so since socialism ideally creeps or slides into communism. As govt interference grows we have creeping socialism. Your need to distinguish between market socialism, socialism, Nazism, monarchy, liberalism, dictatorship, fascism, etc merely shows your old world illiteracy. Our genius Founders made all govt interference illegal regardless of a particular liberal idiots rationale. Now do you understand?

 

I inform you of the error of using the economic spectrum and you simply repeat it? Will you ever learn the basics? Go on, give me some opitimism!

 

Its the same in all developed countries. Surely you can see the logic? Surely you can appreciate how those on the streets are a minority compared to the real problem?

If you can't then god bless you. Enjoy your bubble!

 

there is no error our genius Founders made liberalism illegal whatever the rationale proffered at any particular time. Do you understand?

 

No I don't as what you've just said is cretinous of the highest order. Do you want to be cretinous or was it an error?

 

do you feel our Founders made an exception for national socialism or Nazism?

 

National Socialism is Nazism. And you didn't mention the far rtight. You referred to liberalism. Why do you think making such ignorant comments makes sense?

 

do you feel our genius founders made an exception for market socialism or fascism??

 

Founders were far far right which why they severely limited central govt to a few carefully enumerated powers. 1+1=2

 

Is that the bit of your response where you make the bogus claim they made liberalism illegal?

 

yes they severely limited central govt by giving it only a few carefully enumerated powers. This is why our liberals hate the Constitution and need it to be a living Constitution while our conservatives like Wm Buckley like to as it was originally. Now do you understand?

 

You didn't show me where they made liberalism illegal. Are you saying that the Democrat Party are illegal?

 

yes technically they are illegal or at least cant hold office wherein they must take an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. They are opposed to basic principle of Constitution. This is why they spied for Stalin and vote for Obama/ Sanders.