The American government, it seems, has always been a part of providing public housing, and it’s no surprise considering shelter is one of the basic human needs for survival. Today, the federal government takes general responsibility of the task, but it was not always that way. In fact, prior to the 1930’s, local governments, most often the county, provided the needed shelter. However, it should be noted that, the services during those times were almost exclusively for Caucasian citizens and minorities were often forgotten. So how did public housing reach its current state? Let’s take a look at the trek that it has endured thus far. In 1937, the federal government became officially involved with public housing under the United States Housing Act. This act truly came out of President Roosevelt’s New Deal which started in 1933. The goal of this act was to improve the current unsafe and unsanitary housing conditions and to lessen the extreme shortage of decent housing for low-income families. At the time, low-income was defined as those who were in the lowest income group and could not afford to pay rent to private landlords. Additionally, the only original qualifications that had to be met were that the families’ incomes could be no greater than five times the cost of rent, or six times in the case of families with three or more children. Efforts were made to reach the goal of the act through loans to public housing agencies to support low-rent public housing construction. The 1940’s followed with a new president, Truman, and he developed the Office of Housing Expenditure. Then, in 1949 under the office’s guidance, an act was passed, the first Housing Act. This act came out of President Truman’s Fair Deal. The goal was to provide enough funds to rid neighborhoods of slums and develop new housing. The new housing was mostly developed for the World War II veterans and did not provide much aid to those who were not. In fact, the act did not aid those in the slum areas, but instead dislodged them from their homes and forced many low-income families to find new residence. https://www.socialworkhelper.com/20...started-over-70-years-ago-yet-still-evolving/ The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression that took place mostly during the 1930s, beginning in the United States. The timing of the Great Depression varied across nations; in most countries it started in 1929 and lasted until the late-1930s.[1] It was the longest, deepest, and most widespread depression of the 20th century.[2] In the 21st century, the Great Depression is commonly used as an example of how far the world's economy can decline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression Why was 'homelessness' not a viable option during the Great Depression? Instead, many chose to end their lives.
When the 'tax payers' of any given populace begin to feel infringed upon by the non tax paying persons, in any 'territorial' rights kind of way, those who claim 'rights' will begin to face opposition and resistance by those whose own 'tax payed for rights' for/of safety is being endangered. it would just seem/be really 'odd' if the Local State Government was NOT on the tax payers' side(s). I think the order in which the Rights are in are as: Tax payers; those who have invested over a certain number of work 'quarters' into the State and National Tax(es). Tax payers; the new persons in the process of developing enough work 'quarters'. Legal Residents; those born in families who are within the top two. Legal Residents but not tax payers nor family to a Tax Payer; such as those who purchase their citizenship but are not 'tax payers'. . . . With a five hundred thousand dollar(s) 'investment' to U.S., such as home, a person can purchase their legal residency/citizenship. But some of these have yet to become 'tax payers' in work hours.
With active contribution to the maintaining and well keeping to these, the rights to work, to live in the pursuit of happiness, liberty and justice, are first received from the authors of The Constitution as well as from the ONE who approved of The Constitution. Without an active working, how can anyone say that they are actively contributing to the upkeeping and maintaining of the land on which a person lives? No land would mean we would all need to live off boats. There are certain things which are not suitable for the 'land' . And in these is 'the god of this world'. The world is using Africa as an electronic graveyard dumping tons of ... Thermal Soundwaves Harrowing images reveal one of west-Africa's vast electronic graveyards where 'millions of tons' of discarded appliances from all over the world are being ... https://thermalsoundwaves.com/blog/...an-electronic-graveyard-dumping-tons-of-waste What's wrong with our own Land to dump all of this on? Why send it off to another person's home?
Top 10% of Koreans control 66% of wealth: report The top 10 percent of South Koreans control 66 percent of the country's wealth, with the inequality gap becoming more acute over time, a report showed Thursday. According to the report by Kim Nak-nyeon, an economics professor at Seoul's Dongguk University, Asia's fourth-largest economy is encumbered by a sizable difference in wealth between the haves and have-nots. While the rich monopolized wealth that includes both financial and property holdings, the lower 50 percent only accounted for 2 percent of the country's assets. http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20151029000814 It isn't too difficult to see that partiality and favoritism plays a huge role in who 'receives' those abundances of monies and who does not. If you are willing to have The country of Africa as the/a 'dump site', then i guess you might be as one of the 'elite wealthy'. I mean, think about it.. With all that 'cash', more 'goods' will be purchased.. Those purchases when disposed of has to be dumped somewhere, right? Just because you can't see the 'trash' doesn't mean it 'disappeared' and the Earth is still the way it was before the trash was dumped. The Love of money is the root of all evil... The love of... not money itself but the love of... meaning to hold onto, to cling, to covet,.... This means the person does not care where the trash is being dumped.. their love to the monies has blinded their hearts and minds to see that the trash needs to get dumped, SOMEWHERE.. 1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." Needful 'trash' and unneeded 'trash' are two different things... And with a human population of 7.6 billion today, many might not care where their unneedful trash is being dumped.
The first occurrence of organised solid waste management system appeared in London in the late 18th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_waste_management - The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, the increasing use of steam power, the development of machine tools and the rise of the factory system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution - The slaughterhouse emerged as a coherent institution in the nineteenth century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse
Central banks in most developed nations are institutionally designed to be independent from political interference. Still, limited control by the executive and legislative bodies usually exists. The use of money as accounting unit predates history. Government control of money is documented in the ancient Egyptian economy (2750-2150 BC).[6] The Egyptians measured the value of goods with a central unit called shat. As many other currencies, the shat was linked to gold. The value of a shat in terms of goods was defined by government administrations. Other cultures in Asia Minor later materialised their currencies in the form of gold and silver coins.[7] In the medieval and the early modern period a network of professional banks was established in Southern and Central Europe.[8] The institutes built a new tier in the financial economy. The monetary system was still controlled by government institutions, mainly through the coinage prerogative. Banks, however, could use book money to create deposits for their customers. Thus, they had the possibility to issue, lend and transfer money autonomously without direct governmental control. In order to consolidate the monetary system, a network of public exchange banks was established at the beginning of the 17th century in main European trade centres. The Amsterdam Wisselbank was founded as a first institute in 1609. Further exchange banks were located in Hamburg, Venice and Nuremberg. The institutes offered a public infrastructure for cashless international payments.[9] They aimed to increase the efficiency of international trade and to safeguard monetary stability. The exchange banks thus fulfilled comparable functions to modern central banks.[10] The institutes even issued their own (book) currency, called Mark Banco. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank
... I was in need... A food truck pulled up and noticed I was in need.. And so the food truck gave me some assistance. I asked, why, no free food? The food truck said he was within competitive prices and that the prices of the food it had to offer was fair and reasonable.
Socialism is a system in which.. For Andrew Vincent, "[t]he word ‘socialism’ finds its root in the Latin sociare, which means to combine or to share. The related, more technical term in Roman and then medieval law was societas. This latter word could mean companionship and fellowship as well as the more legalistic idea of a consensual contract between freemen" The modern definition and usage of "socialism" settled by the 1860s, becoming the predominant term among the group of words "co-operative", "mutualist" and "associationist", which had previously been used as synonyms. The term "communism" also fell out of use during this period, despite earlier distinctions between socialism and communism from the 1840s.[50] An early distinction between socialism and communism was that the former aimed to only socialise production while the latter aimed to socialise both production and consumption (in the form of free access to final goods).[51] However, Marxists employed the term "socialism" in place of "communism" by 1888, which had come to be considered an old-fashion synonym for socialism. It was not until 1917 after the Bolshevik Revolution that "socialism" came to refer to a distinct stage between capitalism and communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a means to defend the Bolshevik seizure of power against traditional Marxist criticisms that Russia's productive forces were not sufficiently developed for socialist revolution.[52] A distinction between "communist" and "socialist" as descriptors of political ideologies arose in 1918 after the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian Communist Party, where communist came to specifically mean socialists who supported the politics and theories of Leninism, Bolshevism and later Marxism–Leninism,[53] although communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
At that point, there was little to no real system in place for the care of a permanent class of those who did not work. Even the fabled "Hobos" of the era worked. In reality, they were not bums but largely migrant workers, who moved from location to location where work was needed. And when work was not available, most survived on works they made and sold themselves. There was a large industry in what is now called "Tramp Art", making everything from picture frames, tools, furniture, even musical instruments from things like matches and cigar boxes. And the more industrious who wanted their own land in that era could simply go out and get some. The "Homestead Acts" of the era allowed individuals who really wanted to strike out on their own to acquire for low cost a parcel of land, build their own home, and start a farm. By 1909 the Homestead Act allowed individuals to lay claim to up to 320 acres at very little cost. But under the FDR administration, most of the Homestead Acts were removed. This eliminated the incentive of individuals to "set out on their own", and the rise in cities caused more and more individuals to congregate there. In a century the US population has moved from primarily agrarian to primarily urban. I for one wish they would bring back the Homestead Acts. However, simply modify it to being more like a "99 year lease" and forbidding the transfer of the property to anybody else other than for agricultural purposes. Even the old system of living on gold claims is no longer available. At one time, you could stake out a gold claim, and live on your claim. And even though it is still possible to create or buy a gold claim, it is forbidden to live on it. Today the claim is not title to the land, only permission to use it. And permanent structures are forbidden. Even trying to live in your claim in a trailer can bring down the wrath of the BLM, or local authorities.
