Judge: "Washington must find rooms for homeless families out in cold"

doubletap
reply to post by Elijah23

 

So we can send all the homeless to your house so you can shelter, clothe, and feed all of them?

The up and coming generation you speak of is also the generation of participation trophies, hurt feelings, and a giant sense of entitlement. Their little ideas about how everyone should be given everything may sound good on a college campus, but in reality it simply doesnt work.

Personally, I cannot wait to see reality kick their asses every which way possible. Then, and only then, will they actually learn something, instead of taking the ideas instilled in them by "academia" and thinking the world actually works that way.

No one is entitled to anything. No one has a "right" to food, water, or shelter. If you want it, earn it. That concept evidently doesnt exist in your little mind.

So where were you sending those kids you would have taken away from the mother? And where would you send them all, all these reprehensible homeless, given the reality as it exists right now? To a slaughter house maybe? Put two in all their heads? Is that your solution?

Reality has kicked their asses in almost every way possible, so maybe they really don't need this crap from you. Man I really hope karma is real.

Earn it how? Put those big ideas about how to put people to work out there. Let's hear them. Come on.

Indigo5

Government's very purpose (Both State and Federal) is to collect and spend public funds without capitalistic profit motive for the benefit of the public.

You forgot to add in accordance with the limits placed upon them by the constitution.

No matter how much you wish it was, government is not a charitable organization that has access to the taxpayer wallet. The men who actually founded this nation back up my contention.

doubletap

amazing


no. The absolute worst thing you can ever do is split up a family. ever.

Any evidence to substantiate that claim? It sounds emotion based.

Removing a kid from a welfare household and placing him with a family that is financially capable of supporting him/her would be a much more stable and healthy environment.

You can't really believe that can you? That ripping a family apart just because they fell on hard times is the right thing to do? OMG! Wow.

jazz10
reply to post by doubletap

 

How about removing those children from their parents so the taxpayers dont have to subsidize even more people? 

100% unconstitutional and this needs to be appealed.

Erm.....??
I think you may have wrote that the wrong way round.
You'd take children away from their families so you dont have to pay?
Pmsl.
Sounds like what I have a canny nack of doing lol coming across in the opposite way you meant it.

There is a global similarity we all have.
It seems to me families are been ruined in favour of money.
The very meaning of families are getting erased.

The governments would like have you believe children are a burden and you must work. Fair enough but the UK for instance if I may....

The government in the UK would put families in a positionwhere both parents should be working.
.....easssssy woah there before you all fly off on one.
Mothers in particular. Im not meaning this to be sexist in any way shape or form.....so please.....

I think mothers should decide when they return to work. I think they should be given rhe option.

Children from the beginning have a closer bond to their mothers from the very start going back to the spark.
Mam's emotions relayed through the childs. When they are growing inside their mother they are also bonding.
Men bond after they are born.
Mothers for the maternal side of things and dads are more the discipline route.

What strikes me as interesting is the different ways this could be looked at.

Are families with more than a couple of kids a burden on the financial system of things thats mentioned in an interesting book, a financial system that is actually supposed to come second to life.
Large families seem persecuted yet I dont hear the government complaining when the seven children have left home and are all paying taxes.

Would that meam there should be a cap on the amount a family pays?
Thought not.

As for mothers working. It should be a choice. If you are a mother decide away, as long as it's your choice.
In the UK there seems to be a lot of this family orientated work ethic broadcasted and shouted from the roof tops yet nothing going on practically.

I think our government think women are thick.
What I see is a government putting families into a position where both parents need to work and at the same time, sacrifice that important time with your children, breaking the bonds while also making or putting them In a position where they are actually paying someone else to do what their mother could be doing.

Here is another heads up to the government. If you have read the above and understood the meaning you would see that the tipping point mentioned is near.
Do you do what is right putting life first and rebuilding the foundations or are you to continue clutching at straws to a failing and failed wicked system of things that are in place for now?

End of the world? They'd like the masses to believe that. It distracts everyone else ( the majority) into thinking it involves everyone.

An end of the world scenario for you. Someone discloses free energy technology to the world.
This would be an end of the world scenario for who?

Where as an end of the world scenario for one of those suffering famine, poverty or illness the introduction of free energy technology that is freely available would be end of the world as they know it.
Known it as a struggle to life. That world ended and the new one is born.
We could be that birth.
The problem is convincing everyone it's possible.

reply to post by amazing


Any evidence to substantiate your claims yet?

If so, I would like to see it.

doubletap
reply to post by amazing

 

Any evidence to substantiate your claims yet?

If so, I would like to see it.

I think it's pretty clear that tearing apart families is one of the core problems of this planet. If you even think for a moment that taking children from parents, overall, is a good thing, then we are in staunch opposition. If someone tried to take my children, there would be a violent confrontation. Nothing is more sacred than family. Period.

I think we should go about regaining the ability to prosecute and or disband corporations that break laws and fraudulently gamble with people's money and homes before we start talking about ripping children away from their parents.

BoA fraudulently repossesses a family's home, family ends up on the streets. BoA got/gets several billion in taxpayer funded bailouts because they risked not only their and their investors money but their account and mortgage holders money by practicing predatory lending and getting involved in the riskiest markets, things that broke the economy. They ended up with a settlement that didn't hurt them at all and each home owner that they illegally repossessed their homes from, didn't get their homes back but a 25k sum which you can't buy a home with but gets you kicked off every aid program they'd been receiving or trying to get, including housing programs.

But sure let's punish them more by taking their children away and putting them into foster homes where there's a high percentage of people just in it for the money and treat the kids like crap.

doubletap
reply to post by 2manyholes

 

Foster care is an option, and it solves 2 problems: It removes those kids from a dangerous situation (according to the parents), and it eases the burden for them to get back on their feet without having to worry about who will watch the kids.
Taxpayer funded hotel rooms for homeless people is pretty much the worst option imaginable.

Foster care isn't that great of an idea. Children in foster care face a greater risk of being abused, sexually abused and even murdered than those in the care of their parents.

Children in foster care

reply to post by doubletap

No one is entitled to anything. No one has a "right" to food, water, or shelter. If you want it, earn it. That concept evidently doesnt exist in your little mind.

FDR would have disagreed with you.

So would Thomas Jefferson who said the wealthy should be taxed for as much as they could get from them to pay for social services for the poor.
Equality

I'm really quite shocked, can I just ask for clarity again, you have homeless children living in the USA?

reply to post by buster2010

Good to hear/see that video again. Thank you.


reply to post by oxford

Just the ones we know of...couldn't quickly find the 2013 numbers...hoping they're a bit better now, particularly in California.



Probably a lot more hiding it or falling through the cracks. Imagine that. A country who meddles in the governments of other nations in the name of their citizens can't even take care of her own children. Truly pitiful. Earth really needs a prime directive.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Those stats make me feel physically ill.

Indigo5
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

Those stats make me feel physically ill.

Same here. It's unconscionable. And the solution to take the children from the parents? Well so is that. And I don't care whose children they are. If they are here, we should care for them. And I'm thankful for those who do.

I'm not kidding about a prime directive.

reply to post by buster2010


From your source. Jefferson to Madison:

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

~Lucidity

Indigo5
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

Those stats make me feel physically ill.

Same here. It's unconscionable. And the solution to take the children from the parents? Well so is that.

It is estimated that around 5% of the population is diagnostically, clinically sociopathic/psychopathic. They are not all serial killers like in the movies. Some are very successful surgeons for example...the inability to have empathy combined with a sterile, clinical mind suits surgeons well, otherwise they could be thrown by the concept of cutting into people and messing with their organs. Bernie Madoff is another example of high functioning sociopath. They run the gambit of intelligence and occupation...so in that context, someone that literally thinks...why not just take children from poor families and give them to rich families is not that unusual for sociopathic thinking. A sociopath is incapable of understanding the value of family bonds. The anonymity of the internet allows some sociopaths to express themselves honestly where the rest of their social interactions require a constructed façade.

doubletap

Indigo5

Government's very purpose (Both State and Federal) is to collect and spend public funds without capitalistic profit motive for the benefit of the public.

You forgot to add in accordance with the limits placed upon them by the constitution.

No matter how much you wish it was, government is not a charitable organization that has access to the taxpayer wallet. The men who actually founded this nation back up my contention.

Such confusion...Government is precisely a charitable organization. Collecting and spending public funds without profit. A government who aims to profit from it's citizens is a government to be feared.

Now...as to your sudden, if dishonest, change of claims to the more defensible strict constitutionalist...how do you explain the General Welfare Clause of the constitution? whereupon the founders obligated our government to " promote the general welfare" of it's citizenry?

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Those statistics are even more shocking, recently I've been thinking that these kinds of social issues are a direct reflection of the community they are a part of, it also highlights the fact that not all homeless people are unemployed or lazy which has become a real cliche to dismiss the issue mentally/emotionally out of our own personal responsibility.

A Prime Directive sounds good but that might turn out as useful as the commandments.

doubletap

Indigo5

Government's very purpose (Both State and Federal) is to collect and spend public funds without capitalistic profit motive for the benefit of the public.

You forgot to add in accordance with the limits placed upon them by the constitution.

No matter how much you wish it was, government is not a charitable organization that has access to the taxpayer wallet. The men who actually founded this nation back up my contention.

the men that founded this nation didn't want non-landowners to vote, nor women to vote, they also thought it perfectly fine to keep slaves and indentured servants...let's not get too hung up on the glorious morality of our founding fathers, they and their morality are far removed from the society we have today.

Kali74
reply to post by buster2010

 

From your source. Jefferson to Madison:

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

Why didnt you include the rest of the quote to show that it pertains to farming and the poor paying rent to use uncultivated lands?

Indigo5


Now...as to your sudden, if dishonest, change of claims to the more defensible strict constitutionalist...how do you explain the General Welfare Clause of the constitution? whereupon the founders obligated our government to " promote the general welfare" of it's citizenry?

I explain it the same way the founding fathers meant it when they wrote it.....spending within those few and enumerated areas that will benefit the whole. It most certainly doesnt apply to every little social program those jackasses in DC come up with.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” -James Madison

Now, assuming you know the definition of the word benevolence, the man known as the father of the Constitution just blew your premise right out of the water with that quote. Unless you think you know their intention better than James Madison did.

With respect to the words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. - James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" - Thomas Jefferson

I can quote the men who actually wrote the Constitution all day long to back up my opinion. You evidently dont believe them.