Philadelphia: No Love for the Homeless

Originally posted by zroth
reply to post by thoiter

 

if they are equal, then what PA is doing is reasonable. when you feed animals they stay and more come.

I disagrees that we are equals. I do agree humans have ruined the planet's eco-system/

what is it with the "they" thing ??
we are all animals, living/surviving in the same environment, on the same planet, in the same universe, why o'why are you determined to divide us ??

and on another note, (since i feed strays daily), who cares if they come back ??
if you have it to share, why be so dang stingy ??

reply to post by Aazadan

If you really want to eliminate homelessness you have two options. Either practice trickle up economics or make being homeless illegal and throw everyone on the streets in private prisons. Those are your options

my, my aren't you just a bucket full of optimism ??
only 2 choices you see, eh ?? been studying Germany lately or what ??

contrary to your limited opinion, there are many options available.
the biggest blockade in front of all of them is government ... less government=more local assistance ... and homelessness is one case in which i wish history would repeat itself.

anyone old enough to remember this ?? www.thestreetspirit.org...
this kind of open abuse of the homeless or "vehicular residents" has been going on since 1978 or earlier. it is not a problem TPTB wants to resolve ... never has been.

Originally posted by zroth
reply to post by Unity_99

 

I'm glad we agree that humans are stewards versus just another animal walking the Earth.

It was beginning to worry me that people are so willing to humans in such disregard.

hahahahahahahaha, humans as stewards ???
aren't we doing just a bang up job ??

thanks for the chuckle.
animals (wild ones even) have done more to "steward" the Earth than any human ever.
[less Mother Teresa]

We have the same laws here with giving out food. A restaurant I used to work for gave some out for a bit, but they were fined and stopped doing it.

We really do live in a crazy world.

Originally posted by christoph

Originally posted by zroth


There is not a city in America that loves its homeless.

There are people that care for other people; however policy does not allow for it.

The almighty dollar and acquisition of it are the God this nation prays to.

People live animals more than other people in the nation.

last time i checked, my dog won't steal my wallet if i leave it out while i'm feeding him.

When I lived in America as a child I and my father were homeless. Have you ever seen "Pursuit of Happiness"?.....well people truly live a life like in that movie every day.

I was never in the street although many times we came very, very close because we would get dibs in shelters because I was a child but because I had a father and he was not a Mother most options and aid were not available to us, a few times we spent the night in my fathers rented cab. My father was not allowed to work with a child in the front seat as a cab diver so we were forced the life of people down on their luck.

The little help we found all had strings attached, and one of them was I had to attend a christian youth organisation called Kids at Heart. One of the events held during Christmas was to go out with tons of parcels of food and we the kids would personally had them to as many homeless as we possibly could in the cold and at night.

After reading your comment I think back at my life and feel so grateful I lived it, I could not bare the shame of saying something as stupid as you have.

The Rat.

reply to post by Honor93


no one said we were doing a good job. still our role.

government is supposed to provide stewardship for the nation's finances. We all know how that is going.

reply to post by Honor93


agreed, why be so stingy?

sort of sums up the OP.

Originally posted by Honor93
i said nothing about "domesticated animals".
[but yes, they count too] notice, i did not emphasize your "pet" comment for just that reason.

i refer to ALL animals, of which we are also, yet, continuously attempt to separate ourselves from ourselves, daily. [this is a mental disorder shared by far too many]

ok.

living beyond the capabilities of the eco-system is a problem, sure.

Man's ability to think critically places us in a class all of our own.

just because the current society manages people like livestock, does not mean that Man is livestock

People are choosing to ignore their calling and live as animals. that does not mean they are animals.

the point...is, people are more important to care for than animals. to your point, part of the accountability is caring for the entire eco-system in which we all live.

separatism, in general, is a disease. I agree whole heartedly with your assessment of the situation.

The Bible says in the end times; there will be a great economic crash (world wide).

Karma is coming to all those wealthy who think their money is God and will save them. In the end , all will die and have to face God.

Money may get you some immediate worldly comforts but where do you spend eternity??

This world is going to see some very hard times and ALL will be homeless soon.

Get ready.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by jude11

 

So, watch a person starve on the street rather than run the risk of a multi-BILLION company being sued for a few dollars?

What you and many others fail to realize are two things: 1) Charities are APART from the government (they are run by us…citizens, and they include religious organizations) and have served America (and the homeless) well for over 100 years before welfare came along and, 2) the people demonizing corporations are the people who dole out today’s welfare (Gubment) and the people who receive welfare. Do you see the cycle they (Gubment…more specifically the Liberal Democrats and Marxists like Obama and other 60’s radicals) have created??

edit on 23-11-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

your post has so many holes in it, that i erased what i was going to write, due to the massive amount of evidence easily located to the contrary . i would just say however, that there is fewer of your type believing this, and that is a good sign.

Originally posted by Artistic
The Bible says in the end times; there will be a great economic crash (world wide).

Karma is coming to all those wealthy who think their money is God and will save them. In the end , all will die and have to face God.

Money may get you some immediate worldly comforts but where do you spend eternity??

This world is going to see some very hard times and ALL will be homeless soon.

Get ready.

the world has seen hard times for thousands of years now, it just depends on what class you're in, at a specific place and time in history.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Aazadan

 

If you really want to eliminate homelessness you have two options. Either practice trickle up economics or make being homeless illegal and throw everyone on the streets in private prisons. Those are your options

my, my aren't you just a bucket full of optimism ??
only 2 choices you see, eh ?? been studying Germany lately or what ??

contrary to your limited opinion, there are many options available.
the biggest blockade in front of all of them is government ... less government=more local assistance ... and homelessness is one case in which i wish history would repeat itself.

anyone old enough to remember this ?? www.thestreetspirit.org...
this kind of open abuse of the homeless or "vehicular residents" has been going on since 1978 or earlier. it is not a problem TPTB wants to resolve ... never has been.

Removing government means removing all non voluntary (charity) assistance. Charity doesn't cover everyone, if it did it would be working right now.

Originally posted by zroth
reply to post by Honor93

 

no one said we were doing a good job. still our role.

government is supposed to provide stewardship for the nation's finances. We all know how that is going.

oh come on, i was only being truthful.

besides, stewardship is an individual thing, (just ask the other animals), not a government thing, not a group thing and certainly not something undertaken under the rule of the Captain or in this case, the Mayor.

actually, the government is supposed to provide the nation's finaces and our ancestors usurped that right in 1913.

It's a proven fact the more you give them more will come back. Didn't we just prove that in November. I feed deer deer feed me. I don't feed or help homeless. The local salvation Army bans people that want free food from parking on their property. If you have a car you probably can get food

reply to post by zroth

that my friend is all in the perception generated ... which is manipulated hourly.

my apology for seeming offensive, it is not my intent.
however, you nor anyone else will EVER convince me again that humans are any step ABOVE any other group of animals.
i'm just not that gullible or naive anymore.

for as many times as humans save an animal's life, they return the favor in multiples.
just because we do not understand them is no good reason to diminish them or their direct contributions.

ever wonder why we train them to be more like us ?
how many humans take the effort to understand THEM as they are ?
[those who do, experience unique bonds that time and distance cannot destroy ... how many humans have or build that?]

look, we can agree to disagree can't we ?
i understand your point.
once upon a time, i agreed with it.
i was young and naive and now i'm not.

the point...is, people are more important to care for than animals.

i whole-heartedly disagree.

to your point, part of the accountability is caring for the entire eco-system in which we all live

the greatest ability of man is to give of himself to that which provides.

life is love, loving is living and by one's own will shall love prevail.

reply to post by Aazadan

Removing government means removing all non voluntary (charity) assistance. Charity doesn't cover everyone, if it did it would be working right now

this is an argument that can be had from both sides equally.
the final point is ... we cannot knowingly predict what "could" happen because it never has.

and one additional point ... even with government assistance, charity is desperately needed, heavily used and seldom given the thanks they truly deserve.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Aazadan

 

Removing government means removing all non voluntary (charity) assistance. Charity doesn't cover everyone, if it did it would be working right now

this is an argument that can be had from both sides equally.
the final point is ... we cannot knowingly predict what "could" happen because it never has.

and one additional point ... even with government assistance, charity is desperately needed, heavily used and seldom given the thanks they truly deserve.

We can look at participation rates and other charities and know how effective they are. Practically every charity on the planet is overburdened. The reason is there's a much smaller pool of donors than when taxes are involved because taxes require large groups of people to "donate". If we removed all government funding for the homeless right now, charity wouldn't go up by an amount equal to what was removed, anything less than a 100% participation rate means that by definition there would be less money. On top of that, not all charity money actually goes to helping people. Those working at charities require wages and donation drives cost money. That's not to say tax systems are free of overhead either, but their overhead is lower specifically because donation drives/donation incentives don't need to exist and economics of scale allow each worker to efficiently deal with the "donation" of more individuals.

If you cut everyones taxes by $500 a year you have a few outcomes, and paid for it by removing services that help the homeless with food and shelter:
#1. Everyone chooses to donate that $500 to charities that help the groups they specifically want to help. The same money gets donated but distribution is much less equal. People tend to donate to those like them, so people that are minorities in the population but majorities of those needing help see less money each. You can very easily divide this among racial lines, but even non racial... those who make themselves visible in affluent areas that have fewer needy people will see far more money.

#2. Some people choose to donate, but some people choose to spend that money on things that benefit them. Now less money is being distributed but there remains just as many needy people. The issues of #1 still apply.

#3. No one chooses to donate and everyone spends the money benefiting themselves. Now there's no money going to needy people, and crime rates spike because those without are left with no other alternative to survive.

The most realistic outcome is #2, leaning towards #3. I bet charity donation participation wouldn't exceed 10% of the population and even that is optimistic based on observing donation rates of highly successful charities that specifically target those with disposable income.

reply to post by Aazadan

and that discussion would be more appropriate in another thread.

however, to visualize just how "off" your theory is, you might want to review the charity situation in the US around the 1930s.
i believe you'll be surrprised to learn the people have ALWAYS taken care of the people.
the government has ALWAYS taken care of the government even though that is not it's job.

rather tout your preconceived notions about charity, pehaps a little history would do you good.
start here ... one of the only states that was never a slave-state ... www.phmc.state.pa.us... ... and administered assistance to all who qualified.
then, if you need other references, please ask.

reply to post by jude11


I said I don't agree with this. I wish restaurants, bakeries, and such were able to sit food out - instead of throwing it in the trash - for homeless, low income people.

They aren't allowed to due to the threat of a lawsuit.

reply to post by seabag


The liberal democrats also closed state institutions for the mentally ill because "they" have a right to live on the street and not be forced in to "care" in the 70's.