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

reply to post by greencmp


Total combined for ALL Congress in 2013 $804,247,090.00

Now that's money thrown away.

I would like to see these people get a leg up. It's either that or we keep complaining about how they are a drain on society. I'd rather spend $100 now then $1,000 down the road.

reply to post by Domo1


I certainly can agree with you here! However, I don't see how giving someone a private room is a leg up.
I think there are many, many ways the system could be revamped so there would be jobs to 'offer' the non-working, and homeless- besides switching folks over to SSI when their welfare benefits run out.

I wouldn't even be too opposed to a 'private room', and a meal for a family- as long as either mom or dad provided 4-6 hours of labor for each night stayed.

Ok, if they can't give their kids a safe environment ... why did they have kids?

I remember the day when my husband and I were in school and getting desperate after some rough car repairs and checked out public assistance just to see if there was anything that would provide a temporary hand up. They said the only way we could qualify is if I got pregnant.

Hmmm ... maybe that's why all those kids are now in danger.

reply to post by Pimpintology


Wow so you'd take children off of people like those who lost their homes and lives in hurricane Katrina? ... Or those who lost their homes through bank foreclosures, instead of supporting the state in helping these people get their lives back? I can't believe some of the comments in this post, makes me ashamed to call myself a Human in case people think I am likening myself to people who think like you... Im glad Im not an American, we take better care of people in Scotland, but I suppose that makes us filthy communists....

Domo1
reply to post by nugget1

 

Would you want children in that sort of place? I sure as ____ don't. Drug abuse, alcoholism, probably quite a few sexual predators and all packed in nice and cozy.

I can take care of myself and would be pretty freaked out if I had to spend a night in those conditions. Imagine a toddler.

How about public rec centers dedicated to 'families only'?

That's not a bad idea.

edit on 2420140320141 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)

No, Domo, I would not. I am not friendless. If the temps dropped below freezing, I KNOW my friends, and even people who barely know me by sight (like the post man, grocery store checker, etc) would INSIST I stay in their home. And I would be thankful to sit in a chair in their living room- not 'demand' a private bed.

And I would insist on not imposing on the goodness of their heart; I would refuse to stay one second after temps were tolerable outside.

Not all of the homeless are down on their luck. A good many are there BY CHOICE. Panhandling is far more lucrative and a whole lot easier than working for minimum wage.

I'm a bleeding heart,too. But you help no one when you give them something for nothing. Nobody in this country should ever go hungry, but if it's given to them for free it shouldn't be a five course meal. Just the basics. And they should be willing to work for it- even if it's just clearing the table. Let them retain their diginity, or give them some, if they have none!

Shelter should be just the basics, so those with incentives will WANT to do better. Nobody should have to go without a roof over their head. Same thing applies; nothing fancy, just meet the basic requirements. Hire security if needed to keep these poor souls safe. Separate the rec centers to provide one for families only-with security.

Every church in our community opens it's doors when the temps drop too low, but, alas, they don't offer private rooms.

reply to post by Elijah23


I could not have said it better, I completely agree with everything you said.

These are families and ripping them apart is the WORST thing you can do. People don't always fall on hard times because they are lazy sometimes things unforseen happens, not everyone is a freaking psychic who can predict the future.

I like the idea of my tax dollars going towards keeping familes, safe, happy, warm and together.

Should be ashamed of yourselves.

Aloysius the Gaul



The Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Lol seriously?

Let me show you how wrong you are...

The preamble does not confer any powers, it is the modern day equivalent of a mission statement. If you really want to use the general welfare clause, you should be citing Article 1 Section 8. The GW clause is the favorite catchall of those who seek unconstitutional actions, but you would be laughably wrong by attempting that argument.

General, as in the whole, not the individual.

Need proof?

How about we use the words of the man known as the Father of the Constitution, James Madison

“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.”

Hopefully I dont need to explain that quote to you in order to show your usage of the GW clause is simply incorrect.

Wow so you'd take children off of people like those who lost their homes and lives in hurricane Katrina? .

reply to post by Elijah23


I don't think anyone who survived Hurricane Katrina thought about filing a lawsuit because they weren't given a 'private room'. Apples and oranges, here.

brandiwine14


I like the idea of my tax dollars going towards keeping familes, safe, happy, warm and together.

Should be ashamed of yourselves.

Surely you wouldnt mind paying more so others dont have to right?

Want to send me a check to cover what money I am forced to pay then?

If not, you should be ashamed of yourself.

nugget1


I don't think anyone who survived Hurricane Katrina thought about filing a lawsuit because they weren't given a 'private room'. Apples and oranges, here.

Oh no. Some Katrina parasites actually did sue because after a very long time in a hotel, it was decided their free ride was up and they didnt want to actually have to be responsible for themselves.

reply to post by doubletap


Tough.

the GW clause establishes the PURPOSE of the constitution, and as any good lawyer will tell you, the intent and purpose of legislation can often be used to confer or limit powers that are or not specifically granted.

Sorry about that.

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by doubletap

 

Tough.

the GW clause establishes the PURPOSE of the constitution, and as any good lawyer will tell you, the intent and purpose of legislation can often be used to confer or limit powers that are or not specifically granted.

Sorry about that.

Uh what?

Domo1
reply to post by Pimpintology

 

Don't have kids if you expect the rest of us to pay for them.

I tend to agree but the unfortunate truth is that these things can't always be controlled and making children suffer more for the mistakes of their parents is cruel. It's also pointless considering that like it or not tax payers will be paying for them.

It shouldn't matter how the kids got here, but how we treat them now. Yes, the parents are most likely idiots. Then there are probably those that fell on hard times and are great people that need a leg up.

If we can't all agree that letting people freeze to death = bad I'm worried.

The lawsuit doesn't say anyone is freezing to death, so why are you?

I like the idea of my tax dollars going towards keeping familes, safe, happy, warm and together.

reply to post by brandiwine14


Would you still like the idea if you knew that less than one quarter of the people had 'fallen on hard times' That better than 3/4 of the homeless remain that way by choice? That there's a good chance they make more money panhandling than you make working? And they pay no taxes?

The people who have truly just fallen on hard times need to be identified, and given a hand up. Any who honestly want to leave the homeless life behind should be given a hand up.
Requiring these people to give of themselves in return for help would help identify those who truly want out- and not just a handout.

It would be very easy to check out the work history of these people who ask for private rooms to see if they truly have 'just fallen on hard times', or have learned how to buck the system. Then, help those who are willing to help themselves.

The 'something for nothing' society we are turning into can't be supported on the backs of the working class much longer.

Sue the crap out of the city and the state, and why you're at it go for the banks because thats where all this BS started. Give them houses to live in, this is crazy. People here are talking about taking their children away? WTF you guys.

3.5 million homeless and 18.5 million vacant homes in the USA

brandiwine14I like the idea of my tax dollars going towards keeping familes, safe, happy, warm and together.

Should be ashamed of yourselves.

Well thank you for that, I suppose you have no problem keeping my family warm and fed, how should I expect the funds to arrive, cash or cashier's check?

reply to post by Quauhtli


Mature adults think with logic and intellect (aka their brains), and some think with emotion.

It seems you are part of that 2nd group.

Removing children eases the burden on the parents so they can get their lives straightened out, and if they are long term losers instead of just down on their luck, placing the children with a responsible family will benefit the child anyways.

~Lucidity
reply to post by greencmp

 

Total combined for ALL Congress in 2013 $804,247,090.00

Now that's money thrown away.

True that, my friend.

doubletap
reply to post by Quauhtli

 

Mature adults think with logic and intellect (aka their brains), and some think with emotion.

It seems you are part of that 2nd group.

Removing children eases the burden on the parents so they can get their lives straightened out, and if they are long term losers instead of just down on their luck, placing the children with a responsible family will benefit the child anyways.

Dude, you obviously have no idea what kinds of consequences happen when children are taken away from their parents. You can label me how you like, it doesn't change the fact that the action you would take in these matters would only compound the problem and create whole new ones that may never be able to be fixed. Your remedy is akin to trying to put out a fire with gasoline.


ETA

The reason I agree that suing the city and state is that if it brings to light the number of empty houses and weighs it against homeless people some good may come out of it. Houses fall apart when they're empty. and it could turn out to be a good investment for the city. putting the reigns on the out of control banks might be a good idea as well. I apologize if I come across as emotional when confronted with the idea of taking children away when the parents are a little down, but I'm a parent. It's not an option.

Snarl

doubletap
More unconstitutional lunacy from the judicial branch....

Here's an idea: Grant the homeless unfettered access to government offices (including this judge's) and watch how fast a permanent solution is found.

Great idea but, I am against cruelty to children!