Criminalization of Poverty Run Amok: 500 Anti-Homeless Laws in One State Alone

a reply to: Sremmos80

Sorry to hear that Sremmos.


Hopefully it picks up for him soon.

MANY vets would be FINE with jobs AWAY from the populace like BLM or forestry work ,however the slow witted system won't put that one together.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Or simply die

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Daedal

Any decent government would provide for the needs of it's less fortunate

What is a homeless person supposed to do ... they require help not labelled as criminals

Any decent citizen would help provide for the needs of the less forutnate. Have you taken in any homless folks and made their lives better?

a reply to: guitarplayer

Yes
2

a reply to: Daedal

There will ALWAYS be homeless people because there will always be crazy people, lazy people, drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. No city wants to see its sidewalks polluted with bums begging for money and running hustles on people to feed their addictions.

No one who is simply "down on their luck" is going to be homeless for long as there are plenty of services and shelters for those people. The problem are the mentally ill and drug addicts who can't do anything productive no matter what you try to do for them. I know you can't be advocating that cities round them up and throw them in jail which is really all you can do to get them off the street.

a reply to: artistpoet

Good for you. Why do you advocate the government doing what the citizens should be doing helping the homeless? Anytime you get the govenment involved the cost sky rockets where as citizens doing the job cost would be less and the good done would be greater.

a reply to: Edumakated

There will ALWAYS be homeless people because there will always be crazy people, lazy people, drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. No city wants to see its sidewalks polluted with bums begging for money and running hustles on people to feed their addictions.

No one who is simply "down on their luck" is going to be homeless for long as there are plenty of services and shelters for those people. The problem are the mentally ill and drug addicts who can't do anything productive no matter what you try to do for them. I know you can't be advocating that cities round them up and throw them in jail which is really all you can do to get them off the street.

Thank goodness not everybody thinks like you

When I was a child we used to call homeless people tramps (which is an historical term for men and women who went of the "Tramp" looking for work

As a child with my Father I once laughed at the antics of a tramp ... however he was not looking for work or begging either he just chose to live without permanent shelter.

My Father put me straight about laughing at this man ... Why ... Because he knew him ... He had been a top class carpenter ... But went to pieces when his beloved wife passed ... he just could not cope ...
However this tramp ... used to collect money on behalf of a hospice ... He raise thousands ans thousand of pounds ...
He was famous and known in my home city ...

I am glad that there are those who actually care for less fortunate ones and do not judge them as you do
Perhaps your inter actions with such street people has coloured your view

a reply to: artistpoet

I loved you last post man thats awesome.

a reply to: guitarplayer

Because the government is supposed to represent the people and takes money from the people in the form of taxes
There is a large housing shortage in my country ... and many public services have faced the axe after the Banking Crisis ... They call it Austerity measure ...
Yet without the peoples consent they gave fortunes to the banks
Without the consent of the people they wage dubious wars in other countries
They diminish the Health Service

If you ask people what they would like their taxes spent on ... Most would say Health Care Education and Public Services

However that is not done and you raise a very good point

You are right ... If our government does not care for the less fortunate on our behalf then it is up to us act independently

a reply to: onequestion

Why thank you ... I appreciate your comment
BTW I follow your postings and have respect for you also

a reply to: artistpoet

I just call it like I see it. Truth hurts sometimes. I live in a very liberal community with all kinds of services for homeless. The truly indigent are well taken care of by the community at large - most elderly folks who need help. However, despite the shelters, soup kitchens, addiction services, etc we still have a group of bums that refuses to do anything productive other than hustle bleeding hearts out of their hard earned money.

I've heard every story under the sun from these losers as to why they need some spare change only to see them wander off to the dope man to get a hit. The same MoFos on the corner day in and day out begging for money. If you can get up everyday to go stand at an intersection for 12 hours per day begging, you can take your ass to go get a real job.

Don't get me started on the dirtbag female crackheads who drag their kids around with them while begging trying to get some sympathy.

Again, unless you plan on forcibly removing some of these people from the streets who have real mental problems and throwing them in the looney hospital, what exactly do you think you can do to help them? When someone is so addicted to drugs they will give you a blow job for $5.00 and sell off their own children, what exactly are you going to do for them to get them off the streets beyond forcibly throwing them in jail / rehab? Let's be realistic here.

a reply to: Edumakated

I can not dispute your experiences with people you are describing

If someone who is a drug addict asks me for money ... I go buy them food and coffee instead ... that is if I can afford it

In my country there is a scheme to help these people
They stand and sell a magazine called "The Big Issue" they receive half the money it costs
Many famous individuals are contributors to this magazine
It is very varied in it's topic matter

I have been made homeless myself for 4 years due to the criminal activities of my landlord who I was perusing a court case with
I was fortunate in that my friends and family supported me

Like I said I will not can not dispute your experiences
But I will not judge people and will try to help them where possible

You cant say "They are all the same" for they are not

I just think differently from you is all

a reply to: Edumakated

Those are the most "obvious" homeless because they are visible but they are not the majority of homeless.

Either way, arresting people for existing in a state you deem inappropriate(absolute poverty) is ridiculous and dangerous to the safety and security of all people.

It does not take much to become homeless and there are a million ways to get stuck in this system of bull#. You say that everyone but messed up using losers are taken care of where you live, give me the city name...I'm sorry but I do not believe you.

Also, people are responsible for their own decisions to give money to these people.

How do you get them off the streets if they don't want to be off the streets?

You don't.

There will always be SOME homeless people. These laws effect every kind of homeless person not just violent crackhead mothers who are visible and panhandling.

They effect people who lost a job and are out of an apartment.

They effect vets suffering from PTSD and various mental disorders(or ones who are just # out of luck because the whole system sucks)

They effect people who have medical conditions and don't have the money to fix them at the moment because our healthcare system sucks

They effect everyone who doesn't have a bed for the night. They have long term effects for everyone who doesn't have a bed for the night. Long term effects that can eventually prevent people from getting back on their feet.

You ever wonder how strange it is that the US has so many poor and homeless and yet no shanty towns like many other nations with large populations of this subgroup?

We make their existence illegal and throw them in jail. We prevent them from creating their own shanty hovels by destroying even tents or issuing citations. We mask how bad things truly are in this country by destroying the mold that has taken over the wall by continually spraying bleach on the surface, although it's still growing just beneath the line of sight.

Drugs and alcohol become understandable when you're sleeping outside and the cities and governments won't even let you pitch a tent to get warm. Try sleeping outside when it's 35 and raining without a tent.

As you pointed out the government is not there for the people but only to further their own selfish existence. The money would be better spent by the population to help those in need. Then what would the government do to further their need to create a dependent class of people who relies on the government for their very existence? They would come up with something you can bet on that.
a reply to: artistpoet

Here we go again...

Homelessness is going to be in ALL of our futures. The "Owners of Capital" do not really need human laborers anymore. Some of us have gotten a reprieve because AI and computer tech can't quite do our job yet, but once it happens our fate will be no different. Feel free to judge them now, but soon you will be the one asking the PhD holding minimum wage programer for a dollar, when he is sitting in his car getting on the freeway.

So how did things get this way? It was all by design and the endgame it right around the corner. No it won't be total doom and gloom, food and clothing will still be available to the poor, but shelter and transportation is going to be a thing of the past for all but the most wealthy.

Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.

Why?

Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a reason they don’t want people dropping out of high school and then at the same time, encourage those high school graduates to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD. They do so because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone looking for, able, qualified for and willing to work.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education, they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort.

Basically the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 6-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish more school!!!

This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for work and typically found it, that’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will soon add another 1-3 years of people within a cohort, to those “not seeking employment”. Not to the specific detriment of society, but to continue to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare are then acting in the same way to the larger economy as the increased minimum education levels for employment, with the real goal of decreasing the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time. This cohort of people "not pursuing full-time employment" also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners/SSI and the disabled on government assistance. If everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY, as many “capitalists” and "entrepreneurs" suggest these days, we would all be making 0.25 cents a day.

With big business being hell bent on replacing living workers with machines, most disparaging comments against the homeless miss a subtle point that ONLY the children of the wealthy will have the opportunity to become TRUE experts in MOST paying fields. Let me clarify, through the prior 20th century, a poor kid who studied hard could become a lawyer, engineer, accountant, even a doctor sometimes with the right combination of hard work, savings, scholarships, family support, etc, OR they simply went into the trades and learned on the job WITH pay. HOWEVER, in engineering and technician curriculum’s today, times are changing, which now favors kids whom have access to expensive software and hardware to “experiment” with and “practice” on before entering college or a particular training program. So when they finally get to college or to their first apprenticeship, those whom have had lots of free time to “play” with robotics and programming, outside of the classroom, WILL CERTAINLY outpace their less privileged peer, who flips burgers part-time, to pay rent and school expenses.

There is simply no way for these homeless people to get trained for future employment, period. They are certainly unwanted and largely unneeded in the eyes of the true "Owners of Capital". Think you've got the secret to "boot strapping" and staying gainfully employed? Think again, you are the future homeless and the homeless were once you in the past.

originally posted by: crankyoldman
Why is this a surprise to people? Back in 1964 noted humanitarian, social softy and all around selfless guy Lyndon B. Johnson "declared WAR on poverty."

The words "declaration of war" is a very, VERY specific sequence of words which is NOT a euphemism for "gee I really want to help poor people a lot. " The phrase has a legal definition that means "war, and the suspension of all human rights in the process." Of all the possible phrases he could have used during his speech he selected this one, which means: The US has declared war on the impoverished. That phrase did not mean: The US has declared support and stability to those in need." If he had meant the US declared support and stability he would have SAID THAT! War, it only means one thing in the legal sense, only one.

The word WAR means something and it ain't "aid" or "support" or "help" or "compassion." It means those who have been declared the enemy have no rights. Now ask yourself this question and answer it honestly: Do the poor have protected rights in real estate, criminal actions and in city services? Do the poor have the same rights as the rich? Have the poor evolved since 1964 to a level where poverty is really an after thought in the US?

For 50 years the US has been at war with the poor, and it shows. In fifty years the poor have been charged BILLIONS of dollars to make them poorer. The poor, at the time, were poor but not in debt. Now they are all in debt and in dire straights and this was by design. The US has been in two declared wars, wars which were ushered in by the use of the term "declaration of war" and both have led to the suspension of the human rights afforded to them when not in war.

This is not a shock if you actually understand how the language works. It was put right in front of everyone to see in 1964, the sheeple simply heard "declare war" and decided, like idiots, to make it mean something else. Like saying, "you are about to be executed" means "I like your sweater".

In the world of legal language, and governmental "acts", which is how all governments operate, there are NO EUPHEMISMS, only words which have disguised meanings or in the case of "war" obvious meanings but there are NO euphemisms.

I so wish I could give you two stars instead of one.

Now all of us need to apply this same logic to things like "The War on Drugs" and other insidious misnomers!

a reply to: onequestion

I always need help doing my job, my first attempt to get workers is to find a guy with a "will work for food" sign. The work is easy as pie, not once ever has one of them wanted to actually work for it, I asked 2 yesterday, yes it was cold, but I ended up doing it alone as usual. I have tried so many times to give them easy work with really good pay but it has never worked out. Im sure there are some that will work, but honestly Ive tried and I thing most of the ones Ive spoken with have mental problems that contribute to their behavior, some are just down and out and some are just lazy and would rather beg, so I don't classify them as a whole.

originally posted by: Foderalover
I always need help doing my job, my first attempt to get workers is to find a guy with a "will work for food" sign. The work is easy as pie, not once ever has one of them wanted to actually work for it, I asked 2 yesterday, yes it was cold, but I ended up doing it alone as usual. I have tried so many times to give them easy work with really good pay but it has never worked out. Im sure there are some that will work, but honestly Ive tried and I thing most of the ones Ive spoken with have mental problems that contribute to their behavior, some are just down and out and some are just lazy and would rather beg, so I don't classify them as a whole.

How much were you paying?

The homeless have "opportunity costs" to contend with as well. If you and others like yourself are paying these homeless people half of what they get begging, why should they work for you? Isn't that decision to "maximize opportunity" just another form "capitalism" and "entrepreneurship". Just because you "feel" its the "lazy" way, doesn't make their action any less "capitalistic" than your personal efforts at "bootstrapping".

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I wonder how many affected are Vets...

Land of the Thief... Home of the Slave!




The Divided Kingdom is no better...
I'm equal opportunity Xenophobe...

Whadda You Think???

That is by far my favorite Stargate episode!