• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homeless to be Evicted from Redding California Tent City

If they were capable of living peacefully they wouldn't have drawn attention to themselves . . . seems to me they're just a hazard as they're living, now - I surely could live in the woods without someone finding me out if I so pleased :shrug:
 
I'm sure there are lots of people willing to lend a hand, but it is not our responsibility (or the government's) responsibility to "do something" with the homeless.

This is my issue with most libertarians and small government type on things like this. You just say "this serious problem isn't my responsibility, I'm sure SOMEONE will do something about it", without any consideration to what will actually happen.
 
This is my issue with most libertarians and small government type on things like this. You just say "this serious problem isn't my responsibility, I'm sure SOMEONE will do something about it", without any consideration to what will actually happen.
I don't need to assume... there ARE people doing things. Personally, I think it's a lot of enabling, with some exceptions of people who really do benefit from help.
 
This is my issue with most libertarians and small government type on things like this. You just say "this serious problem isn't my responsibility, I'm sure SOMEONE will do something about it", without any consideration to what will actually happen.

You'd be surprised how much stuff gets done everyday without a specific government program or entity.
It's amazing.
 
The interesting thing is how people who are, for whatever reason, living in tents form a community. They do things together, they care about each other. Once their community is gone, then they have lost friends, they are alone again.

Could it be that they are happy despite the physical hardship of being in a tent city? Maybe a sense of community is more important than the luxury of air conditioning and indoor plumbing.
 
The interesting thing is how people who are, for whatever reason, living in tents form a community. They do things together, they care about each other. Once their community is gone, then they have lost friends, they are alone again.

Could it be that they are happy despite the physical hardship of being in a tent city? Maybe a sense of community is more important than the luxury of air conditioning and indoor plumbing.

From the article, it says they keep the place clean.
I say let em stay.

Sure you're going to sacrifice safety but seeing as how they aren't really a burden on the community, as least as far as the story tells.
Why make them a burden, by pulling the rug out from under them.
 
The interesting thing is how people who are, for whatever reason, living in tents form a community. They do things together, they care about each other. Once their community is gone, then they have lost friends, they are alone again.

Could it be that they are happy despite the physical hardship of being in a tent city? Maybe a sense of community is more important than the luxury of air conditioning and indoor plumbing.

The problem is that they are living illegally on land they don't own. So, community fail. Squatters don't have rights.
 
Sure you're going to sacrifice safety but seeing as how they aren't really a burden on the community, as least as far as the story tells.
Why make them a burden, by pulling the rug out from under them.

Except for that whole having to pay to investigate and/or prosecute a homicide. :roll: Those are cheap, right?
 
One of the first things that is cut from budgets when the hard times that the Obama administration is perpetuating, is Mental Health services. Consider.

One of the first populations to be targeted to loose the most when state funding is decreasing is the community of people living with serious mental illness. Local mental health advocates have seen the writing on the wall and Governor Brewer confirmed it with her State of the State address yesterday.

Governor Brewer wants to repeal the measures passed in 2000 requiring that all those below the Federal Poverty level be covered by the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state’s Medicaid System. If this is repealed, estimates of up to two thirds of the state’s citizens diagnosed with a serious mental illness will loose their coverage.

Budget Cuts and Serious Mental Illness - Grey Matters


Now I know that the first thing the Obama supporter in here will say is, "Come on j-mac, this is a Governor cutting these programs, not Obama." Right?

Wrong!

With tax revenue still declining as a result of the recession and budget reserves largely drained, the vast majority of states have made spending cuts that hurt families and reduce necessary services. These cuts, in turn, have deepened states’ economic problems because families and businesses have less to spend. Federal recovery act dollars and funds raised from tax increases have greatly reduced the extent, severity, and economic impact of these cuts, but only to a point. And federal aid to states is slated to expire soon, well before state revenues have recovered.

An Update on State Budget Cuts — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

When the Fed turns off the spicket, States have no choice but to start cutting services. See, most of the states are mandated to balance their budgets, while the Federal government, like right now can chug along printing money, and with NO budget. Mental health is often the first to go....Enjoy folks!


j-mac
 
One of the first things that is cut from budgets when the hard times that the Obama administration is perpetuating, is Mental Health services. Consider.




Now I know that the first thing the Obama supporter in here will say is, "Come on j-mac, this is a Governor cutting these programs, not Obama." Right?

Wrong!



When the Fed turns off the spicket, States have no choice but to start cutting services. See, most of the states are mandated to balance their budgets, while the Federal government, like right now can chug along printing money, and with NO budget. Mental health is often the first to go....Enjoy folks!


j-mac

I'm confused, but are you advocating that the federal government spends more money on the states?
 
I don't need to assume... there ARE people doing things. Personally, I think it's a lot of enabling, with some exceptions of people who really do benefit from help.

But if in any situation, there aren't enough people doing something or the problem requires a general change on the actions of a large group of people (like parents), the reaction from your camp is "oh well"
 
I'm confused, but are you advocating that the federal government spends more money on the states?


I am advocating Mental Health services. Nothing more, nothing less. They are always the first on the chopping block when savings comes into play, and it's not right. These people (those in need of Mental Health services) are usually the most in need, and the most defenseless.

j-mac
 
Yup, or in a cardboard box. It's a start. And cheaper than building more shelters. Lots of options, too. And any homeless person who wants one gets it free.

I actually think that isn't a bad idea. Much better a tent, than under a bridge.


j-mac
 
When the Fed turns off the spicket, States have no choice but to start cutting services. See, most of the states are mandated to balance their budgets, while the Federal government, like right now can chug along printing money, and with NO budget. Mental health is often the first to go....Enjoy folks!

First off, the term is spigot. Secondly, aren't the states responsible for paying for their own services? If the feds don't have the money, they can't/shouldn't spend it. Your position here seems in conflict with most of your other positions.
 
There are always alternatives to sleeping on the street....homeless shelters, etc. These longterm cardboard shantie-towns are plagued with the usually dual diagnosis longterm homeless (i.e., mentally ill and substance addicted). As a result, they are a loci for crime in an urban area.

I dont understand why they dont create work camps for the chronically homeless and give them something to do that grants a sense of purpose, financial stability to pay for the camp, and removal from the streets and, consequently, the opportunity for crime.
 
I dont understand why they dont create work camps for the chronically homeless and give them something to do that grants a sense of purpose, financial stability to pay for the camp, and removal from the streets and, consequently, the opportunity for crime.

Because they wouldn't voluntarily, or willingly, participate.
 
$500 unless you're homeless. I found that figure on the EDAR site.

I think word of mouth to local churches and community organizations might be a good way to get the word out there.

I want one but they don't say how much they cost.
 
$500 unless you're homeless. I found that figure on the EDAR site.

I think word of mouth to local churches and community organizations might be a good way to get the word out there.

The canvas looks to be of high quality and it would be great for park-n-camp type recreation.
 
The homeless should be put in the military where they will receive food and shelter and can serve a useful purpose. Or send them to Mumbai where no one will notice!
 
Back
Top Bottom