• 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!

Homelessness among US children at all-time high

I mean, Hamilton wasn't my favorite, but I don't see why many would not like them. Everything is best in context, and in context, they were so far ahead of their time. And I doubt that Barack wouldn't see or acknowledge that.

they were ahead of their time, the founders read a lot, and Madison read about government before he framed the blueprint for the Constitution months before the Constitutional convention, and he asked himself the question "why do governments fail"

because they turn tyrannical in the end.

a king becomes a dictator

rule of the few becomes an oligarchy

rule by all, becomes mob rule

our founders sought to solve this problem by incorporating all three governments into American government

monarchy aristocracy, and democracy.

which when there are three different types of government within American government, tyranny cannot take place because each has power to prevent the takeover of the other.
 
Last edited:
And that is exactly why both terms are worthless. People that call themselves progressives rarely have new ideas and people that call themselves conservatives are not always for how things are or were in the past. For that matter, many progressives spend a considerable amount of time defending the status quo.

What, exactly, do conservatives push for that is new?

Energy - Fossil fuels
Health care - Private Insurance-based system
Taxes - I mean, they'd go back to the 1800s when there were no federal taxes if they could (but not really because they like government too when it suits them).
Sexuality - I don't really need to delve into that right?
Infrastructure - Well, unless it's some sort of pipeline for those fossil fuels, right?
Guns - The 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment, and anything that restricts gun ownership is bad, amiright?
The poor - I don't even know if there is an idea for that other than they put themselves in that situation. Good luck to them.

I'm sure I'm missing plenty of other issues. You tell me man - what innovative ideas are the republicans pushing? Putting up a border between the US and Mexico? I got nothing.
 
they were ahead of their time, the founders read a lot, and Madison read about government before he framed the blueprint for the Constitution months before the Constitutional convention, and he asked himself the question "why do governments fail"

because they turn tyrannical in the end.

a king becomes a dictator

rule of the few becomes an oligarchy

rule by all, becomes mob rule

our founders sought to solve this problem by incorporating all three governments into American government

monarchy aristocracy, and democracy.

which when there are three different types of government within American government, tyranny cannot take place because each has power to prevent the takeover of the other.

And I think they did the best they could to lay the foundations for equality of the people as well.
 
And I think they did the best they could to lay the foundations for equality of the people as well.

they knew it would be impossible to free blacks and fight a revolution without the slaves states wanting it to continue.

they could not get a constitution, if the government could free slaves , so they sought to end slavery by its importation by 1808, the founders believed slavery would end by the time of their deaths.

Frederick Douglass, thought the constitution was wonderful document.
 
From a capitalist perspective or a socialist?

I think clearly when need to a more social democratic mode as a startl. We need to go back to economics before trickle down. I think we do need a bigger social welfare state. We need to being to raise the tax rate on the upper income levels. We need a reinvest in our infrastructure. We need to regulate banks more.

I'm sorry, but can you please say specifically why regulating the banks will solve the issue of child homelessness?
 
So more of the same gets kids off the streets how exactly??.. Bigger government is your answer?

He wants to pad the pockets of the rich folk in DC in the hope they'll let a few dollars trickle down to the children.
 
I'm sorry, but can you please say specifically why regulating the banks will solve the issue of child homelessness?

Have you ever seen the movie about the Scrooge? He perceived the banks that way, deny food for little Tiny Tim.
 
Lol. I am sure that is his answer, but I always love to hear what people who hate 'trickle down' would offer in its place.

Breaking the alliance between our modern day wealth based aristocracy and our modern day government aristocracy would be a big help, then again so would looking more seriously at the real results of FED montary policy actions in concert with government economic policy would also help. The truth of the matter is we have seen an economic model in this nation, roughly 50 years old now, that for the most part has benefitted the highest income quintile at the expense of most others. It is beyond easy to prove, look at income growth overall for the highest income quintile vs. all others from say 1975 to present.

Take our most recent recovery. From 2008 to present the lowest income quintile is a larger pool today than it was then, but with stagnant wages held back by the difference between income growth and realized inflation. From 2008 to present the highest income quintile recovered the quickest of the set, mainly due to FED action helping the stock market become overbought. Income quintiles 2 - 4 are still behind (but to be fair I read that the 4th income quintile is almost where it was in 2008.) At the end of the 2nd quarter of 2014, labor participation rates were at historic lows and we are not all that better off now.

Our economic stimulus is often squandered, our monetary policy pits income quintiles against one another, and overall our interest in protecing wealth has resulted in a worsening gap between the highest income levels and all others. That is not entirely the fault of failed trickle down economic thinking, but a combination of that thinking with way too much government involved in way too much economic micro-management. Our economic model of a debt based consumer market is killing us, but is being driven entirely by ole (D) and (R) in bed with wealth.

You break that and mixed economic models that lean towards market has a chance. Until then expect more of the same, a bubble then pop debt based economic model devoid of any real economic principle of lowering the amplitude of the economic cycle for sustainable growth. As opposed to the present model, that ensures the economic cycle amplitude is made far worse. We know this is fact as we have had anything but sustainable growth at any reasonable period in the past 50 years. Again, easy to prove. Ask yourself how many economic disasters we have had to digest during our modern economic model? On top of that shuffle on over to looking at how much debt we have to carry dealing with all of them.
 
The point they are trying to make is that folks living in shelters are just as homeless as one living on a steam grate or park bench.

The point that I was trying to make is that one is not homeless simply because they are unable to pay their rent by working. Whether in housing funded by insurance, gov't assistance or charity if they are not on the streets or camping in a tent or car then they are not homeless. If you have decent shelter that is simply temporary then you are not homeless.

Live in your car until next spring. Then tell me about how that is not homelessness.
 
Of course the percentage of homelessness among children is up in the U.S. compared to about eight years ago.

It's because the percentage of homelessness among their parents is up.

And why is it up?

Because of the liberal and conservative strange-bedfellow alliance to push sub-prime security mortgages on those who couldn't really afford even those.

And, they really started to push it around the turn of the century when off-shoring and out-sourcing American jobs were also being pushed.

So sub-primers, as they were called, got their house .. and they began to furnish it .. .. and, one by one at first, these warehouse workers, manufacturing workers, transportation workers, carpenters, iron workers, plumbers, and the like, they began to lose their job to people in other countries overseas.

And then the job-loss rate picked up, as companies had to compete, and wage-slaves in other countries were cheaper to hire than sub-primers in America ..

.. And soon by the hundreds .. then the thousands .. .. sub-primers lost their jobs .. and couldn't find work any more .. and defaulted on their loans when the variable rates went up.

Meanwhile, very unscrupulous Wall Street types saw the writing on the worthless securities wall, and they concocted one of the biggest frauds in U.S. financial history, creating the sub-prime securities fiasco that crashed us all into the Great Recession.

When no one could then get their weekly business loan, they laid people off, and they closed their doors .. and unemployment shot up to 25%, the accurate rate.

Millions of adults couldn't find work .. and they became homeless .. they and their children.

Today, the accurate unemployment rate is down to around 12 percent perhaps -- it's hard to tell, since so many have fallen off the radar.

But, the percentage of living-wage jobs compared to before the Great Recession is way down, many still off-shored and out-sourced to wage slaves in other countries, not to mention in-sourced wage-slave illegals.

So, yes, there are many more homeless Americans in the U.S. then their were .. many more .. and, of course, that includes their children.

What's the solution?

I'm not sure.

But, one thing's certain: it won't involve any concocted by the wings of the political spectrum -- they're the ones who got us into this increased homeless mess in the first place.

You possess uncanny insight and perspective.

When US Conservative and I both like your post, you did good!

What is the solution?

I'm not sure either.
 
Lol. I am sure that is his answer, but I always love to hear what people who hate 'trickle down' would offer in its place.

Fire hydrant down?
 
Live in your car until next spring. Then tell me about how that is not homelessness.

Reading is for the mental... I mean fundamental.

if they are not on the streets or camping in a tent or car then they are not homeless.

I did phrase that a bit awkwardly, but I do not consider those camped out in a car to have a home.
 
Mentioned earlier in this thread was the stipulation that our early government was based on the government of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire handled many things easily. The only thing that they could not handle, which led to their demise, was the huge population of homeless beggars with matches.

We must do something about our rapidly growing homeless population before they think that since they don't have anything, neither should you.

In communist USCA, job works you.
 
Reading is for the mental... I mean fundamental.



I did phrase that a bit awkwardly, but I do not consider those camped out in a car to have a home.

Ah, OK. That makes more sense. My bad.
 
I'm sorry, but can you please say specifically why regulating the banks will solve the issue of child homelessness?

Who do you think was the main culprit in the economic downturn in 2008? The banks.
 
a democracy is not true republic.
Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive..

democracy puts all direct power into the people...one single enity......this kind of action causes majority rule..ie tyranny.
Not not democracy. A direct democracy does that. A representative democracy does not.
There are many forms of democracy.

a republic separates direct power, the people have some the states have some, which prevents tyranny.
Not really.
 
And they are regulated now.
Yup they are "regulated" now, and were "regulated" then...


So the big banks melting down in 2008 are responsible for the child homelessness problem in California in 2014?
Part of the reason. When the melt down happened how many people went homeless and still remain homeless?
 
Yup they are "regulated" now, and were "regulated" then...



Part of the reason. When the melt down happened how many people went homeless and still remain homeless?

No, Dodd-Frank was passed after 2008.

So can you cite some sources that show the California homelessness problem is a direct result of the banks melting down in 2008 please? I'd like to see this. And understand how something that happened almost 7 years ago has prohibited people from finding a home since then. Can you show that most of these homeless children are the offspring of people who lost all of their money, their jobs and their homes because of the financial services problems in 2008?
 
No, Dodd-Frank was passed after 2008.
You do realize the banks were "regulated" before Dodd-Frank was passed correct? And Dodd-Frank has no teeth?

So can you cite some sources that show the California homelessness problem is a direct result of the banks melting down in 2008 please? I'd like to see this. And understand how something that happened almost 7 years ago has prohibited people from finding a home since then. Can you show that most of these homeless children are the offspring of people who lost all of their money, their jobs and their homes because of the financial services problems in 2008?
Yea.
Chart of the Day: Recession-Induced Homelessness About To Skyrocket | Mother Jones
Facts and Figures: The Homeless . NOW on PBS
 
Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive..


in the times of the founders there is no such thing as a democratic republic.


Not not democracy. A direct democracy does that. A representative democracy does not.
There are many forms of democracy.
Not really.


i am not speaking of direct democracy,..if we had that form, the people would vote on every issue.

under a republic, the people are represented by the house, those members are [directly] elected by the people for the lower chamber...

the states are represented by the senate, those members are [directly] elected by the state legislature of the states, for the upper chamber......

this way both chambers are elected differently.....this is just one of the separation of powers in the Constitution., the people do not directly elect/control all of congress and its law making, and the states do not control directly either , both chambers counter the other, so that democracy does not take over our government, or an aristocracy does not take over our government

for legislative bills to pass congress, the interest of the people via the house, and the interest of the states[state legislatures] via the senate, must be represented..so you have both interest represented.......the President represents the interest of the union as a whole.

this way, the interest of the people, states, and the union are represented.

the president is elected by electors.....not the people, not the state legislatures, but 435 people who are now picked by political parties, in early America, electors were elected by district elections, or elected by a state wide election, but the political parties have put an end to that.

by having ALL 3 politicians elected by 3 different modes of election, this makes it a mixed government, a republic.

power is separated on purpose so that no 1 single entity is directly electing all 3 politicians , because to put all power directly into 1 set of hands to elect......is tyranny.
 
Last edited:
You do realize the banks were "regulated" before Dodd-Frank was passed correct? And Dodd-Frank has no teeth?


Yea.
Chart of the Day: Recession-Induced Homelessness About To Skyrocket | Mother Jones
Facts and Figures: The Homeless . NOW on PBS


Ah, so Dodd-Frank is a failure. On this we agree. Did you let the Democrats who pretended it was the greatest reform in history know this? I've been posting that for years. I'll be sure to quote you so you can join in the next time I post that.

Neat link to Mother Jones, but "projections" from 2011 don't answer the question. The PBS link doesn't address it either. Anything from today that shows that most of the homeless children in CA are homeless because their parents lost everything because of the 2008 meltdown, and that regulating the banks in a meaningful way today will directly result in them getting homes?
 
Back
Top Bottom