• 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!

Obama vows to end homelessness in 10 years

This amazes me...

We can't round up all the illegal aliens in the country but we can give housing to every homeless person.

We can't afford to secure the border but we can afford to provide living space for every person without it.

We couldn't afford Iraq or Afghanistan, but we can pass Trillion dollar stimulus programs, trillion dollar entitlement programs, and provide housing to millions and millions of people for free.

There's a disconnect here I'm somehow missing. The argument always seems to be "we don't have the money" yet we always seem to have the money when its something the other side wants to do. Which leads me to believe perhaps its less about the money and more about them disagreeing with the very notions.
 
Zyphlin said:
This amazes me...

We can't round up all the illegal aliens in the country but we can give housing to every homeless person.

We can't afford to secure the border but we can afford to provide living space for every person without it.

We couldn't afford Iraq or Afghanistan, but we can pass Trillion dollar stimulus programs, trillion dollar entitlement programs, and provide housing to millions and millions of people for free.

There's a disconnect here I'm somehow missing. The argument always seems to be "we don't have the money" yet we always seem to have the money when its something the other side wants to do. Which leads me to believe perhaps its less about the money and more about them disagreeing with the very notions.
Click to expand...





I'm sorry zyph, but posts like this usually won't get an answer. You are right on my friend.
 
I call Racism against the Nomadic peoples of the US!

Okay but in all seriousness homelessness will ALWAYS be a problem. Some people are crazy and refuse homeless shelters and other help from the government so what makes you think you can convince them now. Also it's going to take to much money. This is one of those times where I hate how the government tries to step in and solve a problem when it should be the people. Volunteering, donating money, helping your fellow man. This can all be achieved and not on the governments dime. And as someone pointed out the only real way to end homelessness would be to stop being a government and be something more akin to a totalitarian dictatorship.
 
there is a difference between a homeless person and a wino under a bridge........that wino under the bridge is doing what he wants where he wants to do it, and as mentioned before, some folks just prefer to live that way, on the streets......just like some folks choose not to have health insurance
 
Zyphlin said:
This amazes me...

We can't round up all the illegal aliens in the country but we can give housing to every homeless person.

We can't afford to secure the border but we can afford to provide living space for every person without it.

We couldn't afford Iraq or Afghanistan, but we can pass Trillion dollar stimulus programs, trillion dollar entitlement programs, and provide housing to millions and millions of people for free.

There's a disconnect here I'm somehow missing. The argument always seems to be "we don't have the money" yet we always seem to have the money when its something the other side wants to do. Which leads me to believe perhaps its less about the money and more about them disagreeing with the very notions.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify - you're correct in that we don't have the money, yet the existing White House DOES have the money for what they deem important. This is further evidence that what the WH thinks is worth spending money we do not have, is not the same as what the American people think. Iraq, Afghanistan, the U.S. border and illegals are all non-social / domestic issues. This President I now think, IS in fact an Ideologue in that, he will make claims about our economy, it's unsustainability, we all have to tighten our belts --- and then he'll turn around and spend trillions on healthcare and social programs and make naive statements about ending homelessness. It's why he has to go next election.
 
Ockham said:
Let me clarify - you're correct in that we don't have the money, yet the existing White House DOES have the money for what they deem important. This is further evidence that what the WH thinks is worth spending money we do not have, is not the same as what the American people think. Iraq, Afghanistan, the U.S. border and illegals are all non-social / domestic issues. This President I now think, IS in fact an Ideologue in that, he will make claims about our economy, it's unsustainability, we all have to tighten our belts --- and then he'll turn around and spend trillions on healthcare and social programs and make naive statements about ending homelessness. It's why he has to go next election.
Click to expand...

I might have suggested BEFORE the next election, but considering the alternatives..................................
 
fishinRod said:
there is a difference between a homeless person and a wino under a bridge........that wino under the bridge is doing what he wants where he wants to do it, and as mentioned before, some folks just prefer to live that way, on the streets......just like some folks choose not to have health insurance
Click to expand...

Most people who "choose" not to have health insurance do it because they cannot afford health insurance, not unless they want to join the homeless population.

Instead of attempting to rationalize why we should not give everybody health insurance, and using "weasel words" in the process, we should be honest by giving an honest answer. My honest answer is that I don't want the government taking money out of MY pocket and giving it to someone else. Let my charity be MINE, should I choose it, not someone else's. And this is what it all really boils down to. Government wants to be the Ghost of Christmas "Presents". I would rather the government be Scrooge, and let me decide on my own whether or not I want to be Santa Claus. LOL.
 
danarhea said:
Look, I am not a cold-hearted person, and I know that homelessness is a problem. But I have problems of my own. So, to the Obama administration, I say this - Not on MY dime.
Click to expand...

The US lavishes money on so many other countries and causes. What is the point in this, if it does not look after its own people first. There should be no homelessness, in a country as wealthy as the US is.
 
Polynikes said:
Studies have been done, and it is more cost efficient to put one person in an 'apartment' with electricity running water etc.. than to pay for a handful to live in a shelter. The chronic homeless are the ones who cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands every year in medical expenses.
Click to expand...

Maybe many homeless people need the support of a community. They are often homeless for a reason, and would likely become homeless again within a short time, if left to their own devices in an appartment. I think, some need to live in an institution to get help for their addictions and social problems, or in a shelter where security guards and counsellors are available to deal with their traumas.
 
Southern Man said:
Jesus taught us to help the poor. Giving stuff away simply creates dependency.
Click to expand...

Not much kindness and charity was shown to the poor in US society, in the 80s, and it created horrendous social problems, with increases in crime, addictions...
 
VanceMack said:
Providing for others is a humanitarian activity that is actually engaged by many of those Christian people you denigrate.
Click to expand...
Providing for the vulnerable is part of what is it means to live in a civilized society. Those who do not agree with it, could maybe move to Somalia or someplace like that, to avoid it.
 
Southern Man said:
I don't know if that's true... what's your point?
Click to expand...

My point is that not taking care of the homeless situation will ultimately cost tax payers money. Not taking care of the situation is not really going to prevent taxes, or reduce them. One way or another, people with problems cost money, so the money might as well be spent on rehabilitating them.
 
Mell said:
My point is that not taking care of the homeless situation will ultimately cost tax payers money. Not taking care of the situation is not really going to prevent taxes, or reduce them. One way or another, people with problems cost money, so the money might as well be spent on rehabilitating them.
Click to expand...

How is that position different than mine? Is it supposed to be?
 
danarhea said:
Most people who "choose" not to have health insurance do it because they cannot afford health insurance, not unless they want to join the homeless population.

Instead of attempting to rationalize why we should not give everybody health insurance, and using "weasel words" in the process, we should be honest by giving an honest answer. My honest answer is that I don't want the government taking money out of MY pocket and giving it to someone else. Let my charity be MINE, should I choose it, not someone else's. And this is what it all really boils down to. Government wants to be the Ghost of Christmas "Presents". I would rather the government be Scrooge, and let me decide on my own whether or not I want to be Santa Claus. LOL.
Click to expand...
I just want to thank you for saying this. I had a debate with someone awhile ago about this same thing. Now while I am fine with the health care bill, I understand where you are coming from, and I pretty much phrased it the same way you just did and they got offended and said something like "hey I care about the other people as much as myself, I just don't want the healthbill for their own good". So although we disagree I would like to say how much respect I have for you coming out and saying this.

Anywho... I don't think ending homelessness or even trying to is in our best interest, there are too many things to be taken care of beforehand. And i am not sure if it is possible.
 
Mell said:
Providing for the vulnerable is part of what is it means to live in a civilized society. Those who do not agree with it, could maybe move to Somalia or someplace like that, to avoid it.
Click to expand...

Considering the federal government hasnt been involved with it for some 230 years or so it is also probably pretty clear it isnt the job of the fed to do so. Providing for others is best done by individuals...private organizations...charities. You know...putting YOUR money where your mouth is...not expecting big Sammy to do everything for you...not rolling over in the dirt and begging the federal government to feed, clothe, shelter you and wipe your ass to boot because you 'cant'. Its the "poor us we cant" attitude that is FOSTERED by government welfare. It rewards it.
 
There is a sizable percentage of homeless people who PREFER to be homeless.
 
megaprogman said:
It would be great to do it, but I do not see how we can afford it right now.

Something like this should be postponed until the economy is doing better and than prioritized against other needs based on funds available.
Click to expand...

Impossible.

Some people choose this as their destiny. Might seem strange to some, but is true.

The only way to eliminate or reduce it is to exact more personal responsibility.... cut hand outs.
Encourage personal responsibility. Not encourage it... demand it.

Might seem cold, but to kill it off you have to let people know they won't be able to free load.

Call it tough love...and still... it will never be eliminated, but will be reduced.

.
 
I was wondering if I was experiencing The Great Society all over again.
 
I admire Obama for trying to do the right thing and while some say this is not the time to try to do it? Well I say it is always the time to try and help fellow mankind and it is about time someone took this issue serious.

If we wait til the right time, when we can afford it, blah, blah. blah? We will NEVER stamp this issue out! We must tackle it and tackle it now! It is up to us to do the right thing.

Edit to say that the rich are the ones with the money so of course they should have to pay higher taxes to help stop this problem.
 
Last edited:
Homelessness is simply not a problem that can be eliminated with more funding. In nearly all cases in the United States, homelessness isn't caused by poverty, it's caused by mental illness...often combined with drug or alcohol abuse. What makes Obama think he can eliminate it? The only way to do so would be for the Supreme Court to reverse itself and rule that mentally ill people could be institutionalized without their consent...which would be quite an affront to civil liberties.

If Obama wants to use this as an inspirational goal to fight poverty, that's OK. (I think it falls flat even as an inspiring message, but at least fighting poverty is a good cause.) But if he actually thinks we can eliminate homelessness in ten years, he's dreaming.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Then I'll say it. It can't be done, neither can attaining zero poor people. This is more silliness by academic types who can accept an imperfect world.
Click to expand...

Yes.. It can be done if we made things fair and across the board for everyone. Create a living wage and everybody that wants a job has one. No more hiring illegals, etc. Healthcare for all.

We can make this country where the only people who are homeless are those that wish to be or mentally ill. And we should make sure that we have NICE places for these people to be and if they do not wish to and really wish to live on the streets? We need to set up areas and camps for them or something.
 
Kali said:
I admire Obama for trying to do the right thing and while some say this is not the time to try to do it? Well I say it is always the time to try and help fellow mankind and it is about time someone took this issue serious.

If we wait til the right time, when we can afford it, blah, blah. blah? We will NEVER stamp this issue out! We must tackle it and tackle it now! It is up to us to do the right thing.

Edit to say that the rich are the ones with the money so of course they should have to pay higher taxes to help stop this problem.
Click to expand...

Social engineering is very difficult, and we have not had a good track record in the past century at combating such problems with similar efforts as Obama wishes to do. It is not merely about doing the right thing, it is being able to in any meaningful way accomplish one's goals without too many severe unintended consequences. This is what I doubt, and why I would not support such an effort.
 
Southern Man said:
Jesus taught us to help the poor. Giving stuff away simply creates dependency.
Click to expand...

Jesus also said to become poor if you really want to get into heaven..He was pretty admant about giving to the poor.
 
danarhea said:
Look, I am not a cold-hearted person, and I know that homelessness is a problem. But I have problems of my own. So, to the Obama administration, I say this - Not on MY dime.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Unrealistic egalitarian nonsense.

Does anyone really take this **** seriously?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom