• 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

tres borrachos said:
Ah, so Dodd-Frank is a failure. On this we agree.
Click to expand...
Yup. It was never set up to have enough teeth to do anything.

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.
Click to expand...
Yes. I have posted about this many times. It has no teeth. Its weak.

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?
Click to expand...
"So can you cite some sources that show the homelessness problem is a direct result of the banks melting down in 2008 please?"
--Both links literally proved that.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yup. It was never set up to have enough teeth to do anything.


Yes. I have posted about this many times. It has no teeth. Its weak.


"So can you cite some sources that show the homelessness problem is a direct result of the banks melting down in 2008 please?"
--Both links literally proved that.
Click to expand...

They actually didn't prove that the homelessness in CA was a direct result of the banks melting down.

So again, how would regulating them today in a meaningful way result in homeless children in CA getting homes?
 
tres borrachos said:
They actually didn't prove that the homelessness in CA was a direct result of the banks melting down.

So again, how would regulating them today in a meaningful way result in homeless children in CA getting homes?
Click to expand...

Didn't the Dems claim the recovery was complete around 2010 after all the loans to GM and others were made?
 
ernst barkmann said:
in the times of the founders there is no such thing as a democratic republic.





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.
Click to expand...

The Democrats want to change all that to have the people elect everyone by popular vote, that is the people that the Democrats think are complete ****ing morons under the Obamacare strategy. I would say it's a major contradiction in logic, but that's how some of these clowns in the electorate think. Many think the Electoral College is BS and antiquated and probably think it was established to benefit some white, racist, bigoted, slaveowning homophobes.
 
US Conservative said:
One third of the nations welfare cases, and 1/5 of the homeless.

This is what unopposed liberalism gets people.
Click to expand...

No this is what happens when people don't do their research....


1) Of the top 20 states with the highest proverty ratio in the country, 17 of them are red states.

List of U.S. states by poverty rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) The reason for the high population of homeless in California is due to year around weather. Its not rocket science that Homeless migrate to the west coast because the climate is not as harsh during the winter and summer months.

3) You can't just look at total number of welfare vs the rest of the country because California has the biggest population in the country. You have to compare it base on the overall state spending.

Compare States Welfare Spending for 2015 - Charts
 
rcart76 said:
....
3) You can't just look at total number of welfare vs the rest of the country because California has the biggest population in the country. You have to compare it base on the overall state spending.

Compare States Welfare Spending for 2015 - Charts
Click to expand...

I disagree. What a state spends on homeless people or welfare really had no bearing on the levels of poverty/homelessness in a state.
 
tres borrachos said:
They actually didn't prove that the homelessness in CA was a direct result of the banks melting down.
Click to expand...
Oh, so you wanna act like homelessness is only a problem in California?


So again, how would regulating them today in a meaningful way result in homeless children in CA getting homes?
Click to expand...
I already answered this question.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Me personally? None. How bout yourself? But I do believe in universal housing.
Click to expand...

You are the one saying other people should help these homeless people out, so I ask you if you have done that.

Don't expect anybody else to do something you are not willing to do.
 
Mason66 said:
You are the one saying other people should help these homeless people out, so I ask you if you have done that.
Click to expand...
By giving them homes? No. I couldnt even buy a home myself. Ive worked charity. But I however believe we need universal housing to answer the question.


Don't expect anybody else to do something you are not willing to do.
Click to expand...

:yawn:
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Oh, so you wanna act like homelessness is only a problem in California?



I already answered this question.
Click to expand...

No you didn't answer the question. If banks are regulated to a different degree (I'm not sure what you believe is "good" bank regulation), how would that open the door for homeless people anywhere to all of a sudden have a place to live.

Let me ask it another way. It says you live in the Midwest. Let's say they regulate the banks the way you want them to. How specifically will that result in the homeless in your state? Be specific please.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
By giving them homes? No. I couldnt even buy a home myself. Ive worked charity. But I however believe we need universal housing to answer the question.




:yawn:
Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder how many of these guys who goes on these rants about the poor and homeless actually participate in feeding the homeless and doing volunteer work down at the shelters? It is a humbling experience when you see families down there struggling and hungry.
 
Henrin said:
I doubt kids being kicked out for being gay is a leading factor. :lol:
Click to expand...

It is a significant contributor to homelessness amongst teens. They tend to go to the cities where gays are safest.
 
Hard Truth said:
It is a significant contributor to homelessness amongst teens. They tend to go to the cities where gays are safest.
Click to expand...

We are talking about an increase in homelessness and considering that acceptance of gays has increased across the board there should be less teens getting kicked out for being gay, not more. I don't see how the increase could have anything to do with kids getting kicked out for being gay.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
By giving them homes? No. I couldnt even buy a home myself. Ive worked charity. But I however believe we need universal housing to answer the question.
Click to expand...

You appear to always think government is the answer. Frankly, it's unimaginative and shortsighted.
 
rcart76 said:
I sometimes wonder how many of these guys who goes on these rants about the poor and homeless actually participate in feeding the homeless and doing volunteer work down at the shelters? It is a humbling experience when you see families down there struggling and hungry.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that is why I asked him. He started the thread but he has no answer for how many homeless people he has helped.

OPM is king.
 
Henrin said:
You appear to always think government is the answer. Frankly, it's unimaginative and shortsighted.
Click to expand...

The primary function of the government is to protect it citizens correct?
 
rcart76 said:
The primary function of the government is to protect it citizens correct?
Click to expand...

Protecting the citizens does not mean providing for them things like education, healthcare, housing, access to food, phones, daycare, etc. Protecting them means more along the lines of protecting them from aggression towards their person or property.
 
I think it's very absurd, that our government spend a lot of money on social programmes which doesn't work, but can't spend few millions to build shelter for little citizens. Maybe now, in face of this children we lose tomorrow's politicians or culture workers.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Homelessness among US children at all-time high

:( With a country so rich in natural resources its a damn shame we cannot take care of those who are the least among us. "The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members."
Click to expand...

Oh by all means, do house children, even if with public funds. I have never objected to providing for the basic needs and material well being of dependent children.

But for the life of me I cannot understand why liberals refer to children as the "weakest" and "least" of us. A rather degrading way to refer to children. Personally I think children are the most resilient, and I think they're the best of us.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Oh by all means, do house children, even if with public funds. I have never objected to providing for the basic needs and material well being of dependent children.

But for the life of me I cannot understand why liberals refer to children as the "weakest" and "least" of us. A rather degrading way to refer to children. Personally I think children are the most resilient, and I think they're the best of us.
Click to expand...

Children are more so vulnerable than weak or lesser
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom