MAGAThread XVI: Raising the Barr

[Chan Island]

By rounding them up in a facility? Bearing in mind the conditions at the easily comparable migrant facilities, I think assistance in the conventional definition might not be the top priority.

Besides, it's a silly idea because Utah's shown us how to really tackle a homelessness problem. Build more homes. All other options are just window dressing.

People hate the homeless because they're helping them wrong... Golly gee...

Oh come now. Where did I express any hatred for the homeless?

And yes, helping wrong can be a very serious problem, what the hell are you on about? I know you would object to trying to help the murder rate problem by confiscating guns. Just as I object to dealing with homelessness and immigration problems by (likely forcibly) rounding everyone up in camps and facilities which are very likely to be mismanaged and/or neglected.

[Grand Britannia]

Dude just make the homeless buy homes and no more homeless lmao.

Sounds about as stupid as forcing people to buy insura- oh wait.

Buy insurance, and if you don’t have enough money we’ll fund it for you.

That sounds like what we should do with homelesness.

And if you cant afford neither here's a fuckign penalty charge like what my cousins have to go through.

[Chan Island]

By rounding them up in a facility? Bearing in mind the conditions at the easily comparable migrant facilities, I think assistance in the conventional definition might not be the top priority.

Besides, it's a silly idea because Utah's shown us how to really tackle a homelessness problem. Build more homes. All other options are just window dressing.

Dude just make the homeless buy homes and no more homeless lmao.

Sounds about as stupid as forcing people to buy insura- oh wait.

And then financially assist them if they can't afford it. Like, that's literally Utah's policy and their homelessness has plummeted to basically zero. We know it works. Just need to build those homes.

And nice try. Obamacare was a silly idea that didn't go anywhere near far enough. Universal healthcare of some form is the only way to really go.

[Ifreann]

Reports of Trump wanting to round up the homeless in relocation facilities -> OBAMACARE BAD

[Grand Britannia]

Dude just make the homeless buy homes and no more homeless lmao.

Sounds about as stupid as forcing people to buy insura- oh wait.

And then financially assist them if they can't afford it. Like, that's literally Utah's policy and their homelessness has plummeted to basically zero. We know it works. Just need to build those homes.

And nice try. Obamacare was a silly idea that didn't go anywhere near far enough. Universal healthcare of some form is the only way to really go.

You fix homelessness by fixing the issue causing homelessnes, no one goes homeless because "there are no homes left".

Also if the shoe fits.

[Chan Island]

And then financially assist them if they can't afford it. Like, that's literally Utah's policy and their homelessness has plummeted to basically zero. We know it works. Just need to build those homes.

And nice try. Obamacare was a silly idea that didn't go anywhere near far enough. Universal healthcare of some form is the only way to really go.

You fix homelessness by fixing the issue causing homelessnes, no one goes homeless because "there are no homes left".

Also if the shoe fits.

The main issue behind homelessness is the price of housing, which has been skyrocketing in the cities most affected for the past several decades. At the same time, wages have been stagnating, many sectors have been seeing massive job losses and the central government has slowly been getting more stingy with welfare. All of the other factors that you might list are associated symptoms that are described as "diseases of despair".
So yes, people do go homeless because 'there are no homes left' (more accurate of course would be to say 'they cannot afford to keep their current homes or get another one').

What about shoes? No, I'm with you on Obamacare, it's at best a stopgap appeasement policy for the private insurance industry that didn't solve any of the previous problems and (in the case of your cousin) made things actively worse. Again, we have real world examples to look to for health outcomes though and the data points in one direction. Not rocket science to copy what everyone else is doing because it's a better way of doing things.

[San Lumen]

You fix homelessness by fixing the issue causing homelessnes, no one goes homeless because "there are no homes left".

Also if the shoe fits.

The main issue behind homelessness is the price of housing, which has been skyrocketing in the cities most affected for the past several decades. At the same time, wages have been stagnating, many sectors have been seeing massive job losses and the central government has slowly been getting more stingy with welfare. All of the other factors that you might list are associated symptoms that are described as "diseases of despair".
So yes, people do go homeless because 'there are no homes left' (more accurate of course would be to say 'they cannot afford to keep their current homes or get another one').

What about shoes? No, I'm with you on Obamacare, it's at best a stopgap appeasement policy for the private insurance industry that didn't solve any of the previous problems and (in the case of your cousin) made things actively worse. Again, we have real world examples to look to for health outcomes though and the data points in one direction. Not rocket science to copy what everyone else is doing because it's a better way of doing things.

and we could solve the issue of homelessness and price of housing if we stopped building luxury housing for the rich and built affordable housing and maybe rent control for everyone. But that's too simple a solution we have to turn every issue into rocket science

[Galloism]

The main issue behind homelessness is the price of housing, which has been skyrocketing in the cities most affected for the past several decades. At the same time, wages have been stagnating, many sectors have been seeing massive job losses and the central government has slowly been getting more stingy with welfare. All of the other factors that you might list are associated symptoms that are described as "diseases of despair".
So yes, people do go homeless because 'there are no homes left' (more accurate of course would be to say 'they cannot afford to keep their current homes or get another one').

What about shoes? No, I'm with you on Obamacare, it's at best a stopgap appeasement policy for the private insurance industry that didn't solve any of the previous problems and (in the case of your cousin) made things actively worse. Again, we have real world examples to look to for health outcomes though and the data points in one direction. Not rocket science to copy what everyone else is doing because it's a better way of doing things.

and we could solve the issue of homelessness and price of housing if we stopped building luxury housing for the rich and built affordable housing and maybe rent control for everyone. But that's too simple a solution we have to turn every issue into rocket science

Notably, that would probably reduce housing availability. At least, that's the economic consensus that this is what has happened.

Rent control has some positives, and I'm not saying otherwise, but it won't "solve the issue of homelessness" - making it universal would probably exacerbate it if we're being honest with ourselves.

[Chan Island]

The main issue behind homelessness is the price of housing, which has been skyrocketing in the cities most affected for the past several decades. At the same time, wages have been stagnating, many sectors have been seeing massive job losses and the central government has slowly been getting more stingy with welfare. All of the other factors that you might list are associated symptoms that are described as "diseases of despair".
So yes, people do go homeless because 'there are no homes left' (more accurate of course would be to say 'they cannot afford to keep their current homes or get another one').

What about shoes? No, I'm with you on Obamacare, it's at best a stopgap appeasement policy for the private insurance industry that didn't solve any of the previous problems and (in the case of your cousin) made things actively worse. Again, we have real world examples to look to for health outcomes though and the data points in one direction. Not rocket science to copy what everyone else is doing because it's a better way of doing things.

and we could solve the issue of homelessness and price of housing if we stopped building luxury housing for the rich and built affordable housing and maybe rent control for everyone. But that's too simple a solution we have to turn every issue into rocket science

I've heard proposals to make property developers "match" the number of luxury condos and penthouses they make with low income affordable housing, though I haven't looked into in any detail how they would turn out. Might be a step worth looking into though.

Rent control has a long history of backfiring, so that option is very risky. There are better approaches, such as building more affordable housing. Again, not rocket surgery but I suppose the politicos gotta have their angry arguments between team myopic and team dystopia on NSG.

[Telconi]

and we could solve the issue of homelessness and price of housing if we stopped building luxury housing for the rich and built affordable housing and maybe rent control for everyone. But that's too simple a solution we have to turn every issue into rocket science

I've heard proposals to make property developers "match" the number of luxury condos and penthouses they make with low income affordable housing, though I haven't looked into in any detail how they would turn out. Might be a step worth looking into though.

Rent control has a long history of backfiring, so that option is very risky. There are better approaches, such as building more affordable housing. Again, not rocket surgery but I suppose the politicos gotta have their angry arguments between team myopic and team dystopia on NSG.

Iunno at what level it's implemented, bit where I live it's required that all housing developments have a certain percentage of apartments more accessible to the lower income folks as part of the development.

[Neutraligon]

You fix homelessness by fixing the issue causing homelessnes, no one goes homeless because "there are no homes left".

Also if the shoe fits.

The main issue behind homelessness is the price of housing, which has been skyrocketing in the cities most affected for the past several decades. At the same time, wages have been stagnating, many sectors have been seeing massive job losses and the central government has slowly been getting more stingy with welfare. All of the other factors that you might list are associated symptoms that are described as "diseases of despair".
So yes, people do go homeless because 'there are no homes left' (more accurate of course would be to say 'they cannot afford to keep their current homes or get another one').

What about shoes? No, I'm with you on Obamacare, it's at best a stopgap appeasement policy for the private insurance industry that didn't solve any of the previous problems and (in the case of your cousin) made things actively worse. Again, we have real world examples to look to for health outcomes though and the data points in one direction. Not rocket science to copy what everyone else is doing because it's a better way of doing things.

There is a secondary issue, namely that mental health issues are high among the homeless poulation.

[Corrian]

Ah, another dystopian solution from the Trump administration on how to deal with another perceived undesirable group of people. And the right is defending it as per usual.

I wonder when we'll be entering the next time period where the history textbooks start having lots of maps with lines on them.

Leftists badmouthing rightists for defending a program to assist the homeless. This truly is the greatest timeline.

I think its fair to be weary, with how the other "Facilities" have gone.

[Grand Britannia]

You fix homelessness by fixing the issue causing homelessnes, no one goes homeless because "there are no homes left".

Also if the shoe fits.

The main issue behind homelessness is the price of housing, which has been skyrocketing in the cities most affected for the past several decades. At the same time, wages have been stagnating, many sectors have been seeing massive job losses and the central government has slowly been getting more stingy with welfare. All of the other factors that you might list are associated symptoms that are described as "diseases of despair".
So yes, people do go homeless because 'there are no homes left' (more accurate of course would be to say 'they cannot afford to keep their current homes or get another one').

What about shoes? No, I'm with you on Obamacare, it's at best a stopgap appeasement policy for the private insurance industry that didn't solve any of the previous problems and (in the case of your cousin) made things actively worse. Again, we have real world examples to look to for health outcomes though and the data points in one direction. Not rocket science to copy what everyone else is doing because it's a better way of doing things.

Can't possibly be that people cant afford homes because they can't afford homes. As in, they do not have the income for a house. Unless you solve that you're just treating the symptom ad infinitum and do nothing in the end but possibly deflate housing prices (which has its other hosts of issues).

And no, we don't have to copy everyone else. We should have forced hospitals to be more transparent in expenditures and pricing and eliminate the bureaucracy that bloats costs on insurance and we wouldn't be spending trillions on healthcare for no good reason.

[Telconi]

Leftists badmouthing rightists for defending a program to assist the homeless. This truly is the greatest timeline.

I think its fair to be weary, with how the other "Facilities" have gone.

It is, and yet instead we pursue "The words 'round up' means concentration camps" it's rediculous.

[Ifreann]

I think its fair to be weary, with how the other "Facilities" have gone.

It is, and yet instead we pursue "The words 'round up' means concentration camps" it's rediculous.

And yet that didn't stop you.

[Grand Britannia]

I think its fair to be weary, with how the other "Facilities" have gone.

It is, and yet instead we pursue "The words 'round up' means concentration camps" it's rediculous.

TBH, a decent solution would be to take decommissioned malls as homeless shelters so that they have a place to get back on their feet.

[Fartsniffage]

Who mentioned shooting anyone in the face?

I mean, I don't think you ever specifically mentioned the face...

Where did I mention shooting people?

[Cannot think of a name]

There's so much disengeniousness it's hard to know where to start.

By rounding them up in a facility? Bearing in mind the conditions at the easily comparable migrant facilities, I think assistance in the conventional definition might not be the top priority.

Besides, it's a silly idea because Utah's shown us how to really tackle a homelessness problem. Build more homes. All other options are just window dressing.

Dude just make the homeless buy homes and no more homeless lmao.

Sounds about as stupid as forcing people to buy insura- oh wait.

Not at all what was being proposed or what Utah did.

What Utah did (not proposed, not theorized, not discussed) was simply give the homeless a place to live. No conditions, no hoops, no mass relocation. They simply offered the homeless...homes. And you know who thought of the idea? Republicans. Why did they think of such a radical idea? Because it was cheaper than criminalizing poverty.

That's it. Republicans didn't have to embarrass themselves trying to parse out what 'round up' means because they didn't have do anything of the sort. You guys want to defend a Republican proposal that will actually do something about homelessness without trying to do a massive relocation which I guarantee you will not be good optics when you try and implement it no matter how you parse out the words 'round up' and without selling the last shreds of your dignity down the river trying to come up with some way to defend the president for the lulz? Support that.

Because this shit you're doing now? It's embarrassing. Stop embarrassing yourselves.

[Telconi]

There's so much disengeniousness it's hard to know where to start.

Dude just make the homeless buy homes and no more homeless lmao.

Sounds about as stupid as forcing people to buy insura- oh wait.

Not at all what was being proposed or what Utah did.

What Utah did (not proposed, not theorized, not discussed) was simply give the homeless a place to live. No conditions, no hoops, no mass relocation. They simply offered the homeless...homes. And you know who thought of the idea? Republicans. Why did they think of such a radical idea? Because it was cheaper than criminalizing poverty.

That's it. Republicans didn't have to embarrass themselves trying to parse out what 'round up' means because they didn't have do anything of the sort. You guys want to defend a Republican proposal that will actually do something about homelessness without trying to do a massive relocation which I guarantee you will not be good optics when you try and implement it no matter how you parse out the words 'round up' and without selling the last shreds of your dignity down the river trying to come up with some way to defend the president for the lulz? Support that.

Because this shit you're doing now? It's embarrassing. Stop embarrassing yourselves.

>Embarrassing

You can't honestly believe this.

[Saiwania]

Sheltering the homeless is good, but the solution isn't to give such people actual homes. Ordinary people won't want to pay mortgages if getting a home was as easy as being too poor. It doesn't scale well in my mind. A good portion of the homeless can't be trusted with home ownership because they won't maintain the property or will cause the surrounding area to go down in value.

We need to have a facility where many people can live in one location or barracks but can otherwise come and go throughout the day. Ideally it could be set up like a labor camp. Where they get trained to become skilled enough to get out there on their own. A former prison or military base would fulfill such a need quite nicely.

[Galloism]

Sheltering the homeless is good, but the solution isn't to give such people actual homes. Ordinary people won't want to pay mortgages if getting a home was as easy as being too poor. It doesn't scale well in my mind. A good portion of the homeless can't be trusted with home ownership because they won't maintain the property or will cause the surrounding area to go down in value.

We need to have a facility where many people can live in one location or barracks but can otherwise come and go throughout the day. Ideally it could be set up like a labor camp. Where they get trained to become skilled enough to get out there on their own. A former prison or military base would fulfill such a need quite nicely.

They bought apartment buildings with simple one bedroom apartments, assigned a social worker, and they help them apply for disability and things like that. And they take 30% of the person’s income as rent.

And it’s immediately cheaper to the state from day one compared to letting them stay homeless. A good chunk of the homeless are actually disabled but couldn’t complete or never started that paperwork due to the consequences of homelessness.

One of the big factors is with having rooms with doors that lock, they can build up assets and capital without having it stolen.

[Ifreann]

Do any of us really believe that Trump gives so much as a wet fart about the plight of the homeless? Nah, for my money Trump is one of those people who's more concerned with the people who have to see the homeless on the streets. That and he's hardly going to give up a chance to stick it to California.

[Grand Britannia]

Am I supposed to believe any politician does beyond checking if they'll get reelected?

[Bear Stearns]

Am I supposed to believe any politician does beyond checking if they'll get reelected?

Idk I think a lot of politicians are actually pretty passionate about establishing a corporate new world order.

[Grand Britannia]

Am I supposed to believe any politician does beyond checking if they'll get reelected?

Idk I think a lot of politicians are actually pretty passionate about establishing a corporate new world order.

The TPP and the establishment of trans-national corporate courts was truly the best for America, what a shame it didnt happen/s