Should homeless be entitled to our resources?

Should our resources go to the homeless who are not a net positive contribution to the economy?

Put another way, isn't forcing someone productive to pay taxes that goes toward the homeless wrong b/c it involves a parasitic relationship?

If instead of forcing all taxpayers to pay for the homeless, shouldn't funding be optional?

In other words, if you don't like cutting off funding for the homeless, don't cut off funding yourself.

 

Should our resources go to landowners, who deprive the homeless of their liberty, and are not a net positive contribution to the economy? Why do we subsidize such parasitism?

Put another way, isn't forcing someone productive to pay taxes that ultimately just go into a landowner's wallet anyways wrong because it involves a parasitic relationship?

Instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize landowners, shouldn't we compensate the homeless for the liberty they've been deprived of and ask landowners to pay for what the public is giving them?

 

We are seeing history repeat itself. First it was the farm workers displaced by the advance of farm machinery. They went to the big cities and went to work in factories. Now factory workers have been replaced by foreign labor willing or forced to work for slave labor wages.

Three questions for you rayznack (or anyone else who would like a go at them):

1) Farm labor moved to the factories last time. What new business opportunities do you see looming on the horizon for displaced workers to be employed at? What area of the job market will expand enough to absorb them?

2) "If you don't work you don't eat" may have made sense when every hand was needed to grow the food. But now that 3 men with a machine can produce the same food or products that used to require 100 men to perform what makes you think that we still need everyone working?

3) We now have the technology to enjoy an age of leisure if we choose to do so. If displaced workers had money to spend they would at least be CONSUMERS. And their consumption would stimulate demand that would employ others to fill. Conservatives would prefer to cut them off with nothing even though the lack of consumption of growing numbers leads to decreased demand and growing unemployment. Why do conservatives prefer dystopia over utopia?

 

A nation is supposed to soldarily take care of the weak members of society. Id est, yes, you should help the homeless, as well as others down on their luck. Not optional, and enforced by the state. I'm no anarchist.

 

The homeless are victims.

 

Yes we should help the homeless like we should help the poor, elderly, sick, and those not able to take care of their family through no fault of their own. But should we give all this help and not ask for something in return from those able to give it?

 

Do you remember during the Reagan years when America came to believe we could empty the asylums and give the mentally ill a prescription?

 

20 years from now when all of the jobs are on the other side of the World this forum is going to hilarious.

 

I don't remember it that way. I remember when Reagan thought that the mentally should be part of the state's responsibility, similar to welfare. But what does that have to do with what I asked or said?

 

They were put n the street with medications..

 

It would seem like this thread, like the one on religion and immigration reform, I can ask questions but hardly ever get any answers. Most of the answers I do get has nothing to do with the questions I ask.

 

The hard-core homeless, the actual people who sleep under bridges, are there through choice. They don't want to live in homeless shelters, where there are rules they have to follow.

 

I don't believe any tax payer money that goes to something in which nothing is returned should be mandatory.

Do you have an example of landowners being subsidized?

I phrased this for homeless b/c the last time I brought this up, everyone seemed to believe people receiving tax money contributed to society...except for the homeless.

But hey, if you want to help me find more examples, by all means, go for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you pro-life or just confused?

 

There are a lot of people out there needing help and a limited supply of money to do it. We can't be all things to all people. We can't do everything we'd like to do. We can't pay for most of the things we do now. So we have to manage what we can do. But shouldn't we be able to require something from those we help if they are able to do it?

 

My money is stolen for them. I'm the victim.

 

Both, why are you asking?

 

B/c the 'arguments'/thought experiment does not apply to you.

 

They have been forcibly deprived of their rights to liberty. Justice requires that that deprivation be compensated.

Yes, but the parasitic relationship is that of landowners to the productive.

It should be paid for by landowners, to compensate for the welfare subsidy they are being given at the expense of, among others, the homeless.

Whatever that might mean.

 

Why do I need to compensate the homeless again?

What did I take from them?

 

That's the point of welfare. You help someone out in their time of need and they turn into someone who delivers work and buys things in the economy.

 

Maybe you took their job. Who knows.

(*)(*)(*)(*) you got mine is a race to the bottom in terms of growth and prosperity for any country and leads to feudalism and fascism. If you're not in a SUPER good lead right now over the poverty line, if we continue in this fashion for 10-20 more years, you too could be homeless.

 

those that do not wish to be a part of America can always leave, I hear Mexico has no safety nets

 

of course that wasn't the plan. Deinstitutionalization was meant to create the least restrictive environment for the mentally ill or retarded. However, since it was the Reagan years they decided to not fully fund the transition and it led to no good services for people with certain disabilities. What is funny however that the OP suggests the homeless are trash. Having worked with the homeless that is not nearly true. I can't remember the number of times I tried to help these men I work with get the most menial of jobs and they were denied for the simple reason that they were homeless.

 

I know that wasn't the plan, but it often worked out that way.

Homelessness is an awful problem even for those who are willing to work.

 

"Should homeless be entitled to our resources?"

Taxcutter says:
Maybe for six months or so. To get by a transition.

Otherwise, no. The taxpayers have had it with multi-generational moochers.