So America fought the British in a revolution................

[Agnostic007]

I was trolling about the bums Prime  

Im serious about the people on foodstamps and wellfare though.

Either give everyone 10% less across the board, or make them pay some amount of tax

Do you agree with people on wellfare or foodstamps not paying anything?

The "not able to afford it" dont fly.

If I give you $100 and I keep $5 of it are you actually "paying" anything? It's a faulty concept. We are bleeding tax money to subsidy programs and to every kid who's mother claims they are ADD so keeping $10 of money from someone who didn't pay a dime just doesn't add up if you are talking reducing the tax bill

[OzmO]

Because they were tired of the British Parliament, and because they were tired of getting raped in taxes from across the pond.

Fast forward to 2015:

Americans bitch and moan about the government.

Americans are tired of paying taxes.

 

What do you guys think really changed with us becoming our own country?

What would the American continent be like today, if we were still apart of the current UK?

They wanted taxation with representation back then.

Now we just bitch about the representation.

[Archer77]

They don't come to Austin for a place to rent. They come here because we have gone out of our way to make it comfortable and lucrative for them. So moving isn't a consideration. As long as we provide shelter, or have moderate weather, soup kitchens and well meaning citizens that hand money out the window at intersections, a city council who can't or won't figure out how to create an ordinance against panhandling on the sidewalks and in the streets, we are going to be infested.  

Seattle had the same problem.  Once the word got out the homeless began to flood the city in mass.

[Knooger]

I was trolling about the bums Prime  

Bullshit! Your alcohol poisoned mind thought that was a legit plan. Now that your tremendous stupidity has been exposed for all to see you're feverishly attempting to back pedal. Not today, mohterfucker!

[Primemuscle]

I'm all for helping the homeless but large tent cities aren't the answer.  Affordable housing isn't either. If you can't afford to live in a city you should move.  In Seattle these tent cities are causing a lot of problems. Many of the homeless are mentally ill and money should be spent to help or house the mentally ill.

I suspect it is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Jobs are more available in big cities as are services. You suggested, "If you can't afford to live in a city then you should move." Move where?

The suburbs are often less affordable then more urban areas. Small towns rarely have much to offer in the way of work. Services can also be very limited in outlying areas.

Are you aware that Veteran's services, such as medical facilities are located in cities. Disabled veterans who live in rural areas have to travel to the city in order to access their benefits? One thing Portland has been noted for doing well is that finding housing for Veterans.

Many homeless folks are mentally ill, just as you suggest. A few decades ago, we decided mental facilities were a bad thing and that the mentally ill should be mainstreamed. Support for these folks has never been there. Many end up in county, state and federal prisons where they are fed and housed. A lot of other's who avoid incarceration are living on the streets.

There are no easy answers, just a lot of half-baked ideas.  

[King Shizzo]

If I give you $100 and I keep $5 of it are you actually "paying" anything? It's a faulty concept. We are bleeding tax money to subsidy programs and to every kid who's mother claims they are ADD so keeping $10 of money from someone who didn't pay a dime just doesn't add up if you are talking reducing the tax bill

By giving them $95 dollars instead of $100, you are saving $5 dollars per person. If they cant afford traditional taxation, then the next logical step would be to cut back a % of what the govt currently gives.

Remember, these programs were designed to help people in need, get help so they can get back up.

It was not designed to be s lifestyle.

[Archer77]

I suspect it is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Jobs are more available in big cities as are services. You suggested, "If you can't afford to live in a city then you should move." Move where?

The suburbs are often less affordable then more urban areas. Small towns rarely have much to offer in the way of work. Services can also be very limited in outlying areas.

Are you aware that Veteran's services, such as medical facilities are located in cities. Disabled veterans who live in rural areas have to travel to the city in order to access their benefits? One thing Portland has been noted for doing well is that finding housing for Veterans.

Many homeless folks are mentally ill, just as you suggest. A few decades ago, we decided mental facilities were a bad thing and that the mentally ill should be mainstreamed. Support for these folks has never been there. Many end up in county, state and federal prisons where they are fed and housed. A lot of other's who avoid incarceration are living on the streets.

There are no easy answers, just a lot of half-baked ideas.  

Move to a place where the cost of living is cheaper and the opportunities are better.  If you can't afford to live in the city then that's not the best place for you.  Why is that such a hard concept for people to grasp?   No one owes you a place to live.  

Take the mentally ill off the street and help them.  Able bodied men and women can make their own way. When you start forcing cities to create affordable housing or provide vouchers you end up with a Ferguson. At this point we've tried all of this before and it doesn't work.

[Primemuscle]

I was trolling about the bums Prime  

Im serious about the people on foodstamps and wellfare though.

Either give everyone 10% less across the board, or make them pay some amount of tax

Do you agree with people on wellfare or foodstamps not paying anything?

The "not able to afford it" dont fly.

Saying you can't afford to pay your share, should not "fly" as you suggest. Keep in mind though that there are people who are truly so poor they have nothing to pay. I will give you that there are also people who have become so sophisticated about scamming the system that although they can afford to live without handouts somehow still manage to get them. So I must agree that there are people on welfare and food stamps who should be paying something, but I cannot agree that this is true for all people in this situation.

In recent years, the requirements to qualify for social service programs have gotten tougher. There have also been some cuts in these programs which affect all who are in them. More needs to be done to insure only people in real need qualify and receive social services, thus reducing the  number of people scamming the system.

Don't get me wrong, I am no bleeding heart. When my wife and I were young and dumb, we made some stupid decisions which adversely affected our finances. With help from family and friends and some serious belt tightening plus sometimes working in jobs that were not ideal for one reason or another, we pulled ourselves out of the mess we'd created, minus any help from social services.

We've also "paid forward" by opening our home to family in their time of need. My niece moved in with my wife and I when we'd only been married for 6 months because her parents were getting divorced. She stayed with us for several years. My mom lived with us for 3 years before she died from emphysema. More recently, my nephew who has been a real "screw-up" since his teen years stayed here until he got on his feet and could make it on his own. These are just a couple of examples of some of the folks we've helped.

My personal feeling is that families don't help their own as much as they should. A lot of old folks, like me, are on the streets or living in substandard situations because their kids aren't interested in helping them. My wife is seriously ill. She requires a lot of help to get through each day. Our daughter and son-in-law and I all work together to keep her at home where she is comfortable and in good surroundings.

[Primemuscle]

Move to a place where the cost of living is cheaper and the opportunities are better.  If you can't afford to live in the city then that's not the best place for you.  Why is that such a hard concept for people to grasp?   No one owes you a place to live.  

Take the mentally ill off the street and help them.  Able bodied men and women can make their own way. When you start forcing cities to create affordable housing or provide vouchers you end up with a Ferguson. At this point we've tried all of this before and it doesn't work.

You are being an idealist. Obviously, people should live where the opportunities are good and the cost of living is affordable. Suggest where that might be. There is reason why those two things don't often go hand in hand.

As far as owing someone a place to live, read my other post about family helping family out. Perhaps family doesn't owe anything to other family members either. Sometimes we do things just because it is the right thing to do.

[Archer77]

You are being an idealist. Obviously, people should live where the opportunities are good and the cost of living is affordable. Suggest where that might be. There is reason why those two things don't often go hand in hand.

As far as owing someone a place to live, read my other post about family helping family out. Perhaps family doesn't owe anything to other family members either. Sometimes we do things just because it is the right thing to do.

I'm the opposite of an idealist.  Being an idealist means you believe the government once again creating affordable housing is going to result in an outcome other than what it always has, ghettoization and property depreciation.  The people who live  in section 8 aren't working people who cant find reasonable priced housing in the city in ehich they work ,they are usually unemployed people on benefits.  Creating an enclave for those people does nothing to improve the city.  Crime goes up and property values go down.  People will flee.  I dont know where they should go but the facts indicate its not their current location.  Im sure there are many places they could go.

Doing the right thing is the problem. First, what is the right thing and who decides what's right for everyone? The right thing is a completely subjective and self-serving concept.   Secondly, the right thing might appear to be right in the short term but over the long run it causes major problems and more harm than good.   

[King Shizzo]

Saying you can't afford to pay your share, should not "fly" as you suggest. Keep in mind though that there are people who are truly so poor they have nothing to pay. I will give you that there are also people who have become so sophisticated about scamming the system that although they can afford to live without handouts somehow still manage to get them. So I must agree that there are people on welfare and food stamps who should be paying something, but I cannot agree that this is true for all people in this situation.

In recent years, the requirements to qualify for social service programs have gotten tougher. There have also been some cuts in these programs which affect all who are in them. More needs to be done to insure only people in real need qualify and receive social services, thus reducing the  number of people scamming the system.

Don't get me wrong, I am no bleeding heart. When my wife and I were young and dumb, we made some stupid decisions which adversely affected our finances. With help from family and friends and some serious belt tightening plus sometimes working in jobs that were not ideal for one reason or another, we pulled ourselves out of the mess we'd created, minus any help from social services.

We've also "paid forward" by opening our home to family in their time of need. My niece moved in with my wife and I when we'd only been married for 6 months because her parents were getting divorced. She stayed with us for several years. My mom lived with us for 3 years before she died from emphysema. More recently, my nephew who has been a real "screw-up" since his teen years stayed here until he got on his feet and could make it on his own. These are just a couple of examples of some of the folks we've helped.

My personal feeling is that families don't help their own as much as they should. A lot of old folks, like me, are on the streets or living in substandard situations because their kids aren't interested in helping them. My wife is seriously ill. She requires a lot of help to get through each day. Our daughter and son-in-law and I all work together to keep her at home where she is comfortable and in good surroundings.

Many people are happy to receive benefits given to them. I would be ashamed to be on food stamps and welfare. You and your wife obviously did anything you possibly could to avoid that. That's what people with pride do.

[Archer77]

Many people are happy to receive benefits given to them. I would be ashamed to be on food stamps and welfare. You and your wife obviously did anything you possibly could to avoid that. That's what people with pride do.

The problem comes when multiple generations of the same family are on benefits. Its at that point you realize something needs to change because there havent been any improvements

[chaos]

Remember, these programs were designed to help people in need, get help so they can get back up.

It was not designed to be s lifestyle.

Smartest thing you've ever copy and pasted and you still fucked it up.

[King Shizzo]

Smartest thing you've ever copy and pasted and you still fucked it up.

[Primemuscle]

I'm the opposite of an idealist.  Being an idealist means you believe the government once again creating affordable housing is going to result in an outcome other than what it always has, ghettoization and property depreciation.  The people who live  in section 8 aren't working people who cant find reasonable priced housing in the city in ehich they work ,they are usually unemployed people on benefits.  Creating an enclave for those people does nothing to improve the city.  Crime goes up and property values go down.  People will flee.  I dont know where they should go but the facts indicate its not their current location.  Im sure there are many places they could go.

Doing the right thing is the problem. First, what is the right thing and who decides what's right for everyone? The right thing is a completely subjective and self-serving concept.   Secondly, the right thing might appear to be right in the short term but over the long run it causes major problems and more harm than good.   

You may think you are the opposite of an idealist, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Idealism is the practice of forming ideals, especially unrealistically. Realism is the practice of accepting a situation as is, and being prepared to deal ...

Ideally, things should be as you suggest, realistically they are not. What we need is working solutions. The solutions you've proposed are your ideal if what you'd like to see work rather than what actually would work.

You don't know where people should go, but you would ideally to go where they don't affect you. How can you be sure there are places for people to go when you don't know where that is. Perhaps we could send them to mars....I'm kidding.

Look, I live in a relatively crime free suburb. The racial mix is negligible. It is one of two suburbs in Portland with the highest income. Obviously, I have limited personal experience with homeless people, people on public assistance and criminals.

Truth be told, my wife and I once bought a home in what was considered the ghetto in Portland. We barely lasted a year before we sold it and moved. Interestingly enough, that area because of it's proximity to downtown Portland has been gentrified over the years and that house is worth quite a bit of money today. We were idealist who were ahead of our time. We didn't have the staying power to make it work for us.

[King Shizzo]

You may think you are the opposite of an idealist, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Idealism is the practice of forming ideals, especially unrealistically. Realism is the practice of accepting a situation as is, and being prepared to deal ...

Ideally, things should be as you suggest, realistically they are not. What we need is working solutions. The solutions you've proposed are your ideal if what you'd like to see work rather than what actually would work.

You don't know where people should go, but you would ideally to go where they don't affect you. How can you be sure there are places for people to go when you don't know where that is. Perhaps we could send them to mars....I'm kidding.

Look, I live in a relatively crime free suburb. The racial mix is negligible. It is one of two suburbs in Portland with the highest income. Obviously, I have limited personal experience with homeless people, people on public assistance and criminals.

Truth be told, my wife and I once bought a home in what was considered the ghetto in Portland. We barely lasted a year before we sold it and moved. Interestingly enough, that area because of it's proximity to downtown Portland has been gentrified over the years and that house is worth quite a bit of money today. We were idealist who were ahead of our time. We didn't have the staying power to make it work for us.

Screw that shit! Homeless people have a choice. Maybe they didn't choose to be homeless, but they can sure as hell try to climb back out of it.

There is a reason why they call them bums. Most are worthless drifters

[Primemuscle]

Screw that shit! Homeless people have a choice. Maybe they didn't choose to be homeless, but they can sure as hell try to climb back out of it.

There is a reason why they call them bums. Most are worthless drifters

Actually, some do chose to be homeless. My aunt was schizophrenic. She also was retired from the military and was married to an officer in the military for many years. The point being she had benefits. A psychotic break happened when her husband of almost twenty years left her supposedly with no warning. This triggered the schizophrenia.

She was always a little kooky, but funny and functional. She was my favorite of my two maternal aunts. Guess that says something about me.

Because she had Veteran's benefits, she had healthcare and lived in a small subsidized apartment for many years. I assume she also got SSD. One day she decided that the apartment she lived in was haunted or some such nonsense and she walked out with nothing more than the clothes on her back.

How she survived the last 20 + years of her life living on the streets of L.A. is a mystery to all of us. I imagine she was in and out of the VA hospital several times. She was 82 years old when she died. She outlived all of her siblings. She is survived by her 7 children, all but one of which was born before she flipped out.

It is not uncommon for the mentally ill to take to the streets. This is not my opinion, it is a fact that is particularly true for schizophrenics.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

Screw that shit! Homeless people have a choice. Maybe they didn't choose to be homeless, but they can sure as hell try to climb back out of it.

There is a reason why they call them bums. Most are worthless drifters

Why point your finger at the homeless and demand they climb out of their economic situation when the U.S. has millions of able bodied minorities living in Section 8 housing and suckling at the government teat?

Hebrews look at welfare like it is owed to them or some kind of badge of honor

[Primemuscle]

Why point your finger at the homeless and demand they climb out of their economic situation when the U.S. has millions of able bodied minorities living in Section 8 housing and suckling at the government teat?

Hebrews look at welfare like it is owed to them or some kind of badge of honor

Did I ever mention that I hate it when people are stereotyped?

I know two single white females, mother and daughter, who live off the system. They've worked in the past, but usually just enough to insure they can continue to milk the system. The daughter has a two year old, and yup, you got it, no husband. This helps with benefits because it is next to impossible to get ADC if you don't have children.

These women live in our neighborhood, just up the street in a town house the mother inherited from her grandmother. This explains how they can afford to live in a high rent area.

Politically, both mother and daughter are on the far right. They are the first to complain about all the moochers living off the system. Somehow, they justify their doing that very thing. They dislike African Americans, gays, abortion and pretty much anything that seems the least bit liberal. They hate Obamacare and yet have no problem being on the Oregon Health Plan which is only available to those with no means to pay for healthcare insurance.

These folks are true hypocrites. Why do I have the feeling they are not rare among people who scam the system?

[Archer77]

You may think you are the opposite of an idealist, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Idealism is the practice of forming ideals, especially unrealistically. Realism is the practice of accepting a situation as is, and being prepared to deal ...

Ideally, things should be as you suggest, realistically they are not. What we need is working solutions. The solutions you've proposed are your ideal if what you'd like to see work rather than what actually would work.

You don't know where people should go, but you would ideally to go where they don't affect you. How can you be sure there are places for people to go when you don't know where that is. Perhaps we could send them to mars....I'm kidding.

Look, I live in a relatively crime free suburb. The racial mix is negligible. It is one of two suburbs in Portland with the highest income. Obviously, I have limited personal experience with homeless people, people on public assistance and criminals.

Truth be told, my wife and I once bought a home in what was considered the ghetto in Portland. We barely lasted a year before we sold it and moved. Interestingly enough, that area because of it's proximity to downtown Portland has been gentrified over the years and that house is worth quite a bit of money today. We were idealist who were ahead of our time. We didn't have the staying power to make it work for us.

Idealism is what the fools in Seattle are doing when they form tent cities. Idealism is creating section 8 housing that destroys neighborhoods and cities.  I understand the reality of what that type of policy has resulted in. Idealism is repeating those mistakes and hoping this time the results will be different.  It's idealistic to assume there is a workable solution and that society is responsible for finding that solution.

Looking at the situation realistically means understanding that the way we've been handling these problems has failed.  Being realistic is to understand that not all problems can be solved by throwing money at it.  Being realistic means knowing that "doing what's right" and "good intentions" are not workable solutions.  It might feel good but it does nothing to solve the problem.

Realistically, if you can't afford to live somewhere then the easiest and best solution for you and everyone else is to find greener pastures.  Of course I don't know where those greener pastures are because their location depends on the individual. What I do know with 100% certainty is that it is not where they are now.  

We are talking about able bodied people not the physically or mentally impaired.  What's more realistic, spending large sums of money on accommodating a small subset of individuals who can't afford to live in a city they aren't even likely to be working in or those individuals seeking a livelihood elsewhere? What's a better allocation of resources? Leaving is better for them and for the city.  History gives us ample evidence this is true. Every city destroyed by section 8 housing is an example of how "doing the right thing" results in disaster.

Did I ever mention that I hate it when people are stereotyped?

I know two single white females, mother and daughter, who live off the system. They've worked in the past, but usually just enough to insure they can continue to milk the system. The daughter has a two year old, and yup, you got it, no husband. This helps with benefits because it is next to impossible to get ADC if you don't have children.

These women live in our neighborhood, just up the street in a town house the mother inherited from her grandmother. This explains how they can afford to live in a high rent area.

Politically, both mother and daughter are on the far right. They are the first to complain about all the moochers living off the system. Somehow, they justify their doing that very thing. They dislike African Americans, gays, abortion and pretty much anything that seems the least bit liberal. They hate Obamacare and yet have no problem being on the Oregon Health Plan which is only available to those with no means to pay for healthcare insurance.

These folks are true hypocrites. Why do I have the feeling they are not rare among people who scam the system?

You can mention one off examples all you want.  When it comes to who lives in section 8 housing it's a simple matter of doing a little research to determine which population group has the largest number of individuals living in public housing. It's not stereotyping when it's true. Who is being the naive idealist now.

[Primemuscle]

Idealism is what the fools in Seattle are doing when they form tent cities. Idealism is creating section 8 housing that destroys neighborhoods and cities.  I understand the reality of what that type of policy has resulted in. Idealism is repeating those mistakes and hoping this time the results will be different.  It's idealistic to assume there is a workable solution and that society is responsible for finding that solution.

Looking at the situation realistically means understanding that the way we've been handling these problems has failed.  Being realistic is to understand that not all problems can be solved by throwing money at it.  Being realistic means knowing that "doing what's right" and "good intentions" are not workable solutions.  It might feel good but it does nothing to solve the problem.

Realistically, if you can't afford to live somewhere then the easiest and best solution for you and everyone else is to find greener pastures.  Of course I don't know where those greener pastures are because their location depends on the individual. What I do know with 100% certainty is that it is not where they are now.  And we are talking about able bodied people not the physically or mentally impaired.  What's more realistic, spending large sums of money on accommodating individuals who can't afford to live in a city they aren't even likely to work in or those individuals seeking a livelihood elsewhere?  Leaving is better for them and for the city.  History gives us ample evidence this is true.


You can mention one off examples all you want.  When it comes to who lives in section 8 housing it's a simple matter of doing a little research to determine which population comprises the majority of occupants. It's not stereotyping when it's true. Who is being the naive idealist now.

You write a lot in your posts but offer nothing that is concrete, nothing workable. You argue with the definition of idealism verses realism. It is not my definition it is the definition. Look it up.

Yeah, if someone's life isn't working, they should change it. Duh! It should be just that simple. If it were there would be a lot of people living the life of Riley in this fantasy place you keep referencing.

My one off examples are real people. People I know or have known. You speak of generalities, not real people that you know personally, just know of. Incidentally, you'll notice I did not make excuses for them. These people I exampled are living or lived with their choices, whether they were intentional or not, as in the case with my aunt.

Explain to me why when I am in Germany, I don't see homeless people. Not in the villages and not in the cities. I asked my daughter-in-law who lives in Germany about this and she told me there is housing for everyone. If they are homeless, it is because they have chosen to be so.

I don't live in Seattle so I don't know what the housing situation is there but I can guess it is expensive. If there is a shortage of shelters and public housing like there is here in Portland, that certainly contributes to the number of folks living on the streets.

There is a reason the problem of homelessness is worse today than it was a few decades ago. There have been programs that worked in there time in the past, by the way. Ever read or hear about the WPA? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/dustbowl-wpa/ Instead of handouts, people were offered jobs repairing the infrastructure in the U.S. They didn't make a lot of money, but they retained their dignity.

[Archer77]

You write a lot in your posts but offer nothing that is concrete, nothing workable. You argue with the definition of idealism verses realism. It is not my definition it is the definition. Look it up.

Yeah, if someone's life isn't working, they should change it. Duh! It should be just that simple. If it were there would be a lot of people living the life of Riley in this fantasy place you keep referencing.

My one off examples are real people. People I know or have known. You speak of generalities, not real people that you know personally, just know of. Incidentally, you'll notice I did not make excuses for them. These people I exampled are living or lived with their choices, whether they were intentional or not, as in the case with my aunt.

Explain to me why when I am in Germany, I don't see homeless people. Not in the villages and not in the cities. I asked my daughter-in-law who lives in Germany about this and she told me there is housing for everyone. If they are homeless, it is because they have chosen to be so.

I don't live in Seattle so I don't know what the housing situation is there but I can guess it is expensive. If there is a shortage of shelters and public housing like there is here in Portland, that certainly contributes to the number of folks living on the streets.

There is a reason the problem of homelessness is worse today than it was a few decades ago. There have been programs that worked in there time in the past, by the way. Ever read or hear about the WPA? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/dustbowl-wpa/ Instead of handouts, people were offered jobs repairing the infrastructure in the U.S. They didn't make a lot of money, but they retained their dignity.

You live in a fantasy land where you think its the responsibility of others to find you a place to live and when they do find you a place to live the problem goes away. Thinking shelters and public housing are viable solutions for homelessness demonstrates how idealistic and naive you are. You think if only we build more shelters and public housing the problem will improve.  All evidence indicates it doesn't and in many cases makes the problem worse.  And you call me idealistic.  You aren't offering anything workable. You're just serving up the same failed policy that didn't work but I'm sure in your mind it's "the right thing to do" and feels good.

There is public housing in Germany and it may have taken people off the street but it created a whole host of other problems. The same problems we have here. Apparently you think not seeing the homeless means all problems have been solved. Out of sight, out of mind.  Again, you call me idealistic. The WPA was a joke that did nothing to alleviate poverty. They may have kept their dignity but in practical terms it didn't work.  This is an example of how your "doing the right thing" feels good but does nothing. It wasn't a solution.  Hell, it wasn't even a band aid.  Band aids actually do something.

[Primemuscle]

You live in a fantasy land where you think its the responsibility of others to find you a place to live and when they do find you a place to live the problem goes away. Thinking shelters and public housing are viable solutions for homelessness demonstrates how idealistic and naive you are. You think if only we build more shelters and public housing the problem will improve.  All evidence indicates it doesn't and in many cases makes the problem worse.  And you call me idealistic.  You're just serving up the same failed policy that didn't work but I'm sure in your mind it's "the right thing to do" and feels good.


The WPA was a joke that did nothing to alleviate poverty. They may have kept their dignity but in practical terms it didn't work.  This is an example of how your "doing the right thing" feels good but does nothing. It wasn't a solution.  Hell, it wasn't even a band aid.  Band aids actually do something.

Okay you win. Your capacity for arguing from a purely negative viewpoint is insufferable and frankly has become boring. Look me up when your ideas for fixing the problem with all these "deadbeats" that seem to be plaguing you has worked. Hey, here's an idea you might like; give these losers free passage on a cruise ship and then sink it when it's too far out for anyone to swim ashore.

WPA a failure? What a laugh!

"It was liquidated on June 30, 1943, as a result of low unemployment due to the worker shortage of World War II. The WPA had provided millions of Americans with jobs for 8 years. Most people who needed a job were eligible for at least some of its positions. Hourly wages were typically set to the prevailing wages in each area."

The WPA wasn't perfect for a variety of reasons, but it was sure better then what we aren't doing today.

http://www.wpatoday.org/WPA_History.html

[Archer77]

Okay you win. Your capacity for arguing from a purely negative viewpoint is insufferable and frankly has become boring. Look me up when your ideas for fixing the problem with all these "deadbeats" that seem to be plaguing you has worked. Hey, here's an idea you might like; give these losers free passage on a cruise ship and then sink it when it's too far out for anyone to swim ashore.

WPA a failure? What a laugh!

"It was liquidated on June 30, 1943, as a result of low unemployment due to the worker shortage of World War II. The WPA had provided millions of Americans with jobs for 8 years. Most people who needed a job were eligible for at least some of its positions. Hourly wages were typically set to the prevailing wages in each area."

The WPA wasn't perfect for a variety of reasons, but it was sure better then what we aren't doing today.

http://www.wpatoday.org/WPA_History.html

It's dishonest of you to throw around pejoratives and attribute them to me.  I never used any of the descriptions you're suggesting I did.  The passage I underlined is just a way for you to right me off as a terrible person who hates the poor. I'm sure this gives you a smug sense of moral superiority.

You keep saying that I'm not offering "workable solutions"  Why is it societies responsibility to provide workable solutions for an individuals problems? A problem they can solve themselves.  People don't have the right to live where ever they want to. I can't live in the riches areas of the my state because I can't afford to.  If I lived in Seattle I would be aghast at the prospect of creating a permanent underclass of public housing living welfare beneficiaries. Erecting huge tent cities and creating cheap housing will only destroy Seattle as it has destroyed other cities.

As I mentioned before, individuals with disabilities should be taken off the street and provided with the care they need.  Those who are capable of working should seek out a better life else where. This is not an unreasonable solution. You haven't offered workable solutions.  All you've offered up are the same costly and ineffective 60's era Great Society solutions that have proven repeatedly not to work. For you, as long as the poor and homeless are out of view and don't live near you all is good. Repercussions be damned.

The WPA was an absolute failure.  It did nothing to raise people out of poverty.  It didn't teach people skills they could use later.  It was primarily busy work. You're mythologizing the WPA.

[Primemuscle]

The WPA was an absolute failure.  It did nothing to raise people out of poverty.  It didn't teach people skills they could use later.  It was primarily busy work. You're mythologizing the WPA.

You are entitled to your opinion no matter that it is a minority one. I am not mythologizing the WPA. The passage was in quotes. It's what historians say about the WPA. If it was a failure, it seems it is because after 8 years of supposed success, the economy became so robust, largely due to WWII, that it was no longer needed.

"Criticism of the WPA

      It's been my observation that whenever the government--especially the federal government--performs an action, or creates a law or program, that is designed to help those in need, a flurry of criticism and panic ensues.  This can be seen throughout America's history, during attempts to end slavery, or give women the right to vote, or prohibit small children from working in mines, or in the legislation to create Social Security, or Medicare, or the recent attempts to see that more Americans have access to affordable health insurance or have extended unemployment benefits while unemployment rates remain high."  http://www.wpatoday.org/WPA_History.html  

There is nothing dishonest in exampling personal experiences. I've clearly stated that I live in a neighborhood where if there are people on public assistance, they are largely invisible. Like you say you have, I've seen homeless camps in and around Portland, albeit from a distance. I agree that they are a plight on the city. They are also an embarrassment. If city officials could figure out how to make these camps disappear, they surely would.

HUD housing is mainly done via vouchers these days. HUD housing could be anywhere. Blocks of section 8 housing, ghettos if you prefer are largely a thing of the past. Although there is HUD housing in most cities in Oregon, there is none in West Linn, OR. Those wanting an upscale neighborhood with subsidized housing can find it in Lake Oswego, a neighboring suburb. Much of HUD housing is reserved for seniors and the disabled. My sister, who is disabled, lives in a subsidized assisted living/retirement community in Salem, OR.