Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    26 May '15 10:15
    Here is a story about how evil socialism is:

    Since 2005, Utah has been trying a radical new plan to reduce the number of homeless people in the streets. It's called ... "giving them homes."

    http://mic.com/articles/108720/utah-s-radical-solution-to-fighting-homelessness-has-been-a-remarkable-success

    Salt Lake City has calculated that it costs about $20,000 a year to serve homeless people the traditional way and only $8,000 a year to give them housing.

    "Getting people off the streets and get them into housing just works," said Steve Berg, the vice president for programs and policy at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, in an interview with Mic. "Homelessness itself turns out to be a big barrier to all kinds of things, whether it is trying to get a job or trying to get an education or [trying to] stop a drug addiction."


    what happened to not enabling leechers and moochers? what happened with every man for himself? what happened to "get a job, you hobo"? (turns out it's hard to get a job if you live on the streets and smell like a, well, hobo).
    WHAT IS AMERICA COMING TO? someone stop them crazy mormons before they infect the nation with their disgusting socialism.
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 May '15 11:071 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    Here is a story about how evil socialism is:

    Since 2005, Utah has been trying a radical new plan to reduce the number of homeless people in the streets. It's called ... "giving them homes."

    http://mic.com/articles/108720/utah-s-radical-solution-to-fighting-homelessness-has-been-a-remarkable-success

    Salt Lake City has calculated that it costs about ...[text shortened]... ? someone stop them crazy mormons before they infect the nation with their disgusting socialism.
    How dare they?

    Everyone knows that nothing works well unless you create a large pot of money to send into the federal government.

    They should all be arrested. There must be some federal law against states helping the poor devoid of federal support.

    Why if it were not for the federal government, we would have no health care, retirement, nothing. We would all be dying in the streets!!!
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    26 May '15 12:17
    Originally posted by whodey
    How dare they?

    Everyone knows that nothing works well unless you create a large pot of money to send into the federal government.

    They should all be arrested. There must be some federal law against states helping the poor devoid of federal support.

    Why if it were not for the federal government, we would have no health care, retirement, nothing. We would all be dying in the streets!!!
    heh, you turned a case of socialism improving an issue into a "see?!!! federal govnmnt bad, state autonomy rules!!!"

    cool stuff.
  4. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    26 May '15 15:08
    I have no problem with projects and soup lines. I think it makes much more sense than simply giving irresponsible people money.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    26 May '15 15:291 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    They should all be arrested.
    Also known as 'The American solution'. Although that costs $30,600 per person (estimate from Wikipedia), but you Americans never shy away from spending. Its when the government wants to do the spending using your tax money that you complain - hence the massive deficit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Cost
  6. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    26 May '15 16:10
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I have no problem with projects and soup lines. I think it makes much more sense than simply giving irresponsible people money.
    The problems with projects is that they become blighted, run down, crime ridden places that nobody want to go near, never mind live in. But the people there have been trapped into that existence.

    Soup lines are another thing, and are often utilized by people other than the intended.
  7. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    26 May '15 16:11
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I have no problem with projects and soup lines. I think it makes much more sense than simply giving irresponsible people money.
    So you think spending more money makes sense even if it ends up getting inferior results, just as long as "irresponsible" people don't get any money?
  8. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    26 May '15 16:11
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The problems with projects is that they become blighted, run down, crime ridden places that nobody want to go near, never mind live in. But the people there have been trapped into that existence.

    Soup lines are another thing, and are often utilized by people other than the intended.
    No matter where these people live the areas become blighted and run down. Better to keep them in one place and one localized area of town.
  9. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    26 May '15 16:17
    Originally posted by Eladar
    No matter where these people live the areas become blighted and run down. Better to keep them in one place and one localized area of town.
    That has to do with culture and an unwillingness to do things to self improve.
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 May '15 18:17
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    heh, you turned a case of socialism improving an issue into a "see?!!! federal govnmnt bad, state autonomy rules!!!"

    cool stuff.
    Charity should actually be done at the local level, verses money pits like the Clinton Foundation where all the money goes to the rich elites.
  11. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    26 May '15 18:52
    Originally posted by normbenign
    That has to do with culture and an unwillingness to do things to self improve.
    The reason doesn't matter. It is what it is.
  12. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    26 May '15 19:04
    Soup lines are another thing, and are often utilized by people other than the intended

    If a person is hungry, then the person should be able to eat. Soup lines should not be means tested, neither should the projects.
  13. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    26 May '15 22:16
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    So you think spending more money makes sense even if it ends up getting inferior results, just as long as "irresponsible" people don't get any money?
    Surprising how true poverty motivates people to find means of subsistence.
  14. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    26 May '15 22:24
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]Soup lines are another thing, and are often utilized by people other than the intended

    If a person is hungry, then the person should be able to eat. Soup lines should not be means tested, neither should the projects.[/b]
    I used to live and work at a school next to a big Catholic church in Cleveland. It was located a few blocks for a desperately poor project, and a couple of miles from downtown.

    The line was about equal measures of ghetto dwellers, and Armani suit types who drove up in Lexus and BMWs. The priest's attitude was the same as yours.
  15. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    7305
    28 May '15 13:19
    Originally posted by Eladar
    No matter where these people live the areas become blighted and run down. Better to keep them in one place and one localized area of town.
    Why not put a fence around 'em while you're at it? Makes it easier to hunt them down when your Gestapo comes.
Back to Top