"It could be worse": VZ version

[Psalm7]

The biggest factor in long term homelessness is drugs and alcohol . Mental illness has a part in it and often the mental illness comes from their drug and alcohol use .
Its a tuff reality to face but life choices have consequences . Many times what seems like a small choice or decision has sevier consequences .

 

[DirtDiva]

Doesn't surprise me one bit. One factor is that housing costs are very low in Mississippi. You can buy in a frickin' three story mansion cheaper than buying in a one room studio condo in some places. I grew up in a five bedroom, four bathroom house in one of the better neighborhoods, and we were not rich.

Same here. I grew up in a 4 bedroom 2 bath brick home with 30 acres of land myself in a great rural neighborhood right on the river. We were not rich either.

 

[TexasFreedom]

TF I agree with you that there are many that abuse the system. But I think as a country we need to realize that a huge number of homeless are veterans returning from war with issues. There are mothers with small children fleeing violent and abusive marriages. There are foster children already abandoned by parents that turn 18 and are turned out from foster homes with no parents and nothing but the clothes on their back. They have aged out of the system. There are old people that can't afford their medicines and their rent. There are teenagers fleeing abusive parents. There are people with cancer that have spent every dime they have on medicines and treatments, the insurance has run out and they have nothing left. There are mentally ill turned out of mental facilities when the insurance runs out. I think we cannot simply write everyone off as bums and addicts. We can't write all of them off as irresponsible or poor financial planners. I think as a country we owe something to the elderly, to the veterans that put their lives on the line for our freedoms. That we should be able to find compassion in our hearts for the children stuck in these situations through no fault of their own. But to indiscriminately condemn 99% of this group is just COLD.

Here is the problem. If you allow exception after exception after exception, pretty soon it doesn't matter. It's not the gov't job to 'fix' everyone. Gov't is here to allow a fair playing field, and step back and let there be winners and losers and charities and consequences. We have tons of private charities to catch those deserving charity. The elderly have earned (for the most part) social security and medicare. I am not 'writing them off'. I'm simply saying that gov't has zero responsibility to take care of everyone.

An example. A 20 year old kid starts sniffing spray paint, fries his brain, and by 21 years old can't speak, can't work, and wears a diaper. He could live to 60 as an empty shell requiring 24 hour care. Does 'society' (or the govt) owe him a lifetime of care? I vote "oh heck no". Family has first option to care for him. If he's left to 'public care', he'll probably be dead in 3 years. I think that's more than generous. How would you address this example?

Our Founding Fathers defined this quite clearly. Zero welfare. We've messed that up the past 100 years and you can see the mess it leads to.

 

[DirtDiva]

Here is the problem. If you allow exception after exception after exception, pretty soon it doesn't matter. It's not the gov't job to 'fix' everyone. Gov't is here to allow a fair playing field, and step back and let there be winners and losers and charities and consequences. We have tons of private charities to catch those deserving charity. The elderly have earned (for the most part) social security and medicare. I am not 'writing them off'. I'm simply saying that gov't has zero responsibility to take care of everyone.

An example. A 20 year old kid starts sniffing spray paint, fries his brain, and by 21 years old can't speak, can't work, and wears a diaper. He could live to 60 as an empty shell requiring 24 hour care. Does 'society' (or the govt) owe him a lifetime of care? I vote "oh heck no". Family has first option to care for him. If he's left to 'public care', he'll probably be dead in 3 years. I think that's more than generous. How would you address this example?

Our Founding Fathers defined this quite clearly. Zero welfare. We've messed that up the past 100 years and you can see the mess it leads to.

Unplug the ventilator and let him die. Or let's just quit feeding him and slowly watch him starve to death. Or maybe just a lethal injection. Or maybe just smother him with a pillow.

Oh what a slippery slope indeed. Who makes the decision who gets what? Who plays God. When do we unplug the ventilators? How far do we go to save the preemie babies? When do we let grandma die when all the family is gone? When do we no longer resuscitate? At what point is a fetus viable?

I got no answers. From a christian standpoint we are taught charity but from the standpoint of someone has to pay for this and the taxpayers are overtaxed now and the country just gets deeper in debt. Where and when do we draw the line. Where does charity stop and welfare dependency begin. I understand what you are saying but I don't have the answers. I can say that I am glad I don't have to make those decisions. I don't think that private charities catch everything though. I think it is different in different areas of the country and the world. I think that not all areas have adequate private/religious/ community charities to cover what is needed. Some areas are poorer than others. It's gonna take someone smarter than this old lady prepper in the middle of the woods to figure this mess out.

 

[TexasFreedom]

DD,

You don't need to have all the answers. I do not either. The slippery slope already exists. Remember when Obama was asked about the zest for life that Grandma has, and Obama said to just give Grandma a pain pill & let her die?

It does not have to be uniform or perfect. It is neither now. Public welfare doesn't catch everything today, so private charities not catching everything later is no different. But there is a huge difference. Today, it is theft. Gov't taking forcefully from individuals and choosing winners and losers. That needs to stop. Instead, private charity are people willingly giving. Whether it's "as effective" or not, at least it is far more fair. Nothing taken from those not willing, and not to any charity that the victim (victim of theft) does not support. BTW, you'll be shocked at how generous people are when the gov't doesn't suck them dry. And it's managed far more efficiently, no gov't overhead/waste. More localized, lots of volunteers.

And if somebody needs particular charity, they should move to where it receives the most support. Drug addict? Around Hollywood should get lots of charity. Homeless? Try California. Escaping prostitution? Las Vegas? Calling it like I see it.

My point is to eliminate the slippery slope of taxpayer-stolen "gov't funded" wealth redistribution. Lock that down. There is a law that a criminal should not profit from acts of crime. Stealing this from taxpayers is the crime to be stopped, so welfare recipients are eventually the ones benefiting from the crime.

 

[DirtDiva]

DD,

You don't need to have all the answers. I do not either. The slippery slope already exists. Remember when Obama was asked about the zest for life that Grandma has, and Obama said to just give Grandma a pain pill & let her die?

It does not have to be uniform or perfect. It is neither now. Public welfare doesn't catch everything today, so private charities not catching everything later is no different. But there is a huge difference. Today, it is theft. Gov't taking forcefully from individuals and choosing winners and losers. That needs to stop. Instead, private charity are people willingly giving. Whether it's "as effective" or not, at least it is far more fair. Nothing taken from those not willing, and not to any charity that the victim (victim of theft) does not support. BTW, you'll be shocked at how generous people are when the gov't doesn't suck them dry. And it's managed far more efficiently, no gov't overhead/waste. More localized, lots of volunteers.

And if somebody needs particular charity, they should move to where it receives the most support. Drug addict? Around Hollywood should get lots of charity. Homeless? Try California. Escaping prostitution? Las Vegas? Calling it like I see it.

My point is to eliminate the slippery slope of taxpayer-stolen "gov't funded" wealth redistribution. Lock that down. There is a law that a criminal should not profit from acts of crime. Stealing this from taxpayers is the crime to be stopped, so welfare recipients are eventually the ones benefiting from the crime.

Sounds great but it will never happen unless society collapses and a hard restart of civilization. Too much money and too many people make their living managing the flow of that money. Regardless of Dem or Republican that is a rainbow you are chasing there. I would be the first to stand with you and say that the drug addict should not be receiving disability for a self inflicted condition while a cancer patient is turned away. That public welfare recipients should not be carrying $1000 phones. That there should not be lifetime welfare recipients. You will never completely get rid of that entirely. The best you can hope for is reform and restructure from a president like Trump. And as long as there are Democrats breathing they will fight it tooth and nail. And my final thought is you need to be very careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

I see the answer to this mess simply to stop most funding by federal government. Excluding any programs citizens have paid into..SS and public retirement comes to mind. Change Disability back to only the truly disabled who have paid into SS or born disabled or disabled when still young. Drug addicted? Nope! Let States and only States decide on everything else. Let their citizens pay for it. obama made it so that people who aren’t even disabled get benefits.

You would see a huge resurgence in the home grown and local care of people.

 

[DirtDiva]

I see the answer to this mess simply to stop most funding by federal government. Excluding any programs citizens have paid into..SS and public retirement comes to mind. Change Disability back to only the truly disabled who have paid into SS or born disabled or disabled when still young. Drug addicted? Nope! Let States and only States decide on everything else. Let their citizens pay for it. obama made it so that people who aren’t even disabled get benefits.

You would see a huge resurgence in the home grown and local care of people.

GP for this to happen I think the whole system would have to crash. Then restart from scratch. TEOTWAWKI. The Dems will never let it go.

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

GP for this to happen I think the whole system would have to crash. Then restart from scratch. TEOTWAWKI. The Dems will never let it go.

Oh for certainDD. It would take something like an EMP, Total Collapse of the dollar or even Civil War. I’m not counting any of those out personally. One of the few positives of something like that would be the chance to start over. It could perhaps improve our country in the end by stopping the invasion of 3rd worlders...because there would be no freebies. There would certainly be no more idiot young people bashing our military men and women.

We live in such uncertain times.