The Psychology Of Homelessness

[Michaelangelica]

Still confused

[belovelife]

me too, don't worry :lol:

[Buffy]

... it seems to me, that if you decide its the goverments job to create jobs, then you have 2 choices

 

1- pay more taxes, and have more goverment positions

2- give tax incentives to companies to create permanent positions

 

 

Well, the most important suggestion I'd make is to realize that economic and public policy debates completely fall apart when the problems they are trying to deal with are over-simplified.

 

To respond to your choice, the simple answer is "of course both", but the problem is the premise "it's the government's job to create jobs" is a gross oversimplification, even if it's what Fox News would claim is "what teh dirty commie libruls want."

 

To divert to the topic of Keynesian Stimulus theory: the government should NOT be the sole source of jobs, but rather it is the necessary last resort for creating demand in recessionary times, when there is no natural demand because people and businesses cannot provide enough to make the economy grow.

 

Keynes said very clearly that when the private sector recovers, the government should cut back on spending, and use the created surplus to pay off the debt built up from the recessionary "priming of the demand pump." Oddly during the last major recession in 2001-2002, it was the conservative government in the US who drastically reduced taxes completely eliminating the ability of the country to continue paying off the built up debt from the prior recession. How odd.

 

But back to homelessness, in a similar fashion to dealing with the economy, the government provides the last resort for providing the poor a minimal level of support to allow them the chance to again become productive members of society, at whatever level they are capable of.

 

So much of the current election cycle's debate is being driven by "dog whistles" that are intended very purposely to reinforce the contention that the poor

are all just lazy and just don't want work. That is they are "moochers" and "undeserving". Ronald Reagan really pushed this with his "Welfare Queen" screed which was as false then as it is today.

 

Finally there's the group that makes up virtually all of long-term homeless, those who cannot help themselves due to physical or mental illness.

 

If everyone did belong to an organized religion and tithed their 10%, maybe the churches could take care of all of these people. Obviously that's not happening. In fact its arguable that there was never really a time in history when it did.

 

The truism is that poverty costs everyone, so it becomes worthwhile to proactively treat the disease rather than let it fester and hope it does not affect our neighborhoods.

 

That's where government--which can force everyone to tithe, and even in a progressive manner so that those who benefit most from society pay the most--can provide unique benefits to society where no other human organization can.

 

And it's hard to imagine that we should as a society decide--although apparently there are a lot of people who do--to just "let 'em die!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy9TvrSGVHE

 

Did you ever think that making a speech on economics is a lot like pissing down your leg? It seems hot to you, but it never does to anyone else, :phones:

Buffy

[belovelife]

i think that video is one of the reasons i am a libertarian

 

if the popular vote is for letting someone die, in the example stated by the video

 

then the popular vote is wrong, and it takes a representative republic point of view to do the right thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyJRXvPNRo