Weaver95: GAT_00: Weaver95: GAT_00: "And you shouldn't give to these street people," Stossel advised. "You're really supporting alcoholism and drug problems."

So, you would of course like to see national drug treatment centers? Oh right, you want people to end up in the gutter dying.

well it's what conservative jesus would have wanted.

Jesus helps those who walk up to Jesus.

It just gets tiresome though. it's always the same pattern: conservatives slam addicts for being weak and immoral, refuse to help them out in any way, then get mysteriously quiet and disappear when Rush Limbaugh and his addiction problem(s) crop up in conversation. Even Rush f*cking Limbaugh couldn't beat that addiction without help. He was sucking down so much oxycotin that he burned out his hearing....if we want to make a dent in our drug problems in this country, we NEED to help addicts break the cycle of addiction. Good luck getting the GOP to do the right thing though.

Here's the thing: I f*cking hate junkies. I despise the sick and the want and the need and the lying and all the rest. I despise junkies and everything that they represent.

That is why I have had folks in my home who wanted to kick the habit. That is why I will drive someone to the hospital and advise the sucker to sign the waiver to commit themselves. That is why I will empty the damn bucket and keep towels and blankets on hand, and have soup and whatever else they need, because at the end of the tunnel, is an ex-junkie.

I hate junkies, but some of my best friends are ex-addicts, and those people, I love dearly.

We want to see more ex-addicts, we need to get folks the help they need, and we need to be involved and active in lending a hand.

I want to hear his alternative. Seriously, I'm sick to death of all these so called "Libertarians" saying that the current solution isn't working, but offering no alternative. Just like the "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" crap. Replace it with what?

It seems to me that homeless people asking for money is the ultimate Libertarian thing. No one has to give them money! You're not being forced by the government to subsidize the homeless! If you want to give, give! If you don't, don't!

Personally, I think a huge percentage of the homeless problem would be solved by offering more free education to people before they ever find themselves in the situation, and by offering low-wage jobs with dormitory-style living for those already in it. More freely available mental health treatment wouldn't hurt, either.

ox45tallboy:

Personally, I think a huge percentage of the homeless problem would be solved by offering more free education to people before they ever find themselves in the situation, and by offering low-wage jobs with dormitory-style living for those already in it. More freely available mental health treatment wouldn't hurt, either.

we should also stop treating addiction as a 'moral failure'. Science proves that addiction can actually rewire your brain - physically and biochemically speaking, it makes you into another person. Morality has nothing to do with it, nor does willpower. some drugs (opiates and certain other 'designer' drugs) create an addiction so powerful that it is almost impossible to get off those drugs without help.

And yet...the standard conservative view is that drug addicts are weak. if we shame them into it, they'll 'get better' all on their own. Rush Limbaugh didn't 'get better' all on his own. he didn't even THINK about confronting his addiction until he got caught. if Rush Limbaugh couldn't kick drugs without help, then how can anyone else have a hope to do so?

Why shouldn't a homeless man spent $1.50 on some comfort for his mind?

It's all very well for billionaire Quakers to live on God's Love and His Own Fresh Water. The poor man's beer is a small sacrifice for such a creature. But did you ever see one sacrifice his jet? his hotel suites? his car and driver? Did you ever see a rich man give up his personal assistants and his prayer breakfasts with Congress people? Of course, not. These are a rich man's luxuries and he can not be a rich man with out them. Tobacco, beer, drugs, television or a kitchen, the rich can very well do without. They can even eschew Champagne, white truffles and outdoor swimming pools heated to bath temperature in the winter. They don't all like to lie back and look at the stars and dream of owning them as well as the whole Earth and everything in it.

But a poor man's luxuries are nothing to the rich man. Your rich man does not want steak. He wants a cup of lump porridge and a glass of tap water and a convenient appointment for the squash court. He doesn't need your stinking beer as long as he can be in Paris eight hours before you and your stinking air bus of a commercial flight.

I am skeptical of too convenient virtues. It's convenient not to give to beggers, and convenient not to provide for widows, widowers and orphans of the men and women who fight for your right to use might instead of negotiating for resources. It's very convenient to have people scatter out of your way when you want to turn a slum tenament into "luxury" condos for the mildly affluent.

Business does not exist to make jobs. It exists to make money, and if it makes jobs, that's just an unfortunate by-product. Business doesn't exist to make people healthy, wealthy or wise. If some people manage to become those things despite the best efforts of corporations and governments to squeeze the utmost farthing out of their hides, very well. It can't be helped or it would be.

But why deny your victims a bit of booze to allay their suffering? It needn't cost you a penny. It's liberals, do-gooders and a certain time of religious nutter who cares enough to give a penny to a man bleeding under foot, or at last toss him a hanky to bind his wounds. But really, if that much cruelty and callousness is necessary, what kind of person are you?

One might almost think that there is the pathetic remnant of a conscience, of consciousness, lurking beneath your bourgeois platitudes and clownish PR. But you can't really be a true bourgeois with the slightest remnant of a brain or heart. That's just sentimentality. It is for women, children, puppies and slaves. A good kick is all that anybody needs unless they are rich and deserve everything they get.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
~Some dirty libtard hippy communist

That long-haired, street-dwelling, prostitute-defending, leper-healing hippie dude also said this:

"For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land."

If he showed up today, Faux News would host a rally to crucify him.

GAT_00: Weaver95: GAT_00: "And you shouldn't give to these street people," Stossel advised. "You're really supporting alcoholism and drug problems."

So, you would of course like to see national drug treatment centers? Oh right, you want people to end up in the gutter dying.

well it's what conservative jesus would have wanted.

Jesus helps those who walk up to Jesus.

It just gets tiresome though. it's always the same pattern: conservatives slam addicts for being weak and immoral, refuse to help them out in any way, then get mysteriously quiet and disappear when Rush Limbaugh and his addiction problem(s) crop up in conversation. Even Rush f*cking Limbaugh couldn't beat that addiction without help. He was sucking down so much oxycotin that he burned out his hearing....if we want to make a dent in our drug problems in this country, we NEED to help addicts break the cycle of addiction. Good luck getting the GOP to do the right thing though.

It's the wealthy that do most of the freeloading, so don't give anything to beggars on the street. And now a word from our sponsors.

What? Fox News talking heads bashing poor people and minorities? Never happens!

Shun those that hunger and asketh for change, and to those who oppose the least among you, giveth generiously to their SuperPACs
~Conservative Jesus

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
~Some dirty libtard hippy communist

He's right, but he's a tool.

John Stossel admits that he has lived his whole life on handouts.

Tells others not to accept those evil, scumy handouts!

Can someone make that one of those meme things?

Some made up statistics for your consideration and enjoyment:

Poor households:

*25% still have three toasters that they got as wedding presents.
*87.55% have three appliances provided as a signing bonus by the landlord but can't pay the rent on welfare unless they can find a way to eat for a month on 35 cents.
*0.3% are the ex-wives or mistresses of millionaires.
*0.000015% are members of congress who stood up for principles, justice and the American Way when offered buckets of money by dirty shady lobbyists.
*15% have a car but no gas money.
*45% have gas money but can't afford to put the engine back into the car.
*57% are young people with a cellphone but no land line.
*13% own their own homes, but are therefore not eligible for welfare so they left their wife and kids, to live on the streets and beg rather than starve the whole family.
*33% have mental, drug, or alcohol problems that used to be treated before tax cuts led to the treatment programmes, facilities, and mental institutions being closed down.
*0.0001% is Jesus Christ, Moses, the Prophet Elijah or Mohammed disguised as a begger. This part of the test will count 65% towards your final exam.
*0.000000001 are homeless because they love sponging off of society and don't want a home any way.
*88.8% were laid off by heartless bastards for a 0.5% increase in profits. That's before taxes. After taxes, it's 5%.

ox45tallboy: I want to hear his alternative. Seriously, I'm sick to death of all these so called "Libertarians" saying that the current solution isn't working, but offering no alternative. Just like the "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" crap. Replace it with what?





In this case Step 2 is "Profit!"

Weaver95: that's...not exactly on point. the GOP view (and the prosperity gospel) is that if you are poor or an addict, then it's because god WANTED you to be poor or an addict. so really, in order to be a good Republican conservative you can't help the poor or sick or addicted, because you'd be going against the wishes of god.

it's a f*cked up philosophy, but you have to understand that while the end goal for the prosperity gospel folks is to be rich, you have to understand how their self justifications work or you'll miss the more subtle aspects of what they're doing.

Except that doesn't even apply if they themselves fall on hard times. Then it's not God's plan that THEY be poor or sick or both, THEY are good people and it's the illegal's fault or the liberals or whatnot.

I could (almost) respect the whole "poor are poor because they deserve it" philosphy if it were consistant. But like so many things it's "Judgement for thee but not for me".

Did he do anything that was actually compassionate? Like advise people hand out sandwiches instead?

"To be fair, it's wealthy people who do most of the freeloading: corporate welfare, farm subsidies..."

And FOX will be secret-camera-exposing these guys...when?

Or does just saying "To be fair" make you "Fair and Balanced^TM"?

skullkrusher: WhyteRaven74: skullkrusher: shelters can enroll you in Medicaid and set you up with psychiatrists to get counseling and medication if necessary.

While some shelters will help with that, they are very few and far between.

I think it is pretty common in NYC from my brief googling on the topic. I don't see why every shelter in every city wouldn't be offering that sort of basic assistance. There's gotta be more of a point than providing a shiatty cot to sleep on

It is pretty uncommon everywhere else. A lot of places OFFER it, but they don't actively go around hunting down people even in shelters and saying "Do you need Medicaid/Medicare? Do you want to see a doctor?" The person has to actually ask.

And I think you're not appreciating the resistance chronic homeless have to getting "help." A lot of them have tried to get help--but trust me,you can only get kicked in the face so many times by the system before you give up. Remember, this is a system where if you miss a meeting with your Social Security worker, or your case worker, regardless of the reason, you lose your benefits. Shelters are only open between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., after that you need to be out on the street, with all your stuff, and if you're late getting back, regardless of the reason, no bed for you. Need to get up early to catch a bus to a court hearing? They don't let you OUT until 6 a.m.

I once had to help a woman in a General Relief office who'd lost her benefits due to missing her meeting--she'd been in court, trying to explain something or other to the judge. She said she called to reschedule, but the worker never got the message. Who knows which one was lying, but regardless, the woman had her court papers. She'd really been in court before a judge, but that wasn't good enough for the caseworker. Had another man, mentally ill, who needed his GR for his meds, and they'd missed his name on the sign-in sheet. He was almost frantic about having to leave and come back the next day because he needed to get to his doctor to get his meds renewed (can't miss those appointments either).

Now, you do that often enough, and a lot of people would rather live in a gutter and eat garbage than accept ANY offers of help. Why jump through the hoops when even a judge's word you missed your meeting for good cause isn't enough to let you keep your benefits? When THEIR mistake becomes your being without food for six months? Saying "Oh, people should get help and if they don't it's on them," is true in a limited respect, but only if you acknowledge that getting help is incredibly difficult and has so many obstacles that some people cannot jump over all of them.

Corvus: WhyteRaven74: Corvus: When you hand out some money to some homeless guy you are only doing it to make yourself feel better but not actually to fix the problem.

Well no one seems much interested in fixing the problem, even though a lot of it could be fixed very easily. It would be trivial to provide housing, real housing, to anyone who needs it, ditto medical care etc. Alas, we refuse to even consider just providing housing for people in need. And if a person is hungry, well giving them money or food does much to fix the problem.

Sure they do. My city offers a homeless shelter, at least in winter months. I also know of many private charity organization that provide shelter and try to help people find a job.

The "Well no one cares so I can't do nothing. Is a BS cop-out" It's cynicism so you can feel good about not doing anything about it or pretend their are not options out there to choose.

I worked with a fair amount of street kids when I was in Northampton. NoHo had a fair amount of decent shelters, and the churches all threw in together to offer food for not just the homeless, but for the elderly and disabled.

When the state hospitals turned out a lot of folks, the systems in place for the homeless got overloaded. At one point, the Northampton police were picking up folks, and just depositing them across the town line into Holyoke, where they figured the larger city would have a better time handling the problem--at least that was the justification. It was a mess.

I had kids who were homeless who I gave jobs. I made sure that they had safe places to go, and helped them get apartments together, or with folks I trusted. A lot of the restaurant folk watched out over the kids, because most folks figured that they were just like the hipster kids who were slumming, but there were some kids who were in serious trouble, and more than a few of them got involved with some real dickbags. Or preyed upon by the Bearded Lady who REALLY liked the young girls, and she offered up her home to them, and somehow these teen age girls just fell into her bed. She ran a program to help youths, but she took herself a slice more than a few times, and that was not a good scene.

You have to be involved. You can't just give cash and expect things to go away. You have to vote. You have to do. You have to step up, if you want to really help.

It is not true that 99.6% of all poor households have a refrigerator. That is 99.6% of ALL American households. A house without a refrigeratror in it is not a home.

In New York, it is true, there are women who use the refrigerator to store their shoes. But that is because apartments in New York City are so expensive, while eating out is so easy, that nobody can afford to use a refrigerator for storing old boxes of Chinese take-out when they can store their shoes there instead. Many New York Apartments do not have refrigerators for the same reason they are not subdivided into closets. They were sub-divided WHEN they were closets. If there is a kitchen at all, it is part of a former closet or maid's room.

The same is true for AC. Much of the USA is uninhabitable in the Summer, and some of it in the winter, without an AC unit. Like refrigerators, every home has an AC unit. This does not mean that all homes are equal, or that all are rich or prosperous or middle class or even hat the AC or refrigerator is in working order. It simply means that a refrigerator and an AC are the bare minimum of equipment needed for even the poorest renter or home owner.

This lie was a popular one with anti-Communists back in the day. They would point out that the Soviets often stood in line for everything, while Americans have way too much crap. Of course, they glossed over the difference between Gotrock's walk-in refrigerator full of sides of beef, venison, mutton, etc. and the broken 1937 Kelvinator that Hillbilly Joe uses to keep his beer semi-warm on hot summer days in the torrid zone. They also glossed over the difference between being poor where everybody is poor together and being poor where everybody is rich and hates and despises you for being poor even if it is manifestly impossible for everybody to be rich.

But it is a lie. The glossy pictures that go straight to the monkey or the reptile part of your brain, by passing the small portion of your frontal lobes that do anything like thinking are lies. The cake is a lie. It is made of plaster and tofu. The ice cream is a lie. It is really lard. The steam is a lie--it is put on the "hot" food with a water bottle.

Everything that comes out of the mouth of conservatives, Republicans and most other political people is a lie, lie, lie. That's what they are paid the big money for.

So they say.

I suspect they steal the big money and pay for the lies out of pocket in order to keep it, not to mention keep out of jail.

STOP LOOKING AT THE STUPID GRAPHICS AND BIG SHINEY TITS ON FOX. THEY NEVER ADD UP TO 100% BECAUSE FACT CHECKERS ARE FOR LIBERALS. A FACT IS JUST SOMETHING THAT IS NEEDED TEMPORARILY TO WIN AN ARGUMENT OR SHUT UP ANGRY PEOPLE

ox45tallboy: Personally, I think a huge percentage of the homeless problem would be solved by offering more free education to people before they ever find themselves in the situation, and by offering low-wage jobs with dormitory-style living for those already in it. More freely available mental health treatment wouldn't hurt, either.

I many threads I have said "Hey you guys come up with a private solution that fixes the problem me and most liberals I know will vote to remove government from it." You know how many times I've got "Ok sounds like a good deal? ZERO!

They even know their "solutions" will not work. They are lying and they know it just so they don't have to pay into a plan to fix things.


Want to get rid of a government healthcare? EASY! You and you libertarian buddies all pay into a fund private fund to get the 50 million uninsured on health insurance and I'll be the first in line to repeal "Obamacare". Would they ever do it? fark NO! That's why we need government to step in because the private sector has failed.

GAT_00: hubiestubert: We want to see more ex-addicts, we need to get folks the help they need, and we need to be involved and active in lending a hand.

Yeah, but that doesn't fall anywhere within the Prosperity Gospel, or Conservative ideas, for one simple reason: there's no direct profit in it. It's an obvious waste of money. It's helping people who are commonly poor and downtrodden, who can't pay for it, and have little direct contribution to society. Sure they form the backbone, but there's lots of them, and they aren't a very good backbone strung out like that. So who cares what happens to them?.

that's...not exactly on point. the GOP view (and the prosperity gospel) is that if you are poor or an addict, then it's because god WANTED you to be poor or an addict. so really, in order to be a good Republican conservative you can't help the poor or sick or addicted, because you'd be going against the wishes of god.

it's a f*cked up philosophy, but you have to understand that while the end goal for the prosperity gospel folks is to be rich, you have to understand how their self justifications work or you'll miss the more subtle aspects of what they're doing.

Weaver95: hubiestubert:

We want to see more ex-addicts, we need to get folks the help they need, and we need to be involved and active in lending a hand.

not the GOP. they want to just ignore the problem and hope the addicts and homeless just vanish.

When I was in high school, in Texas, there was a local businessman who ponied up a sizable scholarship every year for underprivileged youth. The award went to African American students without fail. The gentleman who awarded this scholarship was an avowed racist. He hated n*ggers. He was not bashful in this. He stated it early, often, and his entire purpose in awarding this scholarship was so that black kids would avoid becoming shiftless layabouts who would suck at the teat of the state, and turn to drugs, crime, and birthing a dozen babies before their 30s. His motives and his beliefs were maybe extreme, but he realized that education and opportunity were the only way to avoid the folks he REALLY hated from mucking up the place. He was a horrible old man, and hateful and spiteful, but he did what he could to avoid perpetuating a cycle that led to poverty and being chained within their own communities with spiraling downward opportunities.

TsarTom: "I collected federal flood insurance because I had a beach house...
And you shouldn't give to these street people," Stossel advised. "You're really supporting alcoholism and drug problems."

This guy needs to lose that job of his. I don't see him lasting long in reality.

That's why he's on FOX

"And you shouldn't give to these street people," Stossel advised. "You're really supporting alcoholism and drug problems."

obviously, the solution is more tax cuts for the rich.

plewis: I don't know. I just don't have the rage to go on with this, but we have lost our soul as a nation when this fark is on national TV.

As long as good looking white girls go missing or a politician tweets a picture of their junk, no one gives a fark about homeless veterans. People want to be scared, scandalized or intrigued. No one wants to be depressed and that doesn't sell advertising space. If you can find a homeless person who use to be a DJ or something, or a homeless person who is secretly a millionaire, that's interesting. Drunk, mentally ill and homeless veterans who fought for the country, blah blah blah. Who cares. What's the hook?

Sabyen91: The_Sponge: Sabyen91: The_Sponge: Don't be ridiculous. But if I'm the kind of person who steals from friends and family, and has no desire to better my life, maybe I deserve to live a shiatty life on the streets.

What if you are the type of person to have a major mental health problem? You know...like most homeless people?


Speaking as somebody who had a brother who has mental illness:

They need to be sent (forcibly) to a mental hospital ASAP.

/My parents and I were completely helpless thanks to state laws.
//Thankfully, he ultimately received the help he needed....and now has a decent job as a teacher.

I struggle with this but I am close to agreeing with you...

Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC), a mental health advocacy group I belong to and support as much as I can afford, promotes something called "Laura's Law." It was put into action in Nevada County, CA (yes, there is such a place) after a young woman who was a mental health caseworker was murdered by one of her clients, a schizophrenic man who had been in and out of jails, county psych wards, and shelters but whose family had been unable to commit him because of deinstitutionalization in the 70's and 80's.

Laura's Law is a law which can require certain mental health patients to undergo court-ordered psychiatric treatment in lieu of jail or prison. Basically, the court ORDERS these people into treatment, regardless of whether or not they want it (or else sends them to jail). Offenders under Laura's Law can be ordered into psychiatric care or have to report daily for medications or whatever the judge thinks proper. States and counties where Laura's Law is in effect have seen a dramatic reduction in their recidivist psychiatric offenders. Usually, the judge orders a six-month probationary period, a vast improvement over the 72-hour hold most states have in place.

Of course, civil-rights activists hate Laura's Law and it's progeny, because it "forces" people into treatment they "don't want", but advocates of the law recognize that many seriously mentally ill people don't recognize their sickness and cannot make an informed decision without the treatment they have a "right" to refuse. After enforced treatment, the offender has the option to continue or not continue: Most gladly continue.

As a mentally ill person myself, I have no desire to see people forcibly committed against their will merely because it is convenient for families or society to do so. However, I know from my own experience it can be amazingly hard to comply with doctor's orders when it is optional. In a perfect world, everyone would have access to all the voluntary mental health care they need; but until then, giving families and patients--and civic-minded judges and prosecutors--the ability to enforce involuntary treatment can be a lifesaver.

More here: Link if you want it.

skullkrusher: seriously? Sharpened pencils and lack of a dropbox for the SASE that I am sure Medicaid provides is what is stopping this from happening? The shelter BECOMES their address. That's why the ones in NYC offer that assistance. My question, therefore, regarding why don't other cities do this as well seems quite legitimate.


FFS, a single person could cover all the shelters in the city over the course of a week, sharpening pencils and mailing applications/distributing responses.

Now you're starting to look at the problem critically. First off, we can throw that "one person can cover the whole city" thing out the window. Let's go with NYC, where you live. According to this recent census, the homeless population living in shelters in April 2012 was 43,082 people. Assuming our guy is working his butt off for 60 hours a week, and he has a magical machine that instantaneously transports him between shelters, he'll have roughly 5 seconds to spend on each case. If we knock that down to 40 hours a week, we get 3.3 seconds. Let's assume that each homeless person will need 15 minutes of time per week. Suddenly, we need about 270 people to give each homeless person 15 minutes of assistance per week. Since we don't want them to be homeless in NYC themselves, we need to pay them a half-ass decent wage, say 30,000/yr, which is pitiful in NYC, but hey.

Congratulations, you've just added 8.1 million dollars to the budget. That's about $1 per man, woman, and child in NYC, just to put these people in touch with the right resources.

Next, let's look at the pencil budget. You can assume a good portion will be stolen, but it's not an insurmountable thing. However, it is dollars that are sorely needed to pay often overdue bills and purchase sanitation items for the restroom (also stolen often) and cleaning supplies. Someone's eventually going to be asking why they're spending money on pencils that might help somebody sometime down the road instead of toilet paper that they need now.

And how about that mail drop? Do we have PO boxes there or something? Who handles the mail? Who decides what letter goes to what person when none of them have ID?

I know you're awful proud of your good life, you've stated many times how great your life is. Why don't you run down to the local homeless shelter and volunteer for a night? Why don't you see the real problems that are there so that you'll understand why these off-the-cuff things you are throwing out there don't make practical sense?

I don't really have time to read the entire thread so I'm not sure if this has already been covered, but in my experience (from volunteering at soup kitchens over the years) a large percentage of homeless people suffer from some form of mental illness.

They aren't a danger to anyone, otherwise they'd eventually be in prison. But since mental health isn't exactly a priority when it comes to government spending, they slip through the cracks. They can't keep regular jobs and end up self medicating with drugs and alcohol.

skullkrusher: I think it is pretty common in NYC from my brief googling on the topic. I don't see why every shelter in every city wouldn't be offering that sort of basic assistance. There's gotta be more of a point than providing a shiatty cot to sleep on



Well gee, dude, I don't see why they're not offering hot coffe and donuts, with caviar brunches, shiatsu massage, and free wi-fi. Why do YOU think they might not offer that sort of "basic assistance"?

The_Sponge: Weaver95: "And you shouldn't give to these street people," Stossel advised. "You're really supporting alcoholism and drug problems."

obviously, the solution is more tax cuts for the rich.


Seriously.....when did you ditch an honest approach to less government and turned into a big government hack? You used to hate both parties, but now....it seems like to keep cheer-leading for one party.

I disagree with the Democrats...but i'm really starting to worry about the Republicans. they're f*cking insane.

Sabyen91: Yup, they are weak. They should die.

And oddly enough, while good little Social Darwinists, these are the same folks who want MOAR Jesus taught in schools...

MrHappyRotter: I don't ever give the homeless / the needy money when they ask me for it. However, I routinely go to the dollar store specifically to buy stacks of those fake scratch off lottery tickets (the kind that are all winners) and hand those out instead of money. It's much more entertaining and fulfilling to watch their faces brighten with optimism, sometimes for the first time in a decade, only to see it melt away in the most hilarious manner moments later when they realize it was a gag.

You probably leave this bullsh*t for tips, too, don't you?



/former waiter

WhyteRaven74: GreenAdder: I'd flip the hell out of some burgers if I had to. That's not beneath me.

He meant the people who tell people to get a job look down at people working at McDonalds, not that the people who need work look down at it.

Well, yeah. I'm just saying I don't know why anyone would find such work beneath them. They love to talk about "Atlas shrugging.". Imagine if every janitor in their high-rise office just didn't show up for a week. Or imagine them trying to live without cooks, waitstaff, drivers, or anyone else they rely on.

You can't depend on someone and then talk shiat on them. That's how an asshole thinks.

Weaver95: "And you shouldn't give to these street people," Stossel advised. "You're really supporting alcoholism and drug problems."

obviously, the solution is more tax cuts for the rich.


Seriously.....when did you ditch an honest approach to less government and turned into a big government hack? You used to hate both parties, but now....it seems like to keep cheer-leading for one party.

FTFA: "To be fair, it's wealthy people who do most of the freeloading: corporate welfare, farm subsidies and I collected federal flood insurance because I had a beach house."

So..... instead of dressing up like a homeless guy and advising your viewers not to give money to beggars why don't you investigate wealthy fat cats and urge your viewers to repeal laws that give a free handout to the rich?

Wait. Hold on a sec.

FTFA: "I freeloaded off my parent," Stossel admitted. "To be fair, it's wealthy people who do most of the freeloading: corporate welfare, farm subsidies and I collected federal flood insurance because I had a beach house."

...

Um. This was on Fox News??

...

*head asplode*

Bloody William: The very concept of charity is poisoned, and giving to the less fortunate, which I was always taught was a good thing, is seen as foolish and wrong. How wretched do you have to be that you look down upon the poorest as so horribly low that they do not deserve the simplest of charity? How dead inside do you have to be to look at people going through terrible things that will probably never get better and not feel some empathy, even if they aren't "worthy" in that they share your beliefs or act like you?

I used to hand out money to panhandlers, long ago. Then, someone told me that they just use the money for drugs and booze. So, one day, when I came upon a panhandler begging for money so he could buy food (so his sign said), I went into the nearby Burger King and bought him a meal.

He was grateful for it.

...

Where was I going with that? Oh yea. The next 2 or 3 times, though, I got the food thrown back at me, and/or shouted at.

So, not ALL bums are bumming for money because they want booze or drugs, but a lot of them are. I made it a point to give to charities that are better equipped and knowledgeable to help people in that situation than to give it directly.

*shrug*

Still hate seeing people in that situation.

/also, apparently, a lot of homeless people are homeless because of mental issues
//but that goes back into having a better health care system to deal with that problem
///that might have been the issue with the first guy I helped with food, I have no idea, I'm not a goddamned shrink, STOP STARING AT ME LIKE THAT

ialdabaoth:
When people have to literally fake a suicide attempt in order to get a bed at a shiat county facility...there's a SERIOUS problem.

How is that a problem?

well you'd have to have a soul in order to understand so...not sure if the explanation would make any sense to you.

This is just the kind of strict scientific inquiry and investigative journalism FOXNEWS viewers demand.

The conservative line is that taxing the rich less will give them more money. With that extra money, the rich will invest in job creation and private charity, which will eliminate the need for government handouts.

And then they go and say private charity is bad.

Why?

Honestly, I don't give a fark if a dude wants a beer. Let him enjoy a beer fer crissakes. Who the hell am I to make demands on someone I give a dollar to?

The only homeless people I give money to are the ones that tell me up front they are spending it on beer or drugs.

GAT_00: Weaver95: the GOP view (and the prosperity gospel) is that if you are poor or an addict, then it's because god WANTED you to be poor or an addict.

These people aren't Calvinists.

not directly...but there is a LOT of Calvinist philosophy behind the prosperty gospel.

People have needs, a lot of people have a need to give.

Sounds like win/win to me.

hubiestubert:

We want to see more ex-addicts, we need to get folks the help they need, and we need to be involved and active in lending a hand.

not the GOP. they want to just ignore the problem and hope the addicts and homeless just vanish.

I heard Stossel on a lengthy NPR program a few months ago and I thought, damn I like this guy. And then I came on fark and clicked a WND link and saw that he writes shiat over there and I was also reminded of his pedostache when I saw his mug.

Mugato: Weaver95: Even Rush f*cking Limbaugh couldn't beat that addiction without help

Why are you talking about old shiat?

did we win the war on drugs when I wasn't looking? far as I know, its still going on.

GAT_00: "And you shouldn't give to these street people," Stossel advised. "You're really supporting alcoholism and drug problems."

So, you would of course like to see national drug treatment centers? Oh right, you want people to end up in the gutter dying.

well it's what conservative jesus would have wanted.

Oh yeah, Rent-A-Center Geraldo. I haven't heard of him in a long time.