2008 Presidential Candidates

[Scourge of God]

Oh, what a shitty god damn argument. You belong back in the fucking 1920's, man. I can't believe there are still people that actually think this way.

Nevermind how fucking absurd it is to make the sweeping generalization that anyone who is homeless must be a drug addict- which, of course, it's absolute pure horse shit

Statistically, well over 80% of the chronically (rather than temporarily) homeless have serious substance abuse issues, often with co-morbid mental illness as well, but often enough without.

it's even more absurd to say that those people are undeserving of help

So you think society owes financial assistance to people who cannot hold a job because of heroin, crack or alcohol addiction? Why? They're not productive citizens, and they're not productive citizens because they have chosen a lifestyle that makes them unproductive. You're basically suggesting that the government should be in the business of subsidizing someone's drug or alcohol habit.

and it is still even more absurd to say that those people have "already received considerable assistance".

Leaving aside the considerable public and private expenditures that go into feeding and sheltering the homeless, most of the chronically homeless have been through multiple rehab stints on the taxpayer dime, and most received some sort of public assistance prior to becoming homeless in the first place. That they're still on the streets is largely a product of fecklessness and a lack of personal discipline. People just don't become and stay homeless on a permanent basis because they've had a bad break or two, they stay homeless long term because their behavior makes getting and holding a job difficult.

Essentially, you're saying that, universally, anyone who does need help receives it and, therefore, no longer needs help

Not at all, but they certainly don't need more help than the minimum required to meet their basic needs. Society owes its members subsistence, it doesn't owe anyone comfort.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

What a pathetic, sad, antiquated way of thinking you have.

He also is, by association at the very least, and avid Nazi propaganda progenitor, advocate of a fucked-up version of evolution, and writer at one of the most pretentious, driveling websites ever created (along with all of its hilariously similar sister pages).

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Statistically, well over 80% of the chronically (rather than temporarily) homeless have serious substance abuse issues, often with co-morbid mental illness as well, but often enough without.

A.) What about the other 20%, then?

B.) If so many of the 80% are mentally ill, how can they be blamed for their drug use? How can you condone the government simply turning it's back on homeless Americans simply because they are mentally ill?

So you think society owes financial assistance to people who cannot hold a job because of heroin, crack or alcohol addiction? Why? They're not productive citizens, and they're not productive citizens because they have chosen a lifestyle that makes them unproductive. You're basically suggesting that the government should be in the business of subsidizing someone's drug or alcohol habit.

C.) Yes. The responsibility of the American government is to care for American people, drug addicts or not.

D.) Way to completely ignore the reason that so many people become addicted to drugs. So many of them turn to drugs because they are poor and largely ignored by the government.

E.) "Not productive citizens?" Oh, go fuck yourself. Being failed by the system or having the misfortune of being born with some sort of mental disorder does not make it right for you or the government to simply write someone off as "unproductive".

Leaving aside the considerable public and private expenditures that go into feeding and sheltering the homeless, most of the chronically homeless have been through multiple rehab stints on the taxpayer dime, and most received some sort of public assistance prior to becoming homeless in the first place. That they're still on the streets is largely a product of fecklessness and a lack of personal discipline. People just don't become and stay homeless on a permanent basis because they've had a bad break or two, they stay homeless long term because their behavior makes getting and holding a job difficult.

Not at all, but they certainly don't need more help than the minimum required to meet their basic needs. Society owes its members subsistence, it doesn't owe anyone comfort.

F.) Obviously, then, the current system is not good enough.

G.) Your entire stance on this issue seems to be based in your apparent belief in Social Darwinism. You must be mentally ill, yourself.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Scourge of God, your a fucking douchebag.

/thread

 

[Scourge of God]

A.) What about the other 20%, then?

Mostly paranoid schizophrenics turned out during the mental health 'reforms' of the 1980s and 1990s. The move away from 'warehousing' toward supposedly kinder 'outpatient treatments' had the ultimate effect of putting people with no capability to work and no family support on the streets. This is an area where the commitment of a relatively small amount of money (to reinstutionalize these folks) could have enormous benefits.

That said, there's a substantial portion who are perfectly capable of working and don't have crippling substance abuse problems, but are simply lazy bums.

B.) If so many of the 80% are mentally ill, how can they be blamed for their drug use? How can you condone the government simply turning it's back on homeless Americans simply because they are mentally ill?

The mental illnesses typically associated with substance abuse problems - depression, personality disorders and bipolar disorders - hardly render one incapable of making rational decisions. It's not like schizophrenia, where delusions and distorted understandings of reality are part and parcel of the illness. If you're depressed, and also have a crack habit, the depression doesn't relieve you of the responsibility not to be a fucking crackhead. Millions upon millions of people navigate mental illness in their lives without ever becoming junkies, crackheads, or winos. I have no sympathy for people who create their own eminently preventable circumstances.

C.) Yes. The responsibility of the American government is to care for American people, drug addicts or not.

How are you caring for anyone if you are, in essence, merely enabling their addictions? Society is a two way street, if you don't contribute, you have no right to expect support.

D.) Way to completely ignore the reason that so many people become addicted to drugs. So many of them turn to drugs because they are poor and largely ignored by the government.

Horseshit, they're poor because they're addicts and the children of addicts. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Life sucks all around, but lots of people man up and get over it, I have no sympathy for the ones who fuck up their lives and blame it on the gubmint. No one makes you smoke the crack, drink the malt liquor, shoot the heroin - that's a conscious choice, and, guess what: choices have consequences. The government has an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, it has no obligation to shield people from the consequences of their own freely chosen fuck-ups.






\

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Mostly paranoid schizophrenics turned out during the mental health 'reforms' of the 1980s and 1990s. The move away from 'warehousing' toward supposedly kinder 'outpatient treatments' had the ultimate effect of putting people with no capability to work and no family support on the streets. This is an area where the commitment of a relatively small amount of money (to reinstutionalize these folks) could have enormous benefits.

That said, there's a substantial portion who are perfectly capable of working and don't have crippling substance abuse problems, but are simply lazy bums.

Oh, please. You mean to say that EVERYONE who is homeless is undeserving of help either because there are mentally ill (which means they obviously need help), addicted to drugs (again), or they are "too lazy"? You're fucking pathetic if you can actually say that with a straight face. Do you mean to say that it's impossible- in this country- for someone to work hard and still fail to the point of poverty? Open your fucking eyes. People don't choose to be poor, despite what you claim to believe.

The mental illnesses typically associated with substance abuse problems - depression, personality disorders and bipolar disorders - hardly render one incapable of making rational decisions. It's not like schizophrenia, where delusions and distorted understandings of reality are part and parcel of the illness. If you're depressed, and also have a crack habit, the depression doesn't relieve you of the responsibility not to be a fucking crackhead. Millions upon millions of people navigate mental illness in their lives without ever becoming junkies, crackheads, or winos. I have no sympathy for people who create their own eminently preventable circumstances.

Again, there is no legitimate reason that these people do not deserve some kind of help. Just because someone is in a bad situation because of their own poor decisions does not make them undeserving of help. It goes beyond what is "practical", it's what is fucking decent, you shitbag. Would you deny medical attention to someone who was dying of injuries sustained in a care wreck that was the direct result of their own poor choices? That is the exact same fucking thing as denying aid to those who are homeless due to drug addiction. It sure as shit isn't the practical thing to do, but it's the humane and decent thing to do. If you can't see this, I pity you.

How are you caring for anyone if you are, in essence, merely enabling their addictions?

Nice try, but you fail yet again. I never said that throwing money at someone is the only way to help someone. How the fuck is giving someone treatment "enabling their addiction"?

Society is a two way street, if you don't contribute, you have no right to expect support.

What a joke. So if a child is born severally disabled, mentally and / or physically, they do not deserve to be helped in any way by society? That's a crock of shit.

Horseshit, they're poor because they're addicts and the children of addicts. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Life sucks all around, but lots of people man up and get over it, I have no sympathy for the ones who fuck up their lives and blame it on the gubmint. No one makes you smoke the crack, drink the malt liquor, shoot the heroin - that's a conscious choice, and, guess what: choices have consequences. The government has an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, it has no obligation to shield people from the consequences of their own freely chosen fuck-ups.

You need to wake the fuck up if you don't think that so many social ills are the direct result of a system created and run by people who think like you.

Also, way to completely ignore these points:

E.) "Not productive citizens?" Oh, go fuck yourself. Being failed by the system or having the misfortune of being born with some sort of mental disorder does not make it right for you or the government to simply write someone off as "unproductive".

F.) Obviously, then, the current system is not good enough.

G.) Your entire stance on this issue seems to be based in your apparent belief in Social Darwinism. You must be mentally ill, yourself.

 

[MasterOLightning]

This past page or so is too bogged down in the particulars of homelessness, and is ignoring a fact that can't be argued --- bettering the poor has tangible benefits that are easily seen in places like Canada and Scandinavia - most notably, lowering the crime rate. We should pump money into things like extensive financial aid for college or make-work government jobs to help people transition into better ones. Welfare doesn't just have to be handouts. These types of things make it easy for those who want to better themselves to do so.

 

[cookiecutter]

^Well said Master

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Agreed, generally good post.

 

[ShredHeadJHJ]

I really dont give a shit about the immigration issue and really wouldnt mind illegal immigrants staying here.

Very interesting. You wouldn't be saying that if they all moved in right next to then when you told them to keep their trash cans out of your driveway they will never do it because they don't (& will never) understand what the fuck you're saying.

I tried to open the link & my work computer froze up... Shitty... I'm not interested in politics anyways, but I would like to see where my views stand.

 

[skeptik]

Horseshit. Food prices in the US are the lowest in the world, and the cost of housing is lower than in almost any other developed country. Unlike most nations in the developing world, clean water is not only universally but cheaply available in the United States. By any reasonable measure, the US is one of the cheapest countries to live in if you're just talking basic necessities. Living up to the standard that many Americans seem to believe is their right is, of course, another story, but it has nothing to do with whether fundamental needs are being met.

Funny how people live on a few dollars a day in some countries countries, yet that wouldn't be enough to live on in a US city, if what you say is true then. And stop shifting between the developed and developing world when it suits your argument. The point is that, despite what you say, $10,000 in the US is of more value in equivalent terms elsewhere in the world.

Poor people don't NEED privately owned houses. They don't NEED personal automobiles. They don't NEED plasma screen tv's, internet access, the latest Jordans, brand name jeans or any of the other luxuries which Americans have come to demand as a baseline lifestyle. Unlike most of you here, I've actually lived on a sub-poverty income. Yeah, it's not much fun. Yeah, you don't have the same sort of leisure and purchase opportunities that you would like to have. Sure, it's not as cool as being rich, but you're not starving. You can keep a roof over your head. You can meet your basic needs and still have a little extra from time to time to meet what are simply desires. All it takes is discipline and rudimentary budgeting skills.

While the rest of you were out sucking at mama's teat, I was living on about $7,900/yr of take home pay while attending college. A couple of years back, I spent 7 months in Angola doing contract work and saw real, actual, poverty. I mean the poverty of basic, fundamental human needs unmet. The poverty of whole families picking through the garbage cans in the 'foreign' district trying to scrape up tonight's meal, not the 'poverty' of having to wait a week for the welfare check to arrive before picking up some hot new kicks.

Bottom line: if you want to redefine 'need' to encompass the whole range of non-vital consumer goods, don't get indignant when someone points out that no one needs to have this crap.

You're pretty much talking to yourself. I already said that "need" in US socioeconomic terms does not mean the same thing, so why you're wasting your breath over and over and over again saying the same things is a bit dumbfounding considering that anyone who's not retarded already understands your point. I'm not really indignant, just amused that you can regurgitate so much crap on a point that should be inherently understood when entering the discourse to begin with. Need in US politics is not fundamental, vital, essential need. Everyone that can breathe on their own and is not a toddler should be able to readily understand this point. Maybe what you SHOULD be arguing is that to use such a term is an efface to the real need that is abundant throughout the world instead of just HEY GUYS THEY DON'T REALLY NEED THIS SHIT, which is patently obvious already.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Yep, I just mentioned that earlier. SOG, stop bringing up non-points.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

I'm more concerned with rich people leeching the system than poor people.

+10.. something the rich do not seem to mention that they do...

 

[The Ozzman]

+10.. something the rich do not seem to mention that they do...

Except it's the percentage of wealthy people that are VERY wealthy, like the fucking CEOs of corporations. My dad isn't leeching off the government at all.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

Except it's the percentage of wealthy people that are VERY wealthy, like the fucking CEOs of corporations. My dad isn't leeching off the government at all.

Says you... and your opinion about your dad , forgive me, is biased. You're no Dave that is for sure. One thing I find about rich people is that it's not in their best interest to tell others about their "business". If you think any rich person does not use the government to their advantage in their businesses regardless if they are a relative of yours or not, then you are naive.

Rich people are rich for a reason. They look for loopholes in whatever it may be. Whether taxes, laws, etc. as well as subsidies, favorable tax breaks, etc. That to me is leeching and is no different then the bad apples in poor people you accuse of doing the same. They both use the government for social or financial gain. It's in the papers all the time especially business papers like Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg news etc. So unless you know very intimate knowledge about your dad's business then you cannot say what you did by 100%.

 

[skeptik]

So all rich people steal? You can't say that 100% about anyone.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Rich people are rich for a reason. They look for loopholes in whatever it may be.

This is really funny mainly because it's not true.

 

[Valerie]

Fucking christ, what ever happened to good, honest, hard work? You don't have to own a business to be wealthy.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

You do by Unfaithfully Metalhead's idea of rich people all being scumbags. Wake up buddy; exceptions to the rule? Hint: there are some.

 

[The Ozzman]

Says you... and your opinion about your dad , forgive me, is biased. You're no Dave that is for sure. One thing I find about rich people is that it's not in their best interest to tell others about their "business". If you think any rich person does not use the government to their advantage in their businesses regardless if they are a relative of yours or not, then you are naive.

Rich people are rich for a reason. They look for loopholes in whatever it may be. Whether taxes, laws, etc. as well as subsidies, favorable tax breaks, etc. That to me is leeching and is no different then the bad apples in poor people you accuse of doing the same. They both use the government for social or financial gain. It's in the papers all the time especially business papers like Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg news etc. So unless you know very intimate knowledge about your dad's business then you cannot say what you did by 100%.

Dude, my dad's a physician. He doesn't run his own business, he doesn't have a good understanding about tax laws and he's self-employed (so he pays double the FICA tax necessary for a normal person). Though he's self-employed, he's hired out by hospitals on a 'per diem' basis. He doesn't look for loopholes because he has just a tad bit of integrity, which is more than most people in society today.

Seriously, dude, fuck you for saying that 'all rich people steal'. My dad had fucking nothing when he got out of med school. He had to get a loan from my grandfather (his dad) just to make ends meet (and he eventually paid him back). My dad saved enough money to put three kids through parochial elementary school, catholic high school AND private universities. I admire my dad for the work ethic he has. I admire him as a person, a doctor, a father and a friend. For you to say that he 'cheated' his way to the success he's had just shows how jealous you are of people with more money than you.

Even if he did own a small business, what does he have to gain by using these 'loopholes'? They do exist because of how fucking dense the tax code is (which should be revised, btw), but that doesn't mean that EVERY single business owner utilizes these loopholes. You might have a case for large corporations and I would agree with you to an extent, but I HIGHLY doubt my boss utilizes these tax loopholes. We could go into the legality of these loopholes, but I'm not going to right now.

Please do some research before making sweeping generalizations like this ever again.