NYC mulls cruise ships for homeless

[MGKrebs]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-11-20-homeless_x.htm

"Last month, a record 37,100 homeless people were sleeping in city shelters each night, according to the Coalition for the Homeless, which compiles statistics for the city. The number was 21,000 as recently as 1998. "

I wonder how many of these people are homeless because they were thrown out of the welfare system. Maybe about 16,000?

Welfare to work was fine as long as the economy was good and there were plenty of jobs. Now that unemployment is going up, what are we going to do with these people?

 

[Kyle]

Can't back this up with a source of study... but

I'd bet the majority of the jobs lost these last three years have been from the higher end of the spectrum rather than anything that a welfare recipient would have found and entered.

Too many large companies in Tech, energy and finance went belly up or downsized dramatically. These folks aren't taking jobs from fast food clerks, cleaning services and lawn jockeys.

 

[Bruzilla]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Workfare is not putting people into jobs at McDonalds or Burger King. It is making these people, who are able, work for what they get. That doesn't mean that they get a nice job slinging burgers or that they get to sit on their butts and do nothing.

The example that I cite is the Singapore model. There they have people out sweeping and swabbing the streets, collecting trash, doing landscaping, etc. There are thousands of civil jobs such as these that these poor souls could be doing. As workfare people in Singapore demonstrate that they are capable of performing better jobs, they get promoted to better positions. If they say the heck with this and quit, they get nothing from the government. I think that's a fairer system. If the taxpayers are going to pay for someone's food, housing, crack, booze, etc., the taxpayers should expect some return, like clean streets, no grafitti, cheaper trash collection, etc.

As for putting the homeless on ships, I would point out that as a young sailor I had to stay aboard a far less comfortable ship, the USNS Darby (a converted WWII Liberty ship) while the USS Saratoga went through overhaul. If it was good enough for our servicemen, it's good enough for the homeless.

Besides, there are lots of staterooms available for the homeless on the Titanic.

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
... as a young sailor I had to stay aboard a far less comfortable ship, the USNS Darby (a converted WWII Liberty ship) ...

Damn Bru. You're a geezer!

j/k I'm surprised that there was even a single Liberty ship in existance more than twenty years after the war.

 

[justhangn]

I heard that all of the homeless jumped ship when they heard Kathy Lee Giffard was the entertainer.

 

[vraiblonde]

what are we going to do with these people?

Ever see the movie "Soylent Green"?

Maynard, life is about survival of the fittest. It's unnatural to help unfit specimens survive and it weakens the gene pool. I hate to be so callous about it but it's a fac', Jack. Animals in the wild don't give or receive welfare. We can argue that this is what separates man from beast - that compassion to help your fellow whatevers. But at some point you have to wonder if nature isn't on to something with it's selection process.

 

[MGKrebs]

I am totally on board with that whole thing, Bru. My question is (not necessarily for you, just in general), is: is it a whole bunch more expensive to set up the tasks, supervision, tools/equipment, etc. than it is to just pay the stinkin money and move on.

There would be savings by not having to subcontract out some of these tasks, not sure if it would balance out or not.

As for you Vrai, I'd like to see the politician who advocates that position!

 

[STMLADY]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Ever see the movie "Soylent Green"?

Oh MY I remember that movie. That makes you really think about how things could be in the furture. I was very troubled over it.

 

[MGKrebs]

Originally posted by vraiblonde

Maynard, life is about survival of the fittest. It's unnatural to help unfit specimens survive and it weakens the gene pool. .

Physically fittest? Mentally? Richest friends?

Stephen Hawking? Einstein? Bill Gates? FDR? Max Cleland? Bob Dole? Stevie Wonder? Ray Charles?

 

[MGKrebs]

Survival of the richest

Were foster kids (i.e. receiving help)

Tom Monaghan ( Domino’s pizza)
Eddie Murphy
Marilyn Monroe
Babe Ruth
Eleanor Roosevelt

 

[Heretic]

I wonder how many are homeless because they had a drug/alcohol problem and nobody in their family would claim them.

MGKrebs there are just some people that you can't help. Want proof next time you see someone holding a sign that says will work for food stop and tell them that you have some hay at your farm that you could use help putting it up and see how many of them run as fast as they can in the opposite direction. Most of these people want money but a sign that reads 'give me a handout' doesn't get alot of interest. Most of them don't want food either I tried to give a couple food before and they didnt want it.

BTW I have been trying to figure out what USNS stands for, couldn't find anyone that knew. Its a bit embarassing after spending about 10 nights on USNS ships I still dont know.

 

[vraiblonde]

Stephen Hawking? Einstein? Bill Gates? FDR? Max Cleland? Bob Dole? Stevie Wonder? Ray Charles?

Can we safely say that all of these people are/were living productive lives and aren't on welfare or living on the streets? There are plenty of people who overcame adversity and went on to make a life for themselves. Just not these bums in NY.

More on this subject tomorrow - I got Gone With The Wind on DVD for my birthday and am dying to go down and watch it.

 

[Kain99]

I wish I could say that I am suprised at the caring comments posted in this thread but I'm not. Homelessness is often misunderstood and the Homeless almost always sterotyped.

I'd like to launch into a long drawn out diatribe but I'll spare you.

I pray, that all of you continue to enjoy your lifestyles as they exist today.

It would absolutely suck for you if you were suddenly laid off from one of those jobs Kyle mentioned. McDonalds won't pay the mortgage and daycare not to mention the electric, gas and food.

Never forget that life has a funny way of sneaking up on you!

 

[Bruzilla]

MGK... this is where the Democrat/Republican idealology greatly differ. Yes, there would be a cost to administer a real workfare program, but so what? At least we would be investing in people rather than just giving them money and letting them do nothing to earn it. The way things are done now we are essentially turning the poor into zoo animals to sit about and look good for the cameras and accomplish what the politicians need them to accomplish, i.e., require more funding and ensure more votes. Worse, the abscence of any kind of work ethic gets passed from generation to generation.

I would gladly see the money spent on welfare double if it meant that there would be a real workfare program in place. I would like this because I know that this would do more than anything to break the cycle of welfare that currently exists and maybe our streets and parks will start looking like those in Singapore.

Kyle... sorry but I'm not geezing that much. I was on the USS Darby from 1988-1989... yes, those tubs are still floating about.

 

[MGKrebs]

I wish there was a

exceptionalpeoplewhowereonceonwelfare.com site, but I can't find those kind of statistics. But I would think it is safe to say that there have been what turned out to be worthwhile people who at some point got aid.

There was a series of articles in the Atlanta paper a few years ago about the homeless. I remember the profile of this one guy who's wife and kids had been killed in a car accident. He became despondent, started drinking, eventually got fired from his job, lost his house. I don't know whatever happened to him, but something like this could happen to anyone at any time. Sometimes, just a little help for a little while is all that is needed.

No doubt there are drug addicts who we don't know how to help yet. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, or that we won't figure it out someday. Besides, I would think you would be much more concerned with the BILLIONS of dollars being stolen from us by rich tax evaders, stock manipulators, offshore corporations, companies that hire illegal aliens, and insurance companies who want liability limits on terrorist attacks! Are there liability limits on floods? Earthquakes? So basically, WE subsidize the insurance companies in the event of a loss due to terrorism? Whatever happened to just charging a higher premium?

And credit card companies who want to make it harder for individuals to file bankruptcy, after they've been flooding high risk folks with scam credit cards for years? Please.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I got Gone With The Wind on DVD for my birthday and am dying to go down and watch it.

Wouldn't it be better if Larry went down while you watched it?

 

[MGKrebs]

Bru,

I'm not certain liberals would have a problem with this. I'm a liberal, and I don't. My perception is that it is the constant conservative pressure to keep taxes down and government small that prevents this from even being talked about.
The only thing I can think of that would make libs resist this is that presumably a lot of welfare recipients are single mothers, and forcing them to work to get their welfare takes them away from their kids which causes the cycle to continue. Or something like that. Even so, I can imagine that there are jobs that single mothers can do at home or even with their kids somewhere.

 

[Heretic]

MGKrebs first off nobody forces anyone to start drinking, get a credit card and charge the hell out of it, if those are the reasons people are homeless Im sorry I have no compassion for them.

Now as far as workfare goes it is a hand up not a hand out, even if it does cost more than welfare what it does is gives people job experience, job references, and makes them more likely to get a job and get off the big ole nipple.
I work 60 hours a week why can't they work 40.

Oh yea if you can't find a job there are these wonderful new things out there called the Army, Navy, Airforce, and Marines they feed you, they clothe you, they house you, they send you to school, and they make you a useful member of society often qualified for a very nice job in the private sector after a brief 4 year stint. Some even make it a career and they provide excellent benefits and retirement. But one word of warning you will WORK very HARD.

Now some things have to be changed first, medicade for example some single mothers dont work because even if they work a crappy job that has no insurance they loose their kids medicade coverage. FOr things like a broken arm that really isnt a big deal, BUT if the kid has lukemia, diabetes, etc its a huge problem.

I also dont see any problem with helping the working poor, but the people that won't work dont deserve a thing in my eyes.

I use to have two different neighbors that milked the social security disability wagon. Both claimed they couldnt work because of their bad backs yet they were always out playing basketball in the street, diging holes in their yards, etc because they had nothing else to do. The one mowed his lawn every three days, he had the nicest lawn. He also sent his son to medical school at John Hopkins.