Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks

[Spexxvet]

Thank you for clarifying your misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You started off by representing that an adequate minimum wage would solve the homeless problem.

That misrepresents my words. Actually, I said

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

If minimum wage was enough to provide food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and maybe a few amenities, there would be fewer of these folks in the park.

Not solve. Are you disputing that there would be fewer homeless in the park if minimum wage were enough to support someone?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Asked what that "adequate" wage would be, you blew smoke for a while .

Like you are with your own solution. Kill them? Help them? You don’t want your money to help feed them. You don’t want them in your park. What’s your plan?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

then quoted about $10/hr (comparable to places like the UK and France, where of course they have utterly no problems with either unemployment or homelessness).

Actually, my thoughts were in general terms at the time, and when you demanded specifics I hadn’t taken the time to do any calculations. I thought about it, and posted an estimate.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Then when I pointed out that you'd trimmed the original scope of what was "adequate", you said "Well, of course that's not enough,

If you want minimum wage to be higher, suggest your own amount. I posted what I thought was a bare minimum.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

The government should feed everyone and pay for it with wealth redistribution."

Actually, I didn’t bring the government into it at all.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

That's my point, exactly. It's not likely that $9.09 would do it. Before you bring up the $15.00 McBurger, the only way this will work is if the wealth gluttons settle for less. That's right - WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION (gasp). Some folks who make hundreds of million dollars a year need to cut down, so that there won't be starving crazy lazy criminals making an eyesore in your park. Because

It’s the CEO, who makes $100 million, saying “I can exist on $80 million, I’ll put $20 million toward payroll and raise the standard of living for my employees, who can’t support themselves on $9.00/hour. See? Look Mom, no government!
And it was an either/or statement. Either society/government provides for these folks, with tax revenue, or business does, not by raising prices, but by not being wealth-gluttons. Except for the mentally ill and the prodigal sons, of course.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Stick with one position, please. You got a foot in the door with "raise the minimum wage" and now we've slippery-sloped to "eat the rich".

Hey, There’s an option I hadn’t considered.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

A minimum wage job is not something that really has to be able to support someone, let alone a family. Look at the work involved, you put fries in oil and mop floors for 8 hours and go home. We can automate for less cost than human workers, so the labor is not worth more than a few dollars an hour. In essence, anyone who can't do more complicated or valuable work has no value to the market and should be at least understanding that the only reason they have work at all is that other people, for differing reasons, have kept low wage positions available. We don't live in an era where menial labor is very useful anymore, so why do people still expect to be able to live a decent life with no skills??
...

Try living without those folks doing what they do.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by wolf

'Scuse me ... but what about the homeless who are on public assistance, get their checks at the drop-in center, and are eligible for housing programs like section 8 and do not make use of these services, prefering to stay in the shelter system, eat at the food kitchen and use their government supplied money for important things, you know, like crack and alcohol? This is not the typical 'anecdotal evidence' ... I know these folks personally. The ones who get tired of being on the streets tell me they are suicidal so they can have a roof, a bed, a shower, and three meals a day until the insurance or the county stops paying, or the next check is due tomorrow. Then they sign out and the whole cycle begins again?

Is that every homeless person? Probably not. How about we help the ones who will use the help? Pay them enough so that they aren't financially penalized for working? How can we, as a society, break the cycle? Should we do an "Escape from New York" or leper colony concept? What do we do?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

What a bunch of hooey. These people aren't in danger of dying...TFA points out that there are food kitchens within a few miles. What FNB is doing is political theater, nothing more.

While they might not be in danger of starving, there is increased exposure to disease and infection, and decreased access to healthcare, proper nutrition, etc.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by spexxvet

Is that every homeless person? Probably not. How about we help the ones who will use the help? Pay them enough so that they aren't financially penalized for working? How can we, as a society, break the cycle? Should we do an "Escape from New York" or leper colony concept? What do we do?

I haven't met those homeless people.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

While they might not be in danger of starving, there is increased exposure to disease and infection, and decreased access to healthcare, proper nutrition, etc.

Which has nothing to do with feeding them in the park. It's still political theater, and I'm not bound for find a "solution" to a phony problem. You claimed they were in danger of starving to death if FNB doesn't get to do their political theater, and that's bogus.

So...are you noww proposing some affirmative action program that eliminates the increased risks that arise from being homeless? That's looney.

Or are you just looking for another red herring to wave?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

I haven't met those homeless people.

How would you know?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Which has nothing to do with feeding them in the park. It's still political theater, and I'm not bound for find a "solution" to a phony problem. You claimed they were in danger of starving to death if FNB doesn't get to do their political theater, and that's bogus.

So...are you noww proposing some affirmative action program that eliminates the increased risks that arise from being homeless? That's looney.

Or are you just looking for another red herring to wave?

No, a red herring would be to claim that Isaid they were in danger of starving to death. I challenge you to supply a quote of that. Then we can get back on topic.
BTW, now has only one w.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by wolf

I haven't met those homeless people.

And I haven't met the ones you describe.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Like you are with your own solution. Kill them? Help them? You don’t want your money to help feed them. You don’t want them in your park. What’s your plan?

My plan is exactly what's happening: running a food kitchen in the park is illegal. My money is dedicated to feeding and housing me and my family, and sending my kids to college so they'll be more likely to not be homeless.

I'd like to have some left over to live on when I'm too old to work, but that's not looking too strong right now; taxes for well-meaning entitlement programs soaked up all my retirement savings while I was unemployed for a few years. (Funny, nobody wanted to feed me then, in the park or otherwise...they still waned *me* to feed *them*). Fortunately I had enough to meet the above vital needs until I could improve my skills and become employable again.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

If you want minimum wage to be higher, suggest your own amount. I posted what I thought was a bare minimum.

No, I don't particularly...that's *your* idea. I lived though the Nixon administration, and I don't think wage controls are particularly useful. I prodded you to run the numbers to show you what a lame, ineffective idea it actually is.

Originally Posted by spexxvet

It’s the CEO, who makes $100 million, saying “I can exist on $80 million, I’ll put $20 million toward payroll and raise the standard of living for my employees, who can’t support themselves on $9.00/hour. See? Look Mom, no government!

Do you know such a CEO? I don't. That's a fantasyland scenario. You don't get to be a CEO by being altruistic.

Originally Posted by spexxvet

Hey, There’s an option I hadn’t considered.

Sure you have...it's implicit in your collectivist platform.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

And I haven't met the ones you describe.

How many homeless people have you met? I'm guessing it's a small fraction of Wolf's cohort.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

No, a red herring would be to claim that Isaid they were in danger of starving to death. I challenge you to supply a quote of that. Then we can get back on topic.

Originally Posted by spexxvet

Maggie, you still haven't committed to a position - do you think they should be left to die?

[Spexxvet]

I missed the starve part.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I missed the starve part.

What were you suggesting they would be left to die of? Boredom? The issue at hand to which you wished to return was feeding them in the park.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

...I'd like to have some left over to live on when I'm too old to work, but that's not looking too strong right now; taxes for well-meaning entitlement programs soaked up all my retirement savings while I was unemployed for a few years. (Funny, nobody wanted to feed me then, in the park or otherwise...they still waned *me* to feed *them*). Fortunately I had enough to meet the above vital needs until I could improve my skills and become employable again.
...

Didn't you watch the oreo video in ye olde video thread? A hell of a lot more oreos go to the pentagon than anywhere else. Don't blame high taxes on entitlements, blame the hawks.