PDN Rants and Raves, 8/18/13
One of today’s rants was:
What are homeless/vagrant people supposed to do — de-materialize? Beam themselves up to another dimension? When a person is “camped out in the weeds” at the Estuary (or any other out-of-the-way location), that person is NOT panhandling on city streets, vandalizing property, creating a public disturbance, etc. If police start rousting everybody who’s camping out illegally, where will these people go?
They’re not going to vanish into thin air just because people don’t want them here. Does this ranter have a solution?
“Rant to our city [Port Angeles] for allowing people to ‘camp out’ in the weeds in the Valley Creek Estuary. They’ve been sleeping in there for more than a month. Do we still have vagrancy laws?”
What are homeless/vagrant people supposed to do — de-materialize? Beam themselves up to another dimension? When a person is “camped out in the weeds” at the Estuary (or any other out-of-the-way location), that person is NOT panhandling on city streets, vandalizing property, creating a public disturbance, etc. If police start rousting everybody who’s camping out illegally, where will these people go?
They’re not going to vanish into thin air just because people don’t want them here. Does this ranter have a solution?
posted by Tom Harper at 5:02 PM
19 Comments:
I'm more surprised they haven't done anything about the folks panhandling on Front street just before the Lincoln intersection. They must make a much worse impression on tourists passing through.
How much free housing could be built and managed for the cost of some of the wasteful capital projects we're in the middle of? How many people could be housed for how long just with the money spent on that fancy waterfront sidewalk? Job training? Chemical dependency treatment?
Nope, it's easier to throw the poors in jail at our expense every week or two and build monuments to their stupidity (gateway transit center, fancy sidewalk, tank of shit on the waterfront) also at our expense instead of actually helping people with their problems.
http://content.lib.washington.edu/u?/nol,146
A circa 1925 photo of Native Americans camped on the beach near Lincoln St. in Port Angeles.
There will always be homeless, simple fact, they are in every city in the world. Why would stupid, little Port Angeles be any different?
4:24 - True! But the topic Tom presented is that the rant published in the PDN suggests the homeless should be run out of town while offering no suggestion/solution. It's obvious you don't like Port Angeles. It's obvious you don't like debate of any kind. To me it's obvious you are a teabagger, but that's just me. Maybe if you bothered to read the posts, that would be more clear.
If police start rousting everybody who’s camping out illegally, where will these people go?
A lot of these people are here because word gets around that this is a good place for the homeless. Really, it is, there are free meals all over the place and a good food bank.
But not enough beds, or they can't live by the rules for the beds. Anyway, they're not going to go away so maybe the rent a shitter folks should put some shitters there?
You know, as a public service.
Yes, there will always be those that prefer to be outside, for a lot of reasons. And, there will always be people who have been screwed out of everyting they own, for a lot of reasons.
This country has to make some serious choices. As we have seen, the trend for the last ?? years has been to shift policies in favor of corporations. As a result, more wealth has transferred to the very few of the super-rich.
More and more, full time jobs become part time. No health care benifits, or benifits of any kind. No careers, just contracts, then you're cut loose.
And, as we see, the Dow reaches record highs, while corporations make record profits. While more and more people become poor and homeless.
Like so many things that our country does, this is not sustainable.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read
and all applicable to this post:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating
the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for,
another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything
that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5 . When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Anon 2:52, your post makes it seem like you see only two states of being with this. Having, or being given.
How about those that once had, and what THEY had has now been given to the few super-rich by the legislation their cronies, former employees who were paid 6 figure "bonuses" to get these legislative positions, enacted?
You speak as if the situation is a level playing field with opportunities for anyone who really wants to participate. It isn't. Corporations have rights we mere mortals do not.
And, yes, you can multiply wealth by dividing it. It is absurd to think that any one person needs to manipulate laws and regulations so that they can accumulate billions, while thousands sink into poverty.
A billion dollars divided amoungst a thousand poverty striken people would make a thousand people very wealthy, by comparision. I'm not talking "gifting", but salary caps. Why should anyone be able to make billions, when so many are driven into foreclosure, lose their homes and assets, and become homeless? Because a few Wall Street wiz-kids want to play financial games?
These kinds of "5 best sentences" may sound good to some, but really are just fluff rhetoric that don't work in reality.
Look at the worlds' economic state, today.
You can blame poverty on who you wish, but without small business and big business there would be NO jobs. Oh, except Government jobs, and sense the Government produces nothing they would have no revenue and die.
Be careful what you wish for Anon 9:22am
Anon 9:57, you again resort to "either/or" rhetoric. As if the only way a business can make a profit and prosper is by being completely unfettered, resulting in the massive transference of wealth to the few super-rich!
This certainly is what we hear from those that are trying to get rid of regulation. Why pay for health benefits, when you can get the taxpayer to provide for it?! Where does the money go, that once paid for those benefit, pensione, etc? In the banks, in the form of profits for the owners.
But, think of your neighborhood. Think of community zoning. These have regulations most people approve of. Zoning allows and prohibits certain uses, for the good of the community as a whole.
Most homeowners would NOT like a nuclear fuel re-processing facility built upon the lot next door. Or a porn shop(Yes, I know Billy would argue otherwise). Or a sewage treatment plant.
So, we accept and approve of regulations and restrictions on things we do. This is reality.
It is absurd to state, as Anon 9:57 seems to, that we either have a system that allows complete destruction of our country, as the financial collapse a few years ago almost did, OR we have NO businesses, only Government employment.
And, Anon 9:57 goes on with more rhetoric in stating: " sense the Government produces nothing they would have no revenue and die."
Look back to WW2. How did Being, Lockheed-Martin, GMC, Ford and Colt, and so many other business get to be so big? Government procurement contracts. One could easily argue that, without Government procurement contracts, there would be no economy as we know it!
As we know, "government" is the biggest employer in Clallam County.
anon 2:16
So you think business should exist just for the sole purpose of providing jobs?
Where would the government get their money for welfare, schools, etc??
The people paying over 70% of the taxes would not make a profit and therefore would not pay any taxes.
Is there any country in the world that has no billionaire businesses and no poverty?
The most socialistic countries in the world have both.
You clearly do not understand economics.
Anon 10:48 continues with their "either/or" blather with the question : "So you think business should exist just for the sole purpose of providing jobs?" Again, a simplistic response that does not reflect reality. More rhethoric. As if society is "either/or".
The topic was homelessness, and my comment was that the current trends that result in the transference of wealth to the few super rich results in the current situation of widespread poverty, foreclosures and homelessness. That the current situation is not sustainable.
Perhaps Anon 10:48 might look up what "sustainable" means?
Understand economics? How can a society survive if a significant amount of its' wealth is transferred to a few? How will there be any money in the system for people to buy goods and services if only a few have most of the money? If most of the people are at poverty levels, and only a relatively few people have disposable income, who will be supporting all these businesses?
Or paying taxes so that the salaries of policemen, firemen, soldiers, etc get paid?
Types like Anon 10:48 like the simplistic rhetoric like those "5 best sentences", because they don't think very far ahead. Sounds good, now. They are the types for "less taxes, less regulation". And the first to complain when something bad is proposed for their neighborhood,or they don't have the government supplied services they want. When unemployment numbers rise. When military bases are closed.
Anybody with half a brain knows the extremes of "either/or" don't work in real life.
Anonymous @ 2:16 PM.
Write on brother.
Anon 8:59
This debate is too funny, so i have to ask.
I'm guessing you think the ultra rich should pay so much more in taxes that they are no longer super rich, or take pay cuts so the not so well compensated earn more?
Am i guessing right?
Guess what the super rich give more money to needy causes than most earn.
Do you think they should pay it to the trustworthy government to dish out to the homeless?
Anon 1:11
I'm guessing you're not homeless, and have not had your home foreclosed upon. I'm guessing you're retired, and not subject to the new "norm" where life long employment with a company is no longer a choice. I'm guessing you had a career where you got benefits of some kind.
How can you think the economic destruction caused by the financial games plyed by the Wall Street whiz-kids, that resulted in millions losing their jobs, their homes, and everything they own, is "too funny"?
How can you defend a financial system that allows the corporate leasership to lay off full time employees months before they are to get benefits, and replace them with part-timers at minimum wage and no benefits?
Laws that allow them to cripple the country by shipping massive profits to offshore banks, where NO taxes are paid?
Laws that allow corporations to close US based manufacturing facilities and move them to some dictatorship so that they DON'T have to pay taxes in the US, or employ Americans.
THAT is patriotic? THAT is sustainable?
Remember how the country pulled together during WW2? People sacrificed, volunteered, and worked together for the good of the whole.
Eisenhower warned us, and he was right.
@1:19p.m. As a nuetral observer of this dialog, my question is why do you resort to false statements alluding to the rich paying taxes and give to charity? I have googled/yahoo'd/bing'd your statement and find more evidence that disprove your statments, yet your type still thinks the majority of us will buy your drivel. The tide *is* finally changing; you should replace your wet blanket.
anon 1:11 :
from Charity Navigator - the 'rich' do NOT give more to charity.
Not as a percentage of their wealth, according to a recently published study by Paul Piff, a psychologist at U.C. Berkeley. He began his study by giving subjects credits, worth real money, and asking them if they’d like to keep the credits or share it with another person. Subjects who were at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale (both in terms of income and education) gave almost 50% more away than those at the higher end. He then asked the participants how much they believe people should give to charity as a percentage of their income. The average response for those at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale was 5.6% while on average the wealthier participants said 2.1%.'
The 15% at the 'top' give less than the 85%, consistently since the 1980s.
...and the debate is won unanimously by Anonymous 8:55 (and all her/his preceding posts) for fact check'd truths.
haha, i'm glad i make 7 digits and you babies cant have any of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home