It was bound to happen eventually. I can understand the fear of jail time, but at the same time you have a duty to raise the child. If the kid ends up getting taken away, so be it. As long as you're not abusing the child you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Thank you, Thank you. I'm here every Wednesday night. Don't forget to tip your waiter.

Set a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

BTW KFC,

My boss loved this joke. So much he asked me for a copy to send to a couple of Liberal friends of his. LOL.

"A Republicam might look at that homeless person and say, "He should get a job and if he doesn't, his situation is his own fault." Nice and tidy."



I prefer the (anarchist?) saying a bit better - Light a man a fire, keep him warm him for a night. Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!

Edit: Grrr, beaten too it!

Anyway as to the discussion springing up from the original amusing anecdote, I probably agree with both sides in part. Yes, those who receive state aid should be expected to work, but then if they are working as much as is possible given their circumstances, the state should provide aid to ensure they can survive, in the event their income from working alone is too much. It is overly simplistic in my opinion to deal with a more blanket approach of 'homeless should work, not get help', since while in many cases that might well be the case (where the person who is homeless is simply too lazy/doesn't want to get a job), in other cases the person might want to get a job, but is unable to. For a start you can have 'catch 22' situations where to get a job you need a house, and to get a house you need a job. You can also have situations where the person is incapable of working in certain jobs due to illness or other reasons, and/or even if they can do a job the employers don't want to take them on, meaning they need assistance. You provide them assistance now to enable them to get a job+get started, and then they hopefully work their way up a bit+start paying taxes rather than claiming benefits, and you've made all that money back and more!

Hello KFC, All,

I read your comment about the church group assisting homeless and getting hassled in the process. I work at our local soup kitchen fairly frequently.  The hardest part is serving the food because we never really know what to expect coming through the line.  As nice, middle class, religious types, we harbor thoughts that homeless people might appreciate our efforts, and most do, but there are the occassions where its not a pretty picture. Here's the thing, many are homeless for very good reasons, rarely because they enjoy it or are comfortable with it.  Some might be antisocial personalities, paranoid, alcoholics, drug addicts.  Some might be relative imbiciles, uneducated and/or uneducable. Still others might be so tired of being on the bottom that they just do not have it in them to be nice.  

In the study I referred to, we interviewed abot a thousand homeless people, on the streets, under bridges, in abandoned cars and buildings, pretty much everywhere.  We found them in cities and small towns, as well as in rural areas.  As I recall, about a third needed mental health services, some were suffering from the effects of Ohio becoming part of he rust belt, many had substance abuse issues.  A substantial portion were combat veterans. 

 

This is not an easy population to work with.  Its rather like trying to nurture an injured animal: do so at your own risk.

 

You also mentioned something to the effect that we as citizens should not be "forced" to help others.  That's why we are to pay taxes and support public services. Clearly and historically, the private sector will not do it. There's no profit in it. And churches are not organized across the board, do not (or rarely) share information, services, or resources, and are, at best haphazard and untrained, and atr worst, fuel on the fire.

A society is often evaluated by how well it cares for its aged, sick, and otherwise dis-enfranchised citizenry.  While we in the US talk a good game our attitudes toweard the poor and dis-enfranchised are often so stereotypic as to create real problems aroud funding issues.  The result is poor and often terribly inadequate services, poor and intermittant service delivery, and a sense of entitlement by a growing underclass.  It is a terribly complex social problem which cannot, nor will not, be remedied by simplistic solutions.

Be well.

 

-- Lord Havelock Vetinari, Patrician of Ankh-Morpork.

Honestly, give attributions!

You know, I used to be what one would call a "Democrat" in the US.

But lately I constantly find myself on the side of the Republicans.

 

BS. Actually, it is completely the other way around.  Republicans vote consistently to lower taxes on business and corporations (thus giving big breaks to them) and take from the vast working class by riding on their backs. Republicans vote conservative, wanting to retain things, maintain the status quo; Democrats tend to vote progressive, wanting to improve conditions for everyone. 

Who are these "those who don't" anyway?  Those who are elders?  Abandoned children?  Abused children?  Those who are disabled?  Those with large families and few resources?  Those working class without health care?  Returning veterans who are amputees or suffering from PTSD and alcoholism, drugs? 

Maintaining a society that cares for its citizenry is an expensive proposition. But what do you care? Yes, go ahead a vote to keep all your hard earned money, but don't expect to be on the moral high road.

Be well.

and this is liberal lunacy!

I'll give you an example from ME, my home state, from another liberal lunatic. George Mitchell was all gung ho over his "luxury tax." Maine, a very liberal state, is known to tax anything and everything. Maine is/was the highest taxed state in the nation.

Anyhow Mitchell came up with this tax to tax the rich. So it covered anything and everything from furs to jewelry to yachts. Dems were very proud of this because they felt they were socking it to the rich.

You know what happened? Within a year, Mitchell was back in the Senate passionately demanding an end to the same dreaded luxury tax. The levy had devestated Maine's boat building business, throwing yard workers, managers and salesmen out of jobs. The tax was repealed in 93. So much for that idea.

Bush's tax cuts on the other hand benefitted all, including the poor who don't pay any taxes at all. By taxing the big corporations with a heavy hand isn't going to solve anything. Their costs will be handed down to us, the average joe anyhow. So going after say the oil companies' profits is only going to push up the price of oil for the consumer.

Taxing the evil rich people unfairly isn't the answer. Winston Churchill said:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equl sharing of miseries."

So let's make everyone miserable?

"According to a 2007 study by the heritage Foundation, "Since 2000 the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of taxpayers dropped from zero to minus 4%-meaning the average famiy in this group got a subsidy from the refundable child tax credit or earned income tax credit. The share of income taxes paid by the top fifth of taxpayers climbed from 81% to 85%.

So the poorest Americans went from paying nothing to actually getting a subsidy but liberals still oppose Bushs tax cuts because the "rich" got some relief too.

Buh's tax cuts were a great economic stimulus. It's funny how peope tend to work harder and become more ambitious whenever you let them keep more of their own income. The unemployment rate in Jan 2007 was the second lowest since the mid 1970's."

(Excerpt taken from "The Official Handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" by Mark W. Smith)

The opposite is true: keep them hungry and they'll work harder. Compare old ballplayers with the millionaire players of today. Tax the hell out of them.

We're talking about Americans here not Mexicans.

really?  So don't feed the homeless?  And they'll go to work? 

 

 

Hungry used figuratively. The many "hobos" in the Depression worked before they ate.

exactly.  Welcome to the Republican Party.....