Are you more idealistic or practical?

[Dave Gray]

I'll take the bait.

I really don't think it's bait.  ..and it's not a judgment thing or that there's a right or wrong answer.  I am just curious at how people approach these things.

[Phishfan]

Practical approach

[Spider-Dan]

For those who say that after a year, eligibility for the program should end: why are you willing to pay more to NOT provide a home (and to prevent less crime etc.)?  What changes after one year?

[stinkfish]

They get a year to turn their lives around, to become active and productive members of society. If they chose not to or fail, then they're cast out to fend for themselves, where given some time, they will end up costing nothing.

[Tenshot13]

Isn't that what everyone should do?  Be productive members of society?  I don't understand why we would enable someone to continue to live off the system forever.  The one year turnaround is more than fair.

[Spider-Dan]

So if we could have a society where no one had to work - where government-owned robots achieved most of our productivity - should we refuse to subsidize people for choosing not to work?

This question isn't entirely wild fantasy.  With the prospect of automation looming every greater, within our own lifetimes we are likely to see a scenario where large numbers of people are unemployed with little opportunity for a career.

They get a year to turn their lives around, to become active and productive members of society. If they chose not to or fail, then they're cast out to fend for themselves, where given some time, they will end up costing nothing.

If I'm reading you correctly, "given some time" = the life expectancy of a homeless person.  That's a pretty long period of time to take year-over-year losses for a worse outcome, all in the name of moral accountability.

Yes, having everyone contribute is a goal.  But in my opinion, it's a less important goal than making sure as few people as possible go to bed hungry, cold, or sick.  I think that in the richest country in the world, everyone should have a roof over their head, food in their stomach, and healthcare.  That's a minimum baseline, and I'm sure that the American love of stuff will be enough to continue to motivate people to earn more than the bare minimum to survive.

[Fau Teixeira]

That's great for Portugal, but Portugal's population is only 10.3 million (about the same as N. Carolina), and their population is decreasing.  Ethnicities and religions aren't very diverse in Portugal either.  So what can work on a small scale in a country like Portugal, doesn't necessarily transfer to a country as large and as diverse as the United States of America.

those were alot of mighty fine words you typed there .. too bad you have no basis for your assertion, this is pure conjecture on your part.
for the sake of having a conversation, what exact ethnicity or religion are you thinking that would be more likely to go crazy on legal drugs?

[CF DolFan]

I really don't think it's bait.  ..and it's not a judgment thing or that there's a right or wrong answer.  I am just curious at how people approach these things.

I was kidding. I can't think of you ever baiting someone just to bash them.

[CF DolFan]

For those who say that after a year, eligibility for the program should end: why are you willing to pay more to NOT provide a home (and to prevent less crime etc.)?  What changes after one year?

It's an enabling thing. They have no incentive to make it on their own so they probably won't if they have't in a year. While I would be miserable I know of people who are perfectly happy to live off the system. They either take easy low paying jobs and get assistance or they just don't work. I have some in my own family and they will never attempt to better themselves.  Many people do not change their life decisions until they hit rock bottom so hopefully no assistance would be the wake up call they need.

Honestly ...  this is how I became a Republican. I grew up thinking social programs were a right and the government should take care of me. Fortunately I learned as a young adult that I could make it on my own much better. Learning how detrimental enabling really is is the main difference between Rep and Dem in IMO. I think we have a lot of similar views on things but that one point changes perspectives on how to get there.  I only wished that I had learned it earlier because my retirement would be so much better.

[Spider-Dan]

Sorry, but I just don't consider "Maybe if people are starving or homeless, that will motivate them to get a job" to be a morally valid position in a country that can easily afford food and shelter for everyone.

I mean, we could also save a lot of taxpayer money by not sending police, fire, or ambulance services to poor areas.  Why is this any different?  Why don't we say that if you don't want to be robbed or beaten, get a job and make something of yourself?

[Tenshot13]

^When does personal accountability come into effect?  You're giving someone a free home, an opportunity to completely change their life.  I'd say throw in free drug counseling or psychological help as well, but at some point a person is just beyond help.  If someone is given a free home, free psychological help or free way to kick drugs, and they still keep doing the same self destructive behavior, we're supposed to keep paying for it?  There have to be consequences for chronic bad behavior.

[Fau Teixeira]

^ this is the wrong way to look at it.

instead of looking at personal accountability as a moral starting point and then making rules based on that . .how about we look at best outcomes as a moral starting point and then make policies that do the most good for the most people.. and fuck personal accountability as a moral measuring stick

[Dave Gray]

I don't have an issue with fundamentally paying less because of deserving or not.  I would hate to think that my enabling of someone else was leading to more of the problem.

So, if buying homes for the homeless created a situation that incentivized homelessness.

In this particular case, I don't think that people are homeless because they choose it or they're lazy...people are mentally screwed up and probably incapable of employment or good financial planning.  No amount of incentive is going to drive me to homelessness.

[CF DolFan]

I don't have an issue with fundamentally paying less because of deserving or not.  I would hate to think that my enabling of someone else was leading to more of the problem.

So, if buying homes for the homeless created a situation that incentivized homelessness.

In this particular case, I don't think that people are homeless because they choose it or they're lazy...people are mentally screwed up and probably incapable of employment or good financial planning.  No amount of incentive is going to drive me to homelessness.

Not you but there are many who do.  I think you are just used to seeing the city homeless but haven't been exposed to the trailer park and the hippies who live in the woods and are perfectly happy to just get by.  I used to work on the design side of roads. In a nutshell ... this meant I would spend a lot of time in the woods as we evaluated different routes for new roads for the state or county. We've come across homeless camps which looked like a military unit including tents and cars. These people would drive out and drop off each other to collect money for a few hours. They would then gather back up and split up their collections.  The rest of the time they were playing and partying around camp. They were typically younger hippie types who were perfectly comfortable living as they were. They would typically speak with us since we weren't police and they could determine how long they had to find a new location.  As well ... we used to find reasons to watch them bathe in hidden stormwater ponds.

1 year of supporting someone is a long time to get back on your feet. Unemployment is low and only lasts three months for those who have worked all their lives.  I have no desire to support others.

[Tenshot13]

^ this is the wrong way to look at it.

instead of looking at personal accountability as a moral starting point and then making rules based on that . .how about we look at best outcomes as a moral starting point and then make policies that do the most good for the most people.. and fuck personal accountability as a moral measuring stick

This is a different way to look at it, not wrong, just because it disagrees with your personal ideology.  That's a big problem if you see things as wrong when you disagree.  

I don't feel bad for people that will not help themselves when all the tools are there for them to do so.  If you're mentally screwed up like Dave says, okay there's some wiggle room there.  You get diagnosed and you get assistance and help will likely last longer, if not indefinitely.  Best outcome would be them becoming productive members of society again, not just floating along through life living off of the government.  You can give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.  You teach a man to fish and he'll never go hungry, and he wont' be a drain on society in this instance.