Bans on giving to homeless

[Lunar]

I like to help the needy, thank you very much.

Then volunteer at a soup kitchen, rescue mission, etc...

What's the difference?

Well, naturally the sop kitchen volunteer is more directly helping the homeless.  All of his manpower is going towards good causes and lacks the possibility of going towards self-destruction.  However, not all of us want to be, or are capable of, working hours at a homeless shelter.  For these people, alternative forms of assistance are useful.

[Alcon]

Do you really even know how homeless shelters work?  They are overcrowded, oftentimes highly violent, and they are temporary.  Tons of homeless people die every night from starvation or the cold, and you are looking to ban people giving them money because they might obstruct traffic?  Not only have I never heard of this (not to mention, if they obstruct traffic, why not go after them under traffic obstruction laws?), but - you know what? - I don't care.  How do they have any less of a right to ask for money than street vendors do to sell things?

Aggressive panhandling and harassment is unacceptable, but what harm does a well-behaved homeless person do?  If they had access to homeless shelters, clothing, and warmth, why wouldn't they already be making use of them?  There's obviously a reason; it isn't as if the homeless people don't know there are shelters there.  There is a reason they are out on the street begging for money, that is not necessarily related to getting drugs or booze.  Maybe, just maybe, the conditions in homeless shelters aren't totally desirable and there are places where the charity just even enough?

I could understand arguing that homeless people shouldn't be panhandling, but illegalising it?  Why?  It seems grossly unnecessary.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, this is a new level of poorhating, Inks.  The libertarians don't make laws that hurt the poors; instead, they just don't care about them.  You want to go out of your way to make sure that starving poor on the street legally can receive no money for food!  That's ill!  Imagine if you were the poor in rags, Inks.  Would you support such a law?

If I were in rags, I'd get off my lazy bum (no pun intended) get to a homeless shelter, have them help me find a job if I couldn't on my own, and YES I'd support that law.  You liberals just give out $$ to whoever says they need it, and THAT is why the SS system and Medicare and Medicaid are going broke.  You dumb liberals just can't get the picture that you HAVE to pay into something to get something out of it.  So you all complain "I'm paying into Medicare and SS and not even getting anything out of it, and I'll have to when I am getting something out of it too"  WELL of course you're paying into it--it's a gov't program.  If you don't want to pay into it, support privatizing it and don't get SS.  Simple solution that all you liberals cant seem to get through your thick skulls.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And, Inks, what punishment do you propose giving out for the crime of aiding the homeless?  Should the donator be punished exclusively, or should the homeless man be arrested and charged too?  And, what punishments should they receive?

A fine on the donator, and possibly arrest the homeless man if he's loitering.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There are gov't and private organizations all over the U.S. that help get homeless people off the street, and if they're smart enough to beg, they're smart enough to get help.  Or take a bus to the next city if your's doesn't have a program.

But if one person wants to give money to take a burden off of the taxpayers, why not?  It's like as if I wanted to pay more taxes than you and you're trying to stop me.

All your arguments are "homeless people shouldn't need to beg, they can get their money other ways."   So... you're punishing the nice people who give them their extra quarters.  Just because you don't like looking at homeless people who, I guess, don't need the money?  I think there are enough things illegal in this country that we don't need to criminalize charity.

90% of the homeless people are going to spend it on things that AREN"T going to help them--drugs, alcohol, etc...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Its not a very 'Christian' thing to do either Inks....

Now are you questioning the quality of my Christianity, b/c I WILL argue with you about this.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I like to help the needy, thank you very much.

Then volunteer at a soup kitchen, rescue mission, etc...

What's the difference?

Well, naturally the sop kitchen volunteer is more directly helping the homeless.  All of his manpower is going towards good causes and lacks the possibility of going towards self-destruction.  However, not all of us want to be, or are capable of, working hours at a homeless shelter.  For these people, alternative forms of assistance are useful.

Then DONATE $$ to the soup kitchens.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I support all local efforts to reduce or eliminate vagrancy -- solicitation, panhandling, loitering, Dumpster-diving, public consumption of alcohol (or worse), etc. In short, hobos aren't allowed on the street, period.

But bans on private charity to the homeless or just down-and-out at all? Unless you believe that such efforts can only be accomplished by government largesse.

No--not banning charity--give to the soup kitchens.

[jerusalemcar5]

Well, this is a new level of poorhating, Inks.  The libertarians don't make laws that hurt the poors; instead, they just don't care about them.  You want to go out of your way to make sure that starving poor on the street legally can receive no money for food!  That's ill!  Imagine if you were the poor in rags, Inks.  Would you support such a law?

If I were in rags, I'd get off my lazy bum (no pun intended) get to a homeless shelter, have them help me find a job if I couldn't on my own, and YES I'd support that law.  You liberals just give out $$ to whoever says they need it, and THAT is why the SS system and Medicare and Medicaid are going broke.  You dumb liberals just can't get the picture that you HAVE to pay into something to get something out of it.  So you all complain "I'm paying into Medicare and SS and not even getting anything out of it, and I'll have to when I am getting something out of it too"  WELL of course you're paying into it--it's a gov't program.  If you don't want to pay into it, support privatizing it and don't get SS.  Simple solution that all you liberals cant seem to get through your thick skulls.

Wow.  That's a misguided post.  Alright let's see if I can help.  

1)There aren't jobs for everyone.  If there were, unemployment would have been eradicated.  So as much as you'd like to believe all Americans can work hard and live happy lives, they can't, poverty still exists.  

2)Homeless shelters are restrictive on what one can do.  Restrict alcohol, tobacco, have curfew, and other things that I strongly doubt that you'd enjoy, while waiting for your "job" to miraculously appear for you.

3)Social Security isn't for the poor, it's for the elderly.  Even upper class elderly get Social Security.  Just so you know.

4)Medicare and Medicaid's financial issues have to do with a lack of funding and outrageous health care prices, not those "damned lazy bums."

5)What liberals complain about funding it?  I don't complain, none of my liberal friends have ever complained.  No liberal adults that I know complain.  No famous liberals I know have complained.  Just which liberals are you talking about?

6)We don't mind paying into it, what we mind is it failing and collapsing due to privatization.  That's why we don't support privatization and do support public funding.

7)For someone that would post something so uninformed, I'd question if you have the right to say others have "thick skulls"

[Jake]

A fine on the donator, and possibly arrest the homeless man if he's loitering.

You're a horrible person. That's probably the worst statement said on these boards, bar none. And we've had Holocaust deniers, troop haters, and supporters of pedophilia.

[YRABNNRM]

Now are you questioning the quality of my Christianity, b/c I WILL argue with you about this.

So the Christian thing to do would be to throw those who have no homes in jail because they were "loitering" and taking away some opportunities of aid from them?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Do you really even know how homeless shelters work?  They are overcrowded, oftentimes highly violent, and they are temporary.

Yes--my church volunteered, and no, it wasn't the Ritz Carlton Hotel, but it was NOT violent or over crowded.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I NOT say that earlier??

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Street vendors who obstruct traffic should be ticketed too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I KNOW of places that there are good places to go and people don't--you know why--THEY DON"T WANT HELP.  They want the alcohol and drugs!

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

A fine on the donator, and possibly arrest the homeless man if he's loitering.

You're a horrible person. That's probably the worst statement said on these boards, bar none. And we've had Holocaust deniers, troop haters, and supporters of pedophilia.

That was out of line.  I apologize.  Fine the donator (if he obstructed traffic) and get the homeless person some help.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, this is a new level of poorhating, Inks.  The libertarians don't make laws that hurt the poors; instead, they just don't care about them.  You want to go out of your way to make sure that starving poor on the street legally can receive no money for food!  That's ill!  Imagine if you were the poor in rags, Inks.  Would you support such a law?

If I were in rags, I'd get off my lazy bum (no pun intended) get to a homeless shelter, have them help me find a job if I couldn't on my own, and YES I'd support that law.  You liberals just give out $$ to whoever says they need it, and THAT is why the SS system and Medicare and Medicaid are going broke.  You dumb liberals just can't get the picture that you HAVE to pay into something to get something out of it.  So you all complain "I'm paying into Medicare and SS and not even getting anything out of it, and I'll have to when I am getting something out of it too"  WELL of course you're paying into it--it's a gov't program.  If you don't want to pay into it, support privatizing it and don't get SS.  Simple solution that all you liberals cant seem to get through your thick skulls.

Wow.  That's a misguided post.  Alright let's see if I can help.  

1)There aren't jobs for everyone.  If there were, unemployment would have been eradicated.  So as much as you'd like to believe all Americans can work hard and live happy lives, they can't, poverty still exists.  

2)Homeless shelters are restrictive on what one can do.  Restrict alcohol, tobacco, have curfew, and other things that I strongly doubt that you'd enjoy, while waiting for your "job" to miraculously appear for you.

3)Social Security isn't for the poor, it's for the elderly.  Even upper class elderly get Social Security.  Just so you know.

4)Medicare and Medicaid's financial issues have to do with a lack of funding and outrageous health care prices, not those "damned lazy bums."

5)What liberals complain about funding it?  I don't complain, none of my liberal friends have ever complained.  No liberal adults that I know complain.  No famous liberals I know have complained.  Just which liberals are you talking about?

6)We don't mind paying into it, what we mind is it failing and collapsing due to privatization.  That's why we don't support privatization and do support public funding.

7)For someone that would post something so uninformed, I'd question if you have the right to say others have "thick skulls"

I know there arent' jobs for everyone, but you can TRY to get jobs, and wait until you do.

I was just ranting b/c of something my Aunt's friend said earlier today and this reminded me of it (and my grandmother) and made me angry, so I apologize.  It was me venting, not directed at anyone on the forum.

[YRABNNRM]

I KNOW of places that there are good places to go and people don't--you know why--THEY DON"T WANT HELP.  They want the alcohol and drugs!

Generalize much?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I KNOW of places that there are good places to go and people don't--you know why--THEY DON"T WANT HELP.  They want the alcohol and drugs!

Generalize much?

Huh?

[jerusalemcar5]

I KNOW of places that there are good places to go and people don't--you know why--THEY DON"T WANT HELP.  They want the alcohol and drugs!

Generalize much?

He is saying you're stereotyping homeless people as only wanting drugs and such.  Which you were.

Huh?

[Nation]

And, Inks, what punishment do you propose giving out for the crime of aiding the homeless?  Should the donator be punished exclusively, or should the homeless man be arrested and charged too?  And, what punishments should they receive?

A fine on the donator, and possibly arrest the homeless man if he's loitering.

I will never take anything you say seriously again.

[riceowl]

You have been?

[Nation]

You have been?

Not really. But, I mean, come on. Punishing people for acts of charity? Blanket statements that all homeless want drugs and alcohol and refuse to go after this plethora of jobs that are just waiting to hire homeless individuals? This has got to be worse than the usual claptrap.

[??????????]

You have been?

Not really. But, I mean, come on. Punishing people for acts of charity? Blanket statements that all homeless want drugs and alcohol and refuse to go after this plethora of jobs that are just waiting to hire homeless individuals? This has got to be worse than the usual claptrap.

You do have to be very wary about giving to homeless individuals because they may use that money to feed an addiction. I'd offer them food before I would cash.

[opebo]

You have been?

Not really. But, I mean, come on. Punishing people for acts of charity? Blanket statements that all homeless want drugs and alcohol and refuse to go after this plethora of jobs that are just waiting to hire homeless individuals? This has got to be worse than the usual claptrap.

You do have to be very wary about giving to homeless individuals because they may use that money to feed an addiction. I'd offer them food before I would cash.

I for one wouldn't mind a bit if they used it to 'feed an addiction'.  Where do you get off judging what is an acceptable use of the money, States?  Keep in mind that all 'addictions' are merely symptoms of poverty and powerlessness.

[??????????]

You have been?

Not really. But, I mean, come on. Punishing people for acts of charity? Blanket statements that all homeless want drugs and alcohol and refuse to go after this plethora of jobs that are just waiting to hire homeless individuals? This has got to be worse than the usual claptrap.

You do have to be very wary about giving to homeless individuals because they may use that money to feed an addiction. I'd offer them food before I would cash.

I for one wouldn't mind a bit if they used it to 'feed an addiction'.  Where do you get off judging what is an acceptable use of the money, States?  Keep in mind that all 'addictions' are merely symptoms of poverty and powerlessness.

No, addictions are a result of loss of self-control.

[opebo]

You have been?

Not really. But, I mean, come on. Punishing people for acts of charity? Blanket statements that all homeless want drugs and alcohol and refuse to go after this plethora of jobs that are just waiting to hire homeless individuals? This has got to be worse than the usual claptrap.

You do have to be very wary about giving to homeless individuals because they may use that money to feed an addiction. I'd offer them food before I would cash.

I for one wouldn't mind a bit if they used it to 'feed an addiction'.  Where do you get off judging what is an acceptable use of the money, States?  Keep in mind that all 'addictions' are merely symptoms of poverty and powerlessness.

No, addictions are a result of loss of self-control.

You are labouring under a delusion if you believe you have control of yourself, worker.  You are controlled by your betters in the social heirarchy. 

[Lunar]

You have been?

Not really. But, I mean, come on. Punishing people for acts of charity? Blanket statements that all homeless want drugs and alcohol and refuse to go after this plethora of jobs that are just waiting to hire homeless individuals? This has got to be worse than the usual claptrap.

You do have to be very wary about giving to homeless individuals because they may use that money to feed an addiction. I'd offer them food before I would cash.

I for one wouldn't mind a bit if they used it to 'feed an addiction'.  Where do you get off judging what is an acceptable use of the money, States?  Keep in mind that all 'addictions' are merely symptoms of poverty and powerlessness.

Rich people get addicted too.  In the indirect sense, power, money, and fame.  In the indirect sense, sex, drugs, and alcohol.

But yes, States is right that food is obviously the most sensible way to donate and help out someone.  I used to take my excess food that I was going to throw away in the Cafeteria andwalk half a block to give it to an old homeless guy in a wheel chair who has had a simple "Trying to survive" sign for years (most homeless in Berkeley try to have witty signs).  I've seen homeless guys  begging for money that have turned down food when it was offered.