I’m continuing to post in this thread, is that not trying enough?
Not really.
I just think it’s bs to post “liberals111!!!” and “memessss” every other post and then claim some emotional high ground.
I don’t tell him he wants to make children starve even if I think his position would make the situation worse. Especially when my position is not “let them die.”
1 Like
This set of my bullshit detector, so I looked at how they’re defining this, and here’s what it says:
definition of homeless individuals include
any individual or family (1) lacking a fixed,
regular, and adequate nighttime residence;
(2) living in a residence that is a public or
private place not designed for human beings
(e.g., car, park, abandoned buildings); (3)
living in a shelter providing temporary living
arrangements (including hotels and motels),
congregate shelters and transitional housing;
(4) an individual who resided in a shelter or
place not meant for human habitation and
who is exiting an institution where he or she
temporarily resided; (5) an individual or family
who (A) will imminently lose their housing,
including housing they own, rent, or live in
without paying rent, are sharing with others
and rooms in hotels or motels not paid for by
Federal, State, or local government programs
for low-income individuals or by charitable
organizations, as evidenced by (i) a court
order resulting from an eviction action that
notifies the individual or family that they must
leave within 14 days; (ii) the individual or
family having a primary nighttime residence
that is a room in a hotel or motel and where
they lack the resources necessary to reside
there for more than 14 days; or (iii) credible
evidence indicating that the owner or renter
of the housing will not allow the individual or
family to stay for more than 14 days, and any
oral statement from an individual or family
seeking homeless assistance that is found
to be credible shall be considered credible
evidence for purposes of this clause; (B) has no
subsequent residence identified; and (C) lacks
the resources or support networks needed
to obtain other permanent housing; and (6)
unaccompanied youth and homeless families
with children and youth defined as homeless
under other Federal statutes who (A) have
experienced a long-term period without living
independently in permanent housing, (B) have
experienced persistent instability as measured
by frequent moves over such period, and (C)
can be expected to continue in such status
for an extended period of time because of
chronic disabilities, chronic physical health or
mental health conditions, substance addiction,
histories of domestic violence or childhood
abuse, the presence of a child or youth with a
disability, or multiple barriers to employment.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, the Secretary shall consider to be
homeless any individual or family who is
fleeing, or is attempting to flee, domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
stalking, or other dangerous or life-threatening
conditions in the individual’s or family’s current
housing situation, including where the health
and safety of children are jeopardized, and
who have no other residence and lack the
resources or support networks to obtain other
permanent housing.
TL;DR: Any homeless child is awful, but you only get to 1 in 30 by using a very broad paintbrush in your definition of homelessness.
The paper itself also seems to indicate that living in a trailer park constitutes homelessness in their eyes. How many tens of millions of Americans live in trailers?
They say one of the primary contributing factors to this extremely broad definition of homelessness is “Continuing Impacts of the 2007 Great Recession.” If the COVID-19 shutdown is any indication, I guess we’ll be seeing a 1 in 15 headline soon.
Inso0,
I expect every single poster on this forum basically knew or would surmise all of that or something close to it. Not many would feel they they had to go “that’s not real homelessness!”
And, by and large, that’s all a pretty reasonable definition of homelessness, ie, not having a home. Are you suggesting that you’re not without a home unless you are sleeping on the sidewalk?
You think of kids living with their grandparents, in a trailer park, under the roof of someone with a history of domestic violence, or those spending a week in a hotel between apartments as homeless?
For purposes of fantastical headlines, yes I think the above are a major stretch.
1 Like
I’m not trolling. But, I am obviously participating in the rampant game playing going on ITT. I really have no choice, now do I?
Example: Everything to do with Mr.Econ smarty-pants is obviously a game. None of the crap is in good faith. With it’s circular nature, and it’s direct rejection of standard economics, how could it not be so? But we can’t ignore Mr.Econ smarty-pants, and we can’t drive a stake through him either… so here we are, going round-n-round.
Example: I’ve demonstrated ITT that I can trigger the liberals with the term “status-quo” at will. That’s all a game too. None of their so-called rebuttals are in good faith. And I’ve demonstrated ITT that the liberals simply will not let the term ‘status-quo’ drop. So we can’t drive a stake through this crap either… so here we are, going round-n-round about that too.
An interesting Q is why does the term ‘status-quo’ trigger the liberals so damn much. I know the A. Some other posters ITT know the A too. Hint: search for “nutrients”.
Some trailers count as homes, some don’t. The point (I think - and I used to do HUD appraisals and was familiar with the government housing standards) was whether or not it was a fixed structure. Didn’t need a real permanent foundation, but could not be on wheels.
No definition is perfect and I’m a thousand percent on board with people who are happy living in trailers or vans or tents saying they aren’t homeless, but a secure fixed structure with a long term right of occupancy seems like a fair thing to count, especially for children.
If there’s a clear agreed upon definition of “trolling” I’m not aware of it. I am pretty old though.
I don’t think you’re posting in bad faith. I don’t know if that’s supposed to be a necessary condition of trolling.
You have some bizarre blind spot for him. He is so obviously a troll.
The next post from him will 100% be some version of LIBERALS I TRIGGERED THE LIBERALS. LIBERALS!!!
+1000
This is all a game too. None of these so-called rebuttals are in good faith. The point stands regardless of how homeless folk are counted, or if homeless children are ignored. It’s like this…
- Sabo: Mr.Econ smarty pants is ignoring the misery of 2.5 million children.
- Fool1: LOL @ Sabo for mentioning children.
- Sabo: OK, Mr.Econ smarty pants is ignoring the misery of 60k families.
- Fool2: LOL @ Sabo. Counted another way, there’s only 1.2 million homeless children.
- Sabo: Sigh. OK, Mr.Econ smarty pants is ignoring the misery of 1.2 million children.
- Fool3: LOL @ Sabo {some other gibberish}
… and around-n-around we go
That’s how I use the term.
ETA: Making fun of the White Moderates isn’t acting in bad faith. I truly feel they deserve it. And pointing out that I can trigger the liberals at will isn’t acting in bad faith either. It’s a fact, Jack. Live with it.
You dishing it out: Haha yes, this is excellent
You taking it: OMG this is unseemly and, I’d like to think, beneath us as a community
3 Likes
That’s a fair goal, but not a particularly fair definition of homeless, imo. The primary driver of the figure is the “doubled-up” status, where you have multi-generational households or kids staying with family that isn’t their parents. To your point about sleeping on sidewalks, that number is around 3% of the total per the National Center for Homeless Education. That’s obviously 75,000 kids too many, but when people wave around statistics like “2.5 million kids are homeless” that’s the imagery you’re going to get.
Reading the rest of the report Sabo linked was plenty depressing, but I don’t have a good answer. It’s clearly why so many progressives are pushing the concept of UBI. Hoping to throw cash at a problem to make it go away is definitely easier than addressing any underlying reasons why so many people hit dead ends on their life journey.
Though, it’s pretty safe to say that the existence of landlords isn’t a primary driver of this homelessness statistic.
Here’s the thing. Just because I’m taunting or triggering the liberals, doesn’t mean I don’t also have a point. And as long as I have a point… it’s not trolling.
I mean, don’t you think it’s odd that, what like a month in, posts of the form “I’m for X, you’re for ____” send the liberal’s lawn mowers into orbit?
You are not at all curious why that is?
Not even a little tiny bit?
Hello I think it might be because we are still waiting to see what you are actually for. To the point where another poster had to spend multiple posts defending you from the vicious accusation that you had ever staked out any position.
1 Like
Naw, it has nothing to do with me personally. If I PMed another poster, and asked them to make a post of the form “I’m for X, you’re for ___”, the liberal’s lawn mowers would be flying just as high. It’s not the messenger that triggers them, it’s the message.
Why are the liberals waiting? There are three ways this could go down: (a) the liberals show “theirs” first, or (b) the someone else shows “theirs” first, or (c ) both show “theirs” at the same time (by having a reveal). Why do the liberals insist that the someone else must show “theirs” first?
See… this is exceedingly strange behavior indeed. I’ve already gave a hint: nutrients. Have you tried to puzzle out the hint yet?
When I taunt or trigger the liberals they whine.
When the liberals call me names I laugh.
Holy positive feedback loop Batman !!!1!
1 Like
Called it