Total BS. You cannot “give” money to homeless people. At least not in that amount: You have to hire administrators. You have to decide how to decide whether someone’s really homeless. And you have to deal with the fact that “homeless” is a whole lot of different things, for different folks who have different reasons/causes for being unhoused.
Bear in mind, too, that the amount being “given” to “the banks” is just a number at this point. It amounts, mostly, to giving them a better credit rating, not actual money.
Right on, Mr. Rall. Cities in the U.S. and other nations have programs in which cash payments were made to homeless people and it helped lift many out of their poverty. Not all but enough to show the success of such programs. But let’s build more war machines, give multinational corporations cash handouts to conduct their businesses, etc. instead.
I had a general I worked for once; who equated giving millions to third world leaders equated to giving a limitless credit card to the homeless, limited success and very expensive; but hay congress still spends billions to third world countries
I have to agree on this one. Though building tiny homes for the homeless would be a good solution. I saw it on a news show. It isn’t a trailer park but on the same concept. Much of the power is solar for the public areas. The houses are designed for easy installation of solar panels. They are pretty spiffy looking to, inside and out.
So far, the discussions haven’t been “bail out the banks” so much as “bail out the depositors who didn’t know enough not to exceed the FDIC insurance at their bank”. FDIC is an insurance for depositors that is financed by fees, so most of this is not even a “bailout”. The fix is a bit more complicated, let’s simplify the process and listen to Elizabeth Warren this time.
Seems to me we could solve a lot of the financial problems if we did “just listen to Elizabeth Warren this time”. She tells you that if you do X then Y will happen, they do X and Y happens, over and over and over.
Flashaaway over 1 year ago
Make sure those bankers lose all their bonuses and shares etc.
Erse IS better over 1 year ago
Total BS. You cannot “give” money to homeless people. At least not in that amount: You have to hire administrators. You have to decide how to decide whether someone’s really homeless. And you have to deal with the fact that “homeless” is a whole lot of different things, for different folks who have different reasons/causes for being unhoused.
Bear in mind, too, that the amount being “given” to “the banks” is just a number at this point. It amounts, mostly, to giving them a better credit rating, not actual money.
GOGOPOWERANGERS over 1 year ago
Amd we know where it going to go to
painthacker Premium Member over 1 year ago
Yeah, forget all the “All for one and one for all” crap, huh?
mourdac Premium Member over 1 year ago
Right on, Mr. Rall. Cities in the U.S. and other nations have programs in which cash payments were made to homeless people and it helped lift many out of their poverty. Not all but enough to show the success of such programs. But let’s build more war machines, give multinational corporations cash handouts to conduct their businesses, etc. instead.
Direwolf over 1 year ago
Maybe we give $400,000 to every homeless person BUT we make them deposit the money into the dumb bankers banks. win-win?
Grandma Lea over 1 year ago
I had a general I worked for once; who equated giving millions to third world leaders equated to giving a limitless credit card to the homeless, limited success and very expensive; but hay congress still spends billions to third world countries
NeedaChuckle Premium Member over 1 year ago
I have to agree on this one. Though building tiny homes for the homeless would be a good solution. I saw it on a news show. It isn’t a trailer park but on the same concept. Much of the power is solar for the public areas. The houses are designed for easy installation of solar panels. They are pretty spiffy looking to, inside and out.
Raging Moderate over 1 year ago
So far, the discussions haven’t been “bail out the banks” so much as “bail out the depositors who didn’t know enough not to exceed the FDIC insurance at their bank”. FDIC is an insurance for depositors that is financed by fees, so most of this is not even a “bailout”. The fix is a bit more complicated, let’s simplify the process and listen to Elizabeth Warren this time.
rdublu over 1 year ago
Sleepy Joe…Joe…joe wake up!
Radish the wordsmith over 1 year ago
FDIC
Diane Lee Premium Member over 1 year ago
Seems to me we could solve a lot of the financial problems if we did “just listen to Elizabeth Warren this time”. She tells you that if you do X then Y will happen, they do X and Y happens, over and over and over.
Not the Smartest Man On the Planet -- Maybe Close Premium Member over 1 year ago
Or smug editorial cartoonists.
John Keith Premium Member over 1 year ago
Another good one. Thanks, Ted.