New York Shipping Out Homeless
NEW YORK — New York City is buying one-way plane tickets for homeless families to leave the city.
It’s part of a program by Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration to keep the homeless out of the expensive shelter system, which costs $36,000 a year per family.
More than 550 families have left the city since 2007. All it takes is for a relative to agree to take them in.
The city employs a travel agency for domestic travel and the Department of Homeless Services handles international travel.
Ah, the old-fashioned Greyhound Therapy. I wonder how long it’ll take for the ACLU to push back on this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 2010 hrs
I heard a good quote from I don’t know who. “poverty is not supposed to be comfortable” I think we tend to want to make it very comfortable for those who don’t want to work. This plan is a winner.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 2139 hrs
right, cuz all poor people just “don’t want to work”
f’in idiots.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 0032 hrs
I’d like to start a Greyhounds for Governors program.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 0616 hrs
Goodbye - not all poor people, but most of them. Some people are indeed bound by illness, mental disorders etc that prevent them from being sucessful, the vast majority simply make bad decisons that put them in poverty.
With all the opportunities available to anybody in this country to those willing to work hard, anybody can be sucessful in America.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 0738 hrs
Greyhounds for Governors! Oh, that is a side splitter!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 0745 hrs
thank you brushman.
Of course not ALL poor people don’t want to work. The fact is we make poor attractive for people who don’t want to work.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 0802 hrs
True - but it’s still a decision they make not to work. If you prefer to live off of someone else, rather than pay your own way - it is very possible to do that here.
Fortunately, many people have more pride than that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 0937 hrs
That whole “poor people don’t wanna work” trope is shit. I wish people would look more seriously at poverty. This is not so much a criticism of the program Owen highlighted, as at the lazy attitude that gets us as a society into so much trouble. Even if there is truth to it in some cases, holding that attitude leads to no viable long-term solutions.
Posted by Mike on July 30, 2009 at 0942 hrs
I wonder how long it’ll take for the ACLU to push back on this.
*BLINK*
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1001 hrs
There is a vast number of people who prefer to get things for free. That means not working living off the government. I understand many homeless are mentally ill or have a substance abuse problem. However, the substance use was afterall their choice.
Where I work a few people from Milwaukee’s inner city wanted to take a day off of work. Ordinarily it wouldn’t matter. However, this was the day that the government was handing out funds to people from Milwaukee who had flood damage. The people who wanted off of work admitted they were not affected by the flood, but want the “free” stuff.
We have created a society of takers and slackers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1336 hrs
Survival of the fittest, to hell with all this “compassion” BS. Let these lame and lazy sleaze bags go hungry for a few days and that work ethic will kick in,............. and if it doesn’t…......Oh well. And by work ethic I don’t mean going out and robbing someone. Maybe if they were to pick up and cash in some of those beer cans they so carelessly toss on the ground the city would start to look a little better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1636 hrs
Scott-
To hell with compassion. Who mentioned that anyway? How about brains? Wouldn’t that be called for? At least something more than your input, which amounts to, “Oh Well.”Posted by Mike on July 30, 2009 at 2045 hrs
Compassion is what the welfare system is based on, and the users amongst us are more than willing to take that compassion and use it against us by accusing us of heartlessness when they decide what they are getting for free simply isn’t enough for them to live comfortably. Brains? No one is responsible for ones lack of primary education other than those who don’t take advantage of it, and a college education is more attainable for some poor than others due to quotas. But the fact remains, some just don’t care to better their lot in life, and if that is sufficient for them who are we to interfere if they aren’t bothering others?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 2225 hrs
Scott does make some good points.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 0721 hrs
OK Scott-
You’ve gone from, “Let these lame and lazy sleaze bags go hungry for a few days and that work ethic will kick in,” to “some just don’t care to better their lot in life.”The first statement, aimed at poor people, is bold, entitled intolerance. In my mind it is what is wrong with our society.
The second is more considered and a bit more like Kelly’s comments in #11. These both amount to truths about the human race. There are always those who will prefer the path of least resistance. Why is that such a horrible thing (relatively speaking) when you live in poverty? I suppose “lazy sleazebags” exist in roughly equal proportions across income brackets. Everybody likes free things.
My concern is that, through this conversation, we come no closer to attacking the problem behind poverty.
Posted by Mike on July 31, 2009 at 0857 hrs
Why is it that rich people are villians because they work hard and are successful, but we make up a thousand excuses for people who would rather live off the government and blame everyone else for their prediciment???
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 0934 hrs
Who’s saying “rich people are villains because they work hard and are successful”? Nobody in this debate. And who’s blaming “everyone else for their predicament”? Are we even in the same conversation?
Posted by Mike on July 31, 2009 at 1536 hrs
During this administration Obama has wage class ware fare on the rich and no one seems to care. However, those that choose to sit around and live off the government are granted a pardon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 1540 hrs
Obama has not waged class warfare on the rich. Please find me one example of someone who sits around and lives off the government getting a pardon.
Posted by Mike on July 31, 2009 at 1603 hrs
Obama is hell bent to over tax the rich and make them what he deems “their fair share”. Using terms like Big Oil etc.
Every person who sits on their behind and does not work, when they are perfectly able is getting a pardon. I know one example personally, she’s in my family and frankly it hacks me off.
Taking from the rich and givign it to the lazy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 1917 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 110
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 05:27 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).