NYC spends more than $1 million a day to put the homeless up in hotels.

rojo wrote:

Please don't turn this into a left/right debate. Just view it as an update from the thread from a few weeks ago. Modern day politics...

Why not? Socialism doesn't work. Even worse, that mayor has been quoted that he wants to do away with private property.

Is there only one politics thread allowed?

Why did you remove the thread "If AOC wins in 2024, I'm moving to Canada." by Socialism Doesn't Work? Did the trolls co-opt it? It was a harmless thread stating basic opinion against socialism and the observation that ordinary non extreme people are quoting her.

We have (or had) socialist mayors in NYC and Seattle, but we can't say that's the problem. When AOC does win in 2024, people will have regrets.

Even millionaire Tucker Carlson's getting brainwashed. In his VOX interview he said "“What does [free market capitalism] get us?”.

We're headed to dangerous times. Putting homeless in hotels at no care for the expense is not surprising.

More socialists nonsense. There is a zero chance these people will ever be self sustaining in NYC without handout subsidies but we just keep giving it to them. You're poor even if you make six figure salary in NYC. These people have no viable skills. Get them outta here where the cost of living is much lower. Maybe then they can start from the bottom and move up.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The per day cost of $1M for 60K people comes out to $17 person so I don't think they are staying at Hyatt.

No, not $17 per person. The article says 60k people in shelters and hotels but does not provide a breakout shelter vs hotel. So the $1 million per day is only for a subset of the 60k

"Some 60,000 people are currently housed in city shelters and hotels, up from about 50,000 in 2013, data show. The city spends $384 million annually to house homeless people in hotels, according to city documents.," says today's WSJ.

Not a one percenter wrote:

If the tip 1% paid an honest tax rate this would be paid for 50 times over. The largest fraud in any area of the government is the top 1% taxes.

1946 to 1963, top marginal tax rate in U.S. average greater than 90%. From 2001 to 2019, top marginal tax rate in U.S. has been between (35 to 39.6)%. U.S. GDP growth was greater from 1946-1963 than 2001-2017 (we do not officially know GDP for 2018 in U.S. Steve Forbes, for years was running around talking about flat tax. Steve Forbes said millionaires & billionaires needed more money to create jobs. We have lower G.D.P. growth with lower taxes on the most wealthy. The wealthy (or soon to be wealthy) on letsrun do not want to hear this. Tax millionaires & billionaires less, millionaires & billionaires become more lazy. Unlike what was stated by Steve Forbes, tax millionaires & billionaires less and millionaires & billionaires become slackers. Why is this a surprise?

A Strong Conservative Man using Logic and Reason should be able to Solve This Problem in One Fell Swoop.

Put Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, Dr. Joe Rogan, or Dr. Ben Shapiro in charge. A true intellectual will motive The People and get the Lazy Homeless off their butts.

Rojo- stop pretending this is not about left or right wing politics.

You're very selective on what wasted money you start threads about. The Presidents tariff policy caused the government to pay boatloads of money to farmers all over the country, yet that doesn't illicit a post from you.

You boys went to St Marks in Dallas? The same school as Richard Spencer, open to correction but nothing from either of you about his racism, nazi salutes or domestic violence.

You and your brother drag the tone of this running message board down by inserting your own policial bias on a near daily basis.

Finally you were schooled on your original healthcare post but you're so fucking sensitive and entitled that you refuse to let go of it.

Moo Goo wrote:

More socialists nonsense. T here is a zero chance these people will ever be self sustaining in NYC without handout subsidies but we just keep giving it to them. You're poor even if you make six figure salary in NYC. These people have no viable skills. Get them outta here where the cost of living is much lower. Maybe then they can start from the bottom and move up.

Like the farmers?

wikipedia says gross metropolitan product of NYC is about 1.55 Trillion. Thus, the cost of housing the homeless is about .02375% of what the city produces, or 1/4000th. Granted, 1/4000th is still a lot when there are so many other things to spend money on, but NYC is making a lot of money as a whole.

Ciro wrote:

Moo Goo wrote:

More socialists nonsense. T here is a zero chance these people will ever be self sustaining in NYC without handout subsidies but we just keep giving it to them. You're poor even if you make six figure salary in NYC. These people have no viable skills. Get them outta here where the cost of living is much lower. Maybe then they can start from the bottom and move up.

Like the farmers?

Brojos and the stooge(s) who officially monitor these boards take down my left leaning economic threads. Brojos and their stooge(s) want to pretend they are the smart ones regarding economics.

Not today. It would be too predictable but in near future I will start a thread regarding waste of tax payer dollars subsidizing millionaire & billionaire farmers.

I may start a thread regarding the fraud & waste of subsidizing the oil & gas industry. Didn't both Brojos grow up on oil & gas subsidies? If I am wrong. If Brojos did not go to k-12 then Ivy League schools on oil & gas subsidies, Brojos, feel free to start a thread and explain.

Counting. Thread killed in three, two ... .

I would be fine spending tons of government money housing the homeless IF it meant they BANNED panhandling and actually cracked down on people shitting on the streets and despoiling public resources. Then it would be money well spent. As it is, we give more handouts and the number of people on the streets only goes up. Complete money sink.

You're worried about $17 per person? Talk about focusing on the pennies. But ok, what do you propose instead?

Spending money on homeless makes every conservative bone in my body. But the reality is if something isn't done for them they end up costing way more in property damage and health care costs when they get hurt or to strung out on drugs. The public ends up picking up these costs and this doesn't even factor in the unpleasant environment or public danger the homeless create. Economically it is actually better to do something for the homeless, hopefully with the goal of rehabbing them to being functional human beings, although many never can.

With that being said putting them in hotels probably is not the cost-effective answer.

Further analysis wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The per day cost of $1M for 60K people comes out to $17 person so I don't think they are staying at Hyatt.

No, not $17 per person. The article says 60k people in shelters and hotels but does not provide a breakout shelter vs hotel. So the $1 million per day is only for a subset of the 60k

"Some 60,000 people are currently housed in city shelters and hotels, up from about 50,000 in 2013, data show. The city spends $384 million annually to house homeless people in hotels, according to city documents.," says today's WSJ.

There are costs associated with people in shelters as well so it's still not likely to be a large number. In Bakersfield, which would be less expensive than NYC, the cost per homeless is about $15 per day:

okokokokok wrote:

PS. Seattle (King County) spending a hundred million or two, SFO who knows how much, haven't solved a homeless problem one bit.

SFO? What does an airport in San Bruno have to do with homelessness? I doubt any homeless succeed at sleeping there, it would be awfully loud all the time with those airplanes taking off and landing.

forpetessake wrote:

You're worried about $17 per person? Talk about focusing on the pennies. But ok, what do you propose instead?

Detroit has thousands of habitable empty houses owned by the city since the former owners walked away. Send the homeless there. I'm serious.

Problem Solver wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

You're worried about $17 per person? Talk about focusing on the pennies. But ok, what do you propose instead?

Detroit has thousands of habitable empty houses owned by the city since the former owners walked away. Send the homeless there. I'm serious.

Alec Baldwin has generously offered to take in 20 people.

Problem Solver wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

You're worried about $17 per person? Talk about focusing on the pennies. But ok, what do you propose instead?

Detroit has thousands of habitable empty houses owned by the city since the former owners walked away. Send the homeless there. I'm serious.

That sounds really attractive, except I'm not sure how you avoid that being a bit overly like putting Jews on cattle cars and sending them East for the "solution".

rojo wrote:

I'm not sure why I'm so obsessed with NYC of late. Maybe it's because Weldon has moved there.

And he found wedded bliss.

Cito =dingle. Go away.