Is Texas Next?
-
@BBigford said in Is Texas Next?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Texas Next?:
@BBigford said in Is Texas Next?:
@Dashrender said in Is Texas Next?:
How's the advertising over there compared to over here, Scott? I think of of the things that drives the crime sprees here is that our advertising drives people to think they don't have enough, they aren't good enough where they are. That whole thing where companies are trying to squeeze every last cent out of the spending public.
Is that the case there?
What kind of people do you think are committing crimes? It's not middle class workers that want a new materialistic thing that they can't afford. It's people who got addicted to drugs and are feeding their demons with every item they can pawn for cash to score more drugs. Along with people who are homeless and can't even beg for enough money to pay for stuff. Push someone to the edge of desperation; have them question if they'll survive unless they harm you, and you'll see the animal inside of them.
Having lived in the heart of Newark, NJ, one of the most dangerous places anywhere, that's not what it is. Drugs some, yes, but poverty, no. Tons of opportunity, plenty of money. More a desire to not work than poverty itself.
I've saw a few people like that but not many out here. Mostly just dirt bags that don't have a criminal history, but just couch surfers and occasionally stealing something out of a pickup bed but not getting caught. Are those kind of people just committing crimes because they simply don't want to work, or are they gang affiliated and that is what they simply do for a living?
Gang stuff has to exist and is probably all around, but it was not organized in that way where I was.
-
@BBigford said in Is Texas Next?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Texas Next?:
And none of that is in places as dangerous as Newark or Flint, both of which I have lived in.
Wow... Flint is marked as the most dangerous city in Michigan when you look at crime rates. Why did you live there? I can't imagine there was any good work available, at least something that couldn't be done remotely...
Top university in the world used to be there... right in the worst part of town. It blew MIT, CalTech, Harvard, Princeton, UPenn, etc. out of the water in its day. Highest SAT, ACT, cost, salary, placement, etc. It held them all for a couple of decades. Fell apart not long after.
-
@BBigford said in Is Texas Next?:
@thwr said in Is Texas Next?:
@BBigford said in Is Texas Next?:
@Dashrender said in Is Texas Next?:
How's the advertising over there compared to over here, Scott? I think of of the things that drives the crime sprees here is that our advertising drives people to think they don't have enough, they aren't good enough where they are. That whole thing where companies are trying to squeeze every last cent out of the spending public.
Is that the case there?
What kind of people do you think are committing crimes? It's not middle class workers that want a new materialistic thing that they can't afford. It's people who got addicted to drugs and are feeding their demons with every item they can pawn for cash to score more drugs. Along with people who are homeless and can't even beg for enough money to pay for stuff. Push someone to the edge of desperation; have them question if they'll survive unless they harm you, and you'll see the animal inside of them.
I've noticed you mentioning homeless people before. Is that really that big of a problem over at your place? Can't really imagine that, because we have a rather powerful social system. Everyone, virtually everyone, will get some place to sleep or even some small apartment, at least the most important things (very basic things like a toothbrush, soap, towels, something to eat, clothes, ...), healthcare (or help on getting away from drugs) and this way a real chance to get back into "normal" life.
Yeah it's pretty bad on the west coast. I haven't been on the east coast or the south very much but it is extremely problematic. When you get that many homeless in an area, especially around middle and upper class citizens, there is a kind of resentment when you interact with many of them. Also the "steal from the rich and give to the poor" mentality comes out, where people who wouldn't normally steal, start to do so because they think the middle and upper class can afford to lose certain things off their property.
Homeless people as a social behavior aren't the problem, it's when you put a desperate person in a situation where they can take what they need, because to them it is a life or death situation. If they don't assault you and take material items that they can sell for money to buy food and water (anything else like drugs or alcohol aside), then that is survival. It's the wildly aggressive homeless that are a problem, and it becomes more of a problem if you run across some that are high or intoxicated, especially at night in dimly lit areas that should be avoided.
There are shelters and programs, especially in really big places like Seattle. But they often get overrun and people stand in lines for many blocks. A lot of them don't get in, or can't get fed because there simply aren't enough supplies or beds available for the night. To rotate people, they will kick you out for the day to stand in line for another bed. You might not get one the next night.
There are some other REALLY great programs to help people find work, get them into affordable housing, and help rehabilitate them from drugs and alcohol, but it's a societal struggle because when you help 1,000 people, you may have another 1,000 that are newly addicted, unemployed, and their house foreclosed so they're on the streets.
Thanks for getting back. I was afraid a bit that you could take that personally what I wrote. Anyway.
I knew that the USA got a next to non-existing social system and that there are at least 633,782 homeless people and probably many, many more. That's completely different here in good ol' Germany: "Hinz & Kunzt" (1) - an INSP (International Network of Street Papers) newspaper sold by homeless with the idea behind to get them some (extra) income - stated back in 02/2013 that there are at least 1,029 Homeless people in Germany's second largest City of Hamburg (estimated 1,77 Mio ppl, 5,05 Mio with surrounding areas according to Wikipedia).
What's the point of all those numbers? Maybe we care about others. Sure, there are still people who are homeless, but I guess that's more kind of a lifestyle or to "fight the system". Anyway, if you take a look at the German constitution, you'll find this in the very first article:
Article 1
[Human dignity – Human rights – Legally binding force of basic rights]-
Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
-
The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
-
The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.
Source: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0015
There are more detailled laws that define what that means, for example the amount of money you'll get per month or what "dignity" means in detail (a roof over your head, for example). Here's some good post about that: https://www.quora.com/How-does-Germany-deal-with-the-homeless-and-the-poor
From what I've been reading in this thread, the system itself seems to be failing over at your place. Or it doesn't exist at all. That isn't something new, I was just shocked by the sheer numbers. We got our own problems here, sure, but nothing compareable to homeless people raiding your home to get some food, out of desperation.
-
-
@thwr The bad part seems to be that the government took over responsibility for taking care of people that fall into that situation. This is the same government that's currently 19 trillion (US dollars) in the hole. History is not kind to anyone that puts themselves in this same situation.
-
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@thwr The bad part seems to be that the government took over responsibility for taking care of people that fall into that situation. This is the same government that's currently 19 trillion (US dollars) in the hole. History is not kind to anyone that puts themselves in this same situation.
Same here, government's responsibility, so it does work if you want to. And we don't even got the system that Switzerland has, for example. They at least tried to make it to "unconditional basic income". I don't see the world through rose-colored glasses, but shouldn't a government voted by the people at least care for them? Pointing to Obama-Care, for example...
-
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@thwr The bad part seems to be that the government took over responsibility for taking care of people that fall into that situation. This is the same government that's currently 19 trillion (US dollars) in the hole. History is not kind to anyone that puts themselves in this same situation.
I always find it funny that the only people who are really worried about national debt, which is significantly different then personal debt, are politicians. Most economics, there are several organizations that I've read similar statements to, seem to agree that national debt isn't something to worry about until you reach a specific threshold. The cost of managing the debt and paying it down is more expensive then letting it go and letting the economy do its thing. Their reasoning is that, traditionally - in almost all cases, the economy will grow faster then the debt incurred.
The fiscally responsible thing is generally to not worry about spending on debt, but instead spend on infrastructure which has a significantly higher rate of return.
-
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@thwr The bad part seems to be that the government took over responsibility for taking care of people that fall into that situation. This is the same government that's currently 19 trillion (US dollars) in the hole. History is not kind to anyone that puts themselves in this same situation.
I always find it funny that the only people who are really worried about national debt, which is significantly different then personal debt, are politicians. Most economics, there are several organizations that I've read similar statements to, seem to agree that national debt isn't something to worry about until you reach a specific threshold. The cost of managing the debt and paying it down is more expensive then letting it go and letting the economy do its thing. Their reasoning is that, traditionally - in almost all cases, the economy will grow faster then the debt incurred.
The fiscally responsible thing is generally to not worry about spending on debt, but instead spend on infrastructure which has a significantly higher rate of return.
Right, that's the "new" way of thinking. If we actually put that money into infrastructure it might even work. Please don't get me started on the state of our infrastructure!
-
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@thwr The bad part seems to be that the government took over responsibility for taking care of people that fall into that situation. This is the same government that's currently 19 trillion (US dollars) in the hole. History is not kind to anyone that puts themselves in this same situation.
I always find it funny that the only people who are really worried about national debt, which is significantly different then personal debt, are politicians. Most economics, there are several organizations that I've read similar statements to, seem to agree that national debt isn't something to worry about until you reach a specific threshold. The cost of managing the debt and paying it down is more expensive then letting it go and letting the economy do its thing. Their reasoning is that, traditionally - in almost all cases, the economy will grow faster then the debt incurred.
The fiscally responsible thing is generally to not worry about spending on debt, but instead spend on infrastructure which has a significantly higher rate of return.
Right, that's the "new" way of thinking. If we actually put that money into infrastructure it might even work. Please don't get me started on the state of our infrastructure!
It really isn't new. The new way of thinking is that we shouldn't spend money and instead pay down on debt regardless of the actual utility of it. We've know that infrastructure and debt spending have been important to the economy since the early 1800's and maybe a bit earlier. Other nations have known it long before that.
-
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@thwr The bad part seems to be that the government took over responsibility for taking care of people that fall into that situation. This is the same government that's currently 19 trillion (US dollars) in the hole. History is not kind to anyone that puts themselves in this same situation.
I always find it funny that the only people who are really worried about national debt, which is significantly different then personal debt, are politicians. Most economics, there are several organizations that I've read similar statements to, seem to agree that national debt isn't something to worry about until you reach a specific threshold. The cost of managing the debt and paying it down is more expensive then letting it go and letting the economy do its thing. Their reasoning is that, traditionally - in almost all cases, the economy will grow faster then the debt incurred.
The fiscally responsible thing is generally to not worry about spending on debt, but instead spend on infrastructure which has a significantly higher rate of return.
Right, that's the "new" way of thinking. If we actually put that money into infrastructure it might even work. Please don't get me started on the state of our infrastructure!
Exactly - I was going to ask - Is the government spending on infrastructure?
We are closing our local nuclear power plant - I expect us to have power issues and HUGE spikes in power costs any time now.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@thwr The bad part seems to be that the government took over responsibility for taking care of people that fall into that situation. This is the same government that's currently 19 trillion (US dollars) in the hole. History is not kind to anyone that puts themselves in this same situation.
I always find it funny that the only people who are really worried about national debt, which is significantly different then personal debt, are politicians. Most economics, there are several organizations that I've read similar statements to, seem to agree that national debt isn't something to worry about until you reach a specific threshold. The cost of managing the debt and paying it down is more expensive then letting it go and letting the economy do its thing. Their reasoning is that, traditionally - in almost all cases, the economy will grow faster then the debt incurred.
The fiscally responsible thing is generally to not worry about spending on debt, but instead spend on infrastructure which has a significantly higher rate of return.
Right, that's the "new" way of thinking. If we actually put that money into infrastructure it might even work. Please don't get me started on the state of our infrastructure!
Exactly - I was going to ask - Is the government spending on infrastructure?
We are closing our local nuclear power plant - I expect us to have power issues and HUGE spikes in power costs any time now.
What infrastructure spending? We don't do that anymore, it doesn't buy votes.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@thwr The bad part seems to be that the government took over responsibility for taking care of people that fall into that situation. This is the same government that's currently 19 trillion (US dollars) in the hole. History is not kind to anyone that puts themselves in this same situation.
I always find it funny that the only people who are really worried about national debt, which is significantly different then personal debt, are politicians. Most economics, there are several organizations that I've read similar statements to, seem to agree that national debt isn't something to worry about until you reach a specific threshold. The cost of managing the debt and paying it down is more expensive then letting it go and letting the economy do its thing. Their reasoning is that, traditionally - in almost all cases, the economy will grow faster then the debt incurred.
The fiscally responsible thing is generally to not worry about spending on debt, but instead spend on infrastructure which has a significantly higher rate of return.
Right, that's the "new" way of thinking. If we actually put that money into infrastructure it might even work. Please don't get me started on the state of our infrastructure!
Exactly - I was going to ask - Is the government spending on infrastructure?
We are closing our local nuclear power plant - I expect us to have power issues and HUGE spikes in power costs any time now.
No... we have an entire group of people who think that reducing spending will improve the economy. So that prevent them from supporting bills that would introduce infrastructure jobs to replace and repair our failing systems. I'm not saying that all spending is good, although there has been some evidence to support it, just that we know spending on infrastructure has a high rate of return when compared to other spending.
-
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@Dashrender said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@thwr The bad part seems to be that the government took over responsibility for taking care of people that fall into that situation. This is the same government that's currently 19 trillion (US dollars) in the hole. History is not kind to anyone that puts themselves in this same situation.
I always find it funny that the only people who are really worried about national debt, which is significantly different then personal debt, are politicians. Most economics, there are several organizations that I've read similar statements to, seem to agree that national debt isn't something to worry about until you reach a specific threshold. The cost of managing the debt and paying it down is more expensive then letting it go and letting the economy do its thing. Their reasoning is that, traditionally - in almost all cases, the economy will grow faster then the debt incurred.
The fiscally responsible thing is generally to not worry about spending on debt, but instead spend on infrastructure which has a significantly higher rate of return.
Right, that's the "new" way of thinking. If we actually put that money into infrastructure it might even work. Please don't get me started on the state of our infrastructure!
Exactly - I was going to ask - Is the government spending on infrastructure?
We are closing our local nuclear power plant - I expect us to have power issues and HUGE spikes in power costs any time now.
No... we have an entire group of people who think that reducing spending will improve the economy. So that prevent them from supporting bills that would introduce infrastructure jobs to replace and repair our failing systems. I'm not saying that all spending is good, although there has been some evidence to support it, just that we know spending on infrastructure has a high rate of return when compared to other spending.
Right. If they actually spent money to fix and create new roads/power/etc then that'd be great, but they never do (even when the budget specifies funds for it.)
-
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@thwr The bad part seems to be that the government took over responsibility for taking care of people that fall into that situation. This is the same government that's currently 19 trillion (US dollars) in the hole. History is not kind to anyone that puts themselves in this same situation.
I always find it funny that the only people who are really worried about national debt, which is significantly different then personal debt, are politicians. Most economics, there are several organizations that I've read similar statements to, seem to agree that national debt isn't something to worry about until you reach a specific threshold. The cost of managing the debt and paying it down is more expensive then letting it go and letting the economy do its thing. Their reasoning is that, traditionally - in almost all cases, the economy will grow faster then the debt incurred.
The fiscally responsible thing is generally to not worry about spending on debt, but instead spend on infrastructure which has a significantly higher rate of return.
Right, that's the "new" way of thinking. If we actually put that money into infrastructure it might even work. Please don't get me started on the state of our infrastructure!
It really isn't new. The new way of thinking is that we shouldn't spend money and instead pay down on debt regardless of the actual utility of it. We've know that infrastructure and debt spending have been important to the economy since the early 1800's and maybe a bit earlier. Other nations have known it long before that.
But we just keep on borrowing - I really don't understand why we keep borrowing more and more - there will reach a point when we can't pay it back, I sorta understand the spending on infrastructure is good for the economy, but at the cost of continuing to pay out debtors, like China? When do we stop the bleeding? I seriously don't understand this situation at all.
I also don't understand the infinitely growing economy belief either.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Texas Next?:
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@thwr The bad part seems to be that the government took over responsibility for taking care of people that fall into that situation. This is the same government that's currently 19 trillion (US dollars) in the hole. History is not kind to anyone that puts themselves in this same situation.
I always find it funny that the only people who are really worried about national debt, which is significantly different then personal debt, are politicians. Most economics, there are several organizations that I've read similar statements to, seem to agree that national debt isn't something to worry about until you reach a specific threshold. The cost of managing the debt and paying it down is more expensive then letting it go and letting the economy do its thing. Their reasoning is that, traditionally - in almost all cases, the economy will grow faster then the debt incurred.
The fiscally responsible thing is generally to not worry about spending on debt, but instead spend on infrastructure which has a significantly higher rate of return.
Right, that's the "new" way of thinking. If we actually put that money into infrastructure it might even work. Please don't get me started on the state of our infrastructure!
It really isn't new. The new way of thinking is that we shouldn't spend money and instead pay down on debt regardless of the actual utility of it. We've know that infrastructure and debt spending have been important to the economy since the early 1800's and maybe a bit earlier. Other nations have known it long before that.
But we just keep on borrowing - I really don't understand why we keep borrowing more and more - there will reach a point when we can't pay it back, I sorta understand the spending on infrastructure is good for the economy, but at the cost of continuing to pay out debtors, like China? When do we stop the bleeding? I seriously don't understand this situation at all.
I also don't understand the infinitely growing economy belief either.
China owns relatively little of our debt. That vast majority is held by US citizens.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Texas Next?:
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@travisdh1 said in Is Texas Next?:
@thwr The bad part seems to be that the government took over responsibility for taking care of people that fall into that situation. This is the same government that's currently 19 trillion (US dollars) in the hole. History is not kind to anyone that puts themselves in this same situation.
I always find it funny that the only people who are really worried about national debt, which is significantly different then personal debt, are politicians. Most economics, there are several organizations that I've read similar statements to, seem to agree that national debt isn't something to worry about until you reach a specific threshold. The cost of managing the debt and paying it down is more expensive then letting it go and letting the economy do its thing. Their reasoning is that, traditionally - in almost all cases, the economy will grow faster then the debt incurred.
The fiscally responsible thing is generally to not worry about spending on debt, but instead spend on infrastructure which has a significantly higher rate of return.
Right, that's the "new" way of thinking. If we actually put that money into infrastructure it might even work. Please don't get me started on the state of our infrastructure!
It really isn't new. The new way of thinking is that we shouldn't spend money and instead pay down on debt regardless of the actual utility of it. We've know that infrastructure and debt spending have been important to the economy since the early 1800's and maybe a bit earlier. Other nations have known it long before that.
But we just keep on borrowing - I really don't understand why we keep borrowing more and more - there will reach a point when we can't pay it back, I sorta understand the spending on infrastructure is good for the economy, but at the cost of continuing to pay out debtors, like China? When do we stop the bleeding? I seriously don't understand this situation at all.
I also don't understand the infinitely growing economy belief either.
Well, new aircraft carriers are damn expensive [link1, link2] ...
-
@Dashrender said in Is Texas Next?:
I also don't understand the infinitely growing economy belief either.
I'm not sure I buy it either but we don't have much evidence of a limitation on growth. At least not that I am aware.
-
@thwr said in Is Texas Next?:
@BBigford said in Is Texas Next?:
@thwr said in Is Texas Next?:
@BBigford said in Is Texas Next?:
@Dashrender said in Is Texas Next?:
How's the advertising over there compared to over here, Scott? I think of of the things that drives the crime sprees here is that our advertising drives people to think they don't have enough, they aren't good enough where they are. That whole thing where companies are trying to squeeze every last cent out of the spending public.
Is that the case there?
What kind of people do you think are committing crimes? It's not middle class workers that want a new materialistic thing that they can't afford. It's people who got addicted to drugs and are feeding their demons with every item they can pawn for cash to score more drugs. Along with people who are homeless and can't even beg for enough money to pay for stuff. Push someone to the edge of desperation; have them question if they'll survive unless they harm you, and you'll see the animal inside of them.
I've noticed you mentioning homeless people before. Is that really that big of a problem over at your place? Can't really imagine that, because we have a rather powerful social system. Everyone, virtually everyone, will get some place to sleep or even some small apartment, at least the most important things (very basic things like a toothbrush, soap, towels, something to eat, clothes, ...), healthcare (or help on getting away from drugs) and this way a real chance to get back into "normal" life.
Yeah it's pretty bad on the west coast. I haven't been on the east coast or the south very much but it is extremely problematic. When you get that many homeless in an area, especially around middle and upper class citizens, there is a kind of resentment when you interact with many of them. Also the "steal from the rich and give to the poor" mentality comes out, where people who wouldn't normally steal, start to do so because they think the middle and upper class can afford to lose certain things off their property.
Homeless people as a social behavior aren't the problem, it's when you put a desperate person in a situation where they can take what they need, because to them it is a life or death situation. If they don't assault you and take material items that they can sell for money to buy food and water (anything else like drugs or alcohol aside), then that is survival. It's the wildly aggressive homeless that are a problem, and it becomes more of a problem if you run across some that are high or intoxicated, especially at night in dimly lit areas that should be avoided.
There are shelters and programs, especially in really big places like Seattle. But they often get overrun and people stand in lines for many blocks. A lot of them don't get in, or can't get fed because there simply aren't enough supplies or beds available for the night. To rotate people, they will kick you out for the day to stand in line for another bed. You might not get one the next night.
There are some other REALLY great programs to help people find work, get them into affordable housing, and help rehabilitate them from drugs and alcohol, but it's a societal struggle because when you help 1,000 people, you may have another 1,000 that are newly addicted, unemployed, and their house foreclosed so they're on the streets.
Thanks for getting back. I was afraid a bit that you could take that personally what I wrote. Anyway.
I knew that the USA got a next to non-existing social system and that there are at least 633,782 homeless people and probably many, many more. That's completely different here in good ol' Germany: "Hinz & Kunzt" (1) - an INSP (International Network of Street Papers) newspaper sold by homeless with the idea behind to get them some (extra) income - stated back in 02/2013 that there are at least 1,029 Homeless people in Germany's second largest City of Hamburg (estimated 1,77 Mio ppl, 5,05 Mio with surrounding areas according to Wikipedia).
What's the point of all those numbers? Maybe we care about others. Sure, there are still people who are homeless, but I guess that's more kind of a lifestyle or to "fight the system". Anyway, if you take a look at the German constitution, you'll find this in the very first article:
Article 1
[Human dignity – Human rights – Legally binding force of basic rights]-
Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
-
The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
-
The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.
Source: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0015
There are more detailled laws that define what that means, for example the amount of money you'll get per month or what "dignity" means in detail (a roof over your head, for example). Here's some good post about that: https://www.quora.com/How-does-Germany-deal-with-the-homeless-and-the-poor
From what I've been reading in this thread, the system itself seems to be failing over at your place. Or it doesn't exist at all. That isn't something new, I was just shocked by the sheer numbers. We got our own problems here, sure, but nothing compareable to homeless people raiding your home to get some food, out of desperation.
No worries. I've saw you post enough on here that I have a fairly decent handle on your demeanor to know you don't mean anything by what you say. Just genuinely curious is all. Aside from that, I'm also very level headed so it takes quite a bit to get me worked up. I'm always up for a good healthy conversation about controversial topics.
-
-
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@Dashrender said in Is Texas Next?:
I also don't understand the infinitely growing economy belief either.
I'm not sure I buy it either but we don't have much evidence of a limitation on growth. At least not that I am aware.
Sure, but we sure have evidence of stalls, and stalls can kill us too.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Texas Next?:
@coliver said in Is Texas Next?:
@Dashrender said in Is Texas Next?:
I also don't understand the infinitely growing economy belief either.
I'm not sure I buy it either but we don't have much evidence of a limitation on growth. At least not that I am aware.
Sure, but we sure have evidence of stalls, and stalls can kill us too.
We also have evidence that governmental spending can and does get us out of stalls much quicker then just letting the economy recover on its own.
-
@thwr said in Is Texas Next?:
From what I've been reading in this thread, the system itself seems to be failing over at your place. Or it doesn't exist at all. That isn't something new, I was just shocked by the sheer numbers. We got our own problems here, sure, but nothing compareable to homeless people raiding your home to get some food, out of desperation.
Again - I'm probably just completely blind to this, but people breaking into homes, etc out of desperation is not something I'm really aware of, at least in the middle of the USA. I personally believe that most homeless are there because they choose to be. There are a great number of programs to help the less fortunate. Some publicly provided (i.e. government) and many private charities that help people out.
