I don't see a line for "IPhone 7 with data plan" in her budget.
Posted on 07/30/2017 9:35:21 PM PDT by KingofZion
So, she has money for piercings, tattoos and blue hair, but not a home?
Why do we have to pay for the poor decisions of others?
Its all in the article.
And the article mentions she can get free day care so she can get her life in order. The fact she hasn’t is just one more bad choice.
Capitalism is the greatest economic system ever devised to provide the most benefits for the most people. Unfortunately, there is still a great deal of misery in our country. If you work hard you deserve the fruits of your labor, but I have to say there is something wrong with such great wealth in the hands of so few. No, I’m not complaining about the 1%, but maybe some tweaking needs to be done when you have people like this in the same country with someone controlling 80 billion in assets.
My post was in response to the above. I didn’t word it too well. But, yes those details are in the article. But I was responding to someone saying how something is off when someone has 80 billion in assets but on the other hand, we have homeless people. This homeless girl clearly has problems, and her problems have nothing to do with capitalism or the structure of our economy. That’s the point I was getting at , but didn’t express it too well.
I don't see a line for "IPhone 7 with data plan" in her budget.
Straight Outta DU.
If panhandling is your trade, there’s probably no better way to do it than with a baby in your arms.
Straight outta Crap Response Central
Bernie Sanders, is that you posting on FreeRepublic?
First of all, "someone like that" -- this panhandling woman -- has made her own choices in life and is suffering consequences of her own making.
Second, there are countless food pantries, soup kitchens, shelters, etc. that are funded through largely private donations. Organizations that are funded through mostly private funds...perhaps some of it from the 1%, but most of it from donations by individuals and families with far less income. Can they help everyone? No, but they can help some, and that's what we do.
Who exactly, are you thinking of that "controls 80 billion in assets?" How many of these people do we have around? What is it you would like them to do with their money? How much do we have to spend, per person, to address this misery in our country?
Capitalism is the only kind of economic system that can provide the kind of regular flow of funds to give any sort of care to those less fortunate. If you start tweaking on it, thinking that you're "doing it to benefit the less fortunate," it becomes less like capitalism and more like socialism or communism.
her issues are largely self inflicted.
Not every case is the same. We have plenty of homeless who just couldn’t cope. Maybe they made a bad decision (as opposed to one after another) but the thought of hanging someone out to dry for a wrong turn , not a felony, seems un American.
I agree with Doug. The system may be the best but it isn’t one size fits all.
Yes, genius. I am really Bernie Sanders who has been here since 1996. I fooled you all.
At what point is it a problem to address? Why should monopolies be a problem? Why can’t Jeff Bezos own every TV station, every radio station, every newspaper, and the internet for him to censor? He worked hard to be able to acquire all of them.
MILTON FRIEDMAN: Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated — a system of checks and balances.
Are you paying attention to the political power of those who can influence people and censor what is in Facebook, Twitter, and the Washington Post? When just a very few have almost all of the resources, they have all of the political power to make everyone their slaves.
I have been an entrepreneur all of my life. I don’t have an answer for those who are too lazy to work. They deserve little sympathy if they are able bodied and just refuse to work. Friedman recognized the power to coerce. We are seeing it, not from hard working businessmen who earn a very good living and provide the jobs. They deserve to keep most of what they earn. We are seeing the power to coerce from the ultra wealthy one-worlders -— Soros, et al. They are the oligarchy, folks.
Unless it was obtained dishonestly, it's none of our business how much they earn/own/control.
Doug ain't one of them...maybe just a little overcompassionate.
This article sheds light on a cultural aspect of life in San Francisco. But you seem to be searching for something else, some deeper explanation. It may just be one of human nature--when given the opportunity to make money (a living, a way of life) by NOT working, some people will choose the easy path.
Not blaming it for this woman’s plight. Part of the problem is the assault on Christianity and the churches that have always helped people in need.
I am just making an observation that the ability of a few oligarchs to control our lives is disturbing. Twitter censors. Facebook censors. The WashPost puts out crap by the richest guy in world. Soros is using his money and power to try to destroy our country.
Some of you misunderstand and think this entrepreneur is calling for the destruction of capitalism. That is not the case. I raised the issue of monopolies. In pure capitalism, why shouldn’t Bezos be allowed to own every method of communication if he can afford it? Why can’t he own the entire internet and censor what he wants to censor. Because that is certainly not in the public interest. And not in the interest of our freedom. Again, I don’t have the answer. I’m just raising an issue that concerns me.
Top 1% have adjusted gross income of under half a mil. I hope it is clear that I am not talking about that group. I’m not one of the crazies.
If Target carried my size. I shop Haband.
I am not suggesting that the woman is not deserving of charity. But if she is mentally ill then the baby should be in foster care while she seeks treatment. If she is incapable of working due to pain then she is probably incapable of properly caring for the child because that’s a demanding full time job (or so I’m told by my wife).
San Francisco spends $250 million (yes >$41k per person -that’s not a typo) on homeless services every year, with a special priority for families. So there is no reason for her to be begging on the street with an infant. The child should be in daycare while she is training for a job (all the coffee places have openings and they seem to favor baristas with tats, piercings, etc.). She chooses not to work and to use the child as a prop. It’s wrong and not in anyone’s best interests.
I’m sorry, but for His grace I might be jobless and broke, but I would never be begging on the streets with an infant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.