Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 285 posts

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#241

Post by sien »

edavis wrote: post #137
mabbo wrote: post #42

The 'Housing First' model was really pushed hard by Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. It was weird because he is such a staunch right-wing kind of guy, yet here he was putting money towards what seems like a very left-wing socialist idea. But he, like Lloyd Pendleton in this article, apparently figured out that it saves a lot of money, ideology be damned. Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing…

> Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing politicians to agree to some left-wing ideals: prove that it will save money and let them lower taxes. I think this is a fine approach for the left to take, as long as the moral foundation is never sacrificed. In other words, it should always be "we should do this because it's the right/moral/dignified thing to do (and if it saves money too, great)" rather than "…

Walter Lippmann famously said that “the goal of politics is not to get people to think alike. The goal of politics is to get people who think differently to act alike”.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#242

Post by ende »

mabbo wrote: post #42

The 'Housing First' model was really pushed hard by Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. It was weird because he is such a staunch right-wing kind of guy, yet here he was putting money towards what seems like a very left-wing socialist idea. But he, like Lloyd Pendleton in this article, apparently figured out that it saves a lot of money, ideology be damned. Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing…

Maybe if you define 'right wing' and 'left wing' as just being against/for public spending. That's very specific to a very narrow characterizatuon of the American political spectrum, but is hardly appliacable to the political spectrums of nearly every other country.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#243

Post by ende »

ergothus wrote: post #170
Consultant32452 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without government intervention it would be harder for mega corporations to exist in the first place. The broadest example is how insane our patent and copyright laws are right now. I do support monopoly laws and think we don't drop that hammer nearly enough.

I'm not quite sure I follow...You're saying the govt should break up monopolies more (I agree), but without the govt we'd have fewer monopolies? So far as I know, pure free-market capitalism always tends towards monopolies or oligarchies absent some level of intervention. It is simply too hard to be a well-informed consumer, and we consumers prioritize our short term convenience over societies (or even just our own)…

"So far as I know, pure free-market capitalism always tends towards monopolies or oligarchies absent some level of intervention."

Where do you get that idea from? Nearly every monopoly is the product of government bestowed privilege.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#244

Post by rukuu001 »

mabbo wrote: post #42

The 'Housing First' model was really pushed hard by Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. It was weird because he is such a staunch right-wing kind of guy, yet here he was putting money towards what seems like a very left-wing socialist idea. But he, like Lloyd Pendleton in this article, apparently figured out that it saves a lot of money, ideology be damned. Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing…

> Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing politicians to agree to some left-wing ideals: prove that it will save money and let them lower taxes.

It's not the politicians we need to convince, it's the people who vote for them.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#245

Post by toast0 »

ergothus wrote: post #181
Jach wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even a fear: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21... (and https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/economic/conf/gr... ) The overwhelming majority of prime-age men on welfare spend most of their time on consuming multimedia, doped up on pain medication like Oxycontin. As beautiful as I personally find the ideal of letting people be free from economic concern beyond their basics (if…

...and yet when there was mandatory drug testing it showed a drug use rate lower than the general population. How do you reconcile those contrasting data points? (honest question, not a troll)

Devils advocate: If you're getting paid to do drugs and watch movies, don't you think you can find someone's clean pee?

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#247

Post by Mz »

ergothus wrote: post #181
Jach wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even a fear: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21... (and https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/economic/conf/gr... ) The overwhelming majority of prime-age men on welfare spend most of their time on consuming multimedia, doped up on pain medication like Oxycontin. As beautiful as I personally find the ideal of letting people be free from economic concern beyond their basics (if…

...and yet when there was mandatory drug testing it showed a drug use rate lower than the general population. How do you reconcile those contrasting data points? (honest question, not a troll)

Someone I was once friends with had been a drug addict while in the military, where they do random drug tests and throw you out if you fail, basically. I asked how to beat the drug test if I needed to, as I had been unwillingly exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke while job hunting. He assured me it would not matter, as secondhand smoke would not show up on the test, then gave me detailed instructions on how to beat the test "even if you are so high you have trouble peeing in the cup."

So, maybe don't believe all test results.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#248

Post by tracker1 »

ergothus wrote: post #62
mabbo wrote: post #42

The 'Housing First' model was really pushed hard by Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. It was weird because he is such a staunch right-wing kind of guy, yet here he was putting money towards what seems like a very left-wing socialist idea. But he, like Lloyd Pendleton in this article, apparently figured out that it saves a lot of money, ideology be damned. Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing…

> Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing politicians to agree to some left-wing ideals: prove that it will save money and let them lower taxes. I've certainly heard this argument from the (few) libertarian sources that are considering basic income. They are opposed to "entitlement" programs, but see a (theoretically) cheaper entitlement program as better than an expensive one. (Perhaps they also think t…

As a pragmatic libertarian, that's where I stand.. it likely wouldn't cost much more, but would eliminate a LOT of other programs and agencies, and reduce/eliminate classes of subsidies and complex legislation for a simple, universal system that people aren't able to abuse (short of non-citizens, arguably claiming benefits)

We definitely don't need more tax enforcers, or more taxes... better spending, and simpler tax structures are needed much more.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#249

Post by douche »

tracker1 wrote: post #248
ergothus wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing politicians to agree to some left-wing ideals: prove that it will save money and let them lower taxes. I've certainly heard this argument from the (few) libertarian sources that are considering basic income. They are opposed to "entitlement" programs, but see a (theoretically) cheaper entitlement program as better than an expensive one. (Perhaps they also think t…

As a pragmatic libertarian, that's where I stand.. it likely wouldn't cost much more, but would eliminate a LOT of other programs and agencies, and reduce/eliminate classes of subsidies and complex legislation for a simple, universal system that people aren't able to abuse (short of non-citizens, arguably claiming benefits) We definitely don't need more tax enforcers, or more taxes... better spending, and simpler tax…

Judt think of all the useless civil servants you would be putting out of work!

That woul take a serious chunk out of the budget though.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#250

Post by phil21 »

ergothus wrote: post #94
danielweber wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The politicians likely remember the scandal from the 1980s of Regular Joes being torn apart by aggressive IRS agents. Saying "hiring more IRS agents brings in more money than they cost" is incredibly gauche to anyone who remembers it.

But bankrupting your govt because some people aren't paying their share is self-defeating. I'm all for oversight to limit the corruption of power, but trying NOT to give power to anyone will just accept that power falls to those that are ruthless and abusive to take it regardless. In this case, those same Regular Joes are getting the short end of the stick because the govt cuts programs to benefit them because wealth…

> And targeting "regular joes" is a terrible way to make money. The vast majority of govt income comes from the wealthy, in particular because wealth distribution is so unbalanced.

And therein lies the problem. You can hire 10,000 "regular Joe" agents to go after "regular Joe" offenders and make far less than if you could somehow successfully hire 100 genius agents to go after the top 100 suspected cases.

The issue lies in the fact that most people simply are not capable of going toe to toe with some of the best legal tax frameworks money can buy, and so like with all law enforcement the "hard" targets tend to get largely ignored while the soft targets are exploited mercilessly.

That's all I see an IRS hiring program doing - bringing the hammer down on people for rather trivial things, while continuing to ignore the elephant in the room simply due human nature being what it is. They want to show wins, not 6 years on the same 3 billion dollar case.

Post reply on HN