http://www.nationalhomeless.org/fact.../How_Many.html

Couldn't find specific stats for Chicago but in 2003 19 people died of hypothermia in Chi-town but that included people with homes as well. Admittedly that would be an extraordinarily high number for murders in a day.

I do know approximately 1,000 people in the U.S. are struck by lightning per year so at least in America, your chances of getting struck by lightning are greater than dying of hypothermia due to being homeless or at risk of being homeless. Something to be proud of.

700 dead per year seems like a big number but knowing that represents less than one in ten thousand, especially when considering the mental state and chemical addictions of many of the homeless, makes me think we're doing a hell of a job caring for them.

And it's private charities not the government who are caring for these folks, with a fraction of the money. Because like any other business/activity the private sector performs far better than D.C. could even dream of.

:eek: Thanks, I think?

:D

In other words, when you said, "In Chicago there are more people murdered in a day than the homeless who die of hypothermia in a year" you were just making it up.

Yes, Dell. That's why all those folks are joining Occupy Wall Street. Because there are so many jobs, that the number of homeless are actually decreasing, not increasing as every organization thinks (as they run out of beds and food pantries out of food, and the number of mentally ill on the street increase, and a record number of people are on food stamps), and we are taking such good care of the starving and homeless in this country. According to you.

God knows how many more homeless were created between 2009 and 2011 due to foreclosures and unemployment.



ttp://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/3668

National Alliance to End Homelessness: State of Homelessness in America 2011

Geeshus effing cripes. God save this country from itself and it's blind ignorance.

No actually I was going on recollection and came pretty damn close.



What a couple thousand? Yea that's huge!

They got a couple hundred in Chicago. More people show up for a pee wee football game.



You're right God Save this country but from the people that allow this to occur. Like the piece of crap in the following story, it's time to grow up and stop the f'n whining. Want a job? Look in the want ads. Don't want to work? Starve. It may have saved this guy's woman.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak

Give credit where it's due:

In Jan 2005 the National Alliance to End Homelessness reported 744,313 and as of 2009 that number had decreased to 656,129 of which 61% were sheltered (403,308).

We shelter, feed, heat and support far more than that, including people here illegally, including extended members of the President's family. Instead of demanding more give praise to all we aready do. We are and always have been the most generous nation on earth, period! So again stop your whining!

I don't think the Invisible Honey Badger in the sky gives a $hit.

Yes, in your imagination.

Hey, "couple hundred" in Chicago, or a couple thousand, all the same in Dell's mind :D

Like those that want all the societal benefits of living in America, especially the freedom to complain about groups they don't like, but don't want to contribute a damn thing to the country?

There are no homeless, no unemployed, no uninsured: and if they are, it's entirely their own damn fault. Right Dell?

Evening news right now in Lexington Ch 27: a story about 1 in 5 people currently living in poverty in Lexington, KY, the amount of heating assistance available to the poor this winter has been decreased by over a million dollars, severe worry about increased deaths from hypothermia this winter because of all the poor people that will have to be kicked off heating assistance this winter.

But it's all their fault, and the churches will help them. "We" don't have to worry about those lazy folk.

Here's a new "Occupy" site for aggregating all news.

http://occupyitnews.org

OWS has over $400,000 in their bank account now, from donations. They purchase food daily, provide free medical care, and computer services, sleeping bags & blankets, and have websites. They hold daily general meetings. Have multiple committees working on items of interest to them. Also have downtown storage locker filled with donations.

Night before last, Occupy New York had to defend their medical tent (free health care for all Occupy residents in NY) in the middle of the night, from the police who showed up to try and take it down without warning.

Guess who happened to be there and stand in the way of the cops, joining arms with the protesters? (btw the cops went away and left the tent for now)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1...via=siderecent

Looks like Geraldo Rivera (twice) and Jon Stossel (once), both of GOP-TV Faux News, tried to go to Occupy Wall Street to interview protesters, but all three times they were hounded from the premises with chants of "Fox Lies!". Video all over the internet.

It's amazing how the mainstream media is completely not covering this story, but how much news is going on at Occupy locations nationwide (hundreds of locations) and internationally, that is being covered on YouTube, blogs, Twitter, Facebook,
etc.

And one of the coolest things was Saturday night in New York, in Times Square, that made the national news: a US Marine standing off against 25 riot police, talking them down for advancing upon peaceful protesters. The cops backed down (the cops had rammed motorcycles over barriers into crowds on the sidewalk, and pushed several horses into the crowd hurting peaceful demonstrators)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=WmEHcOc0Sys

Who opened a bank account? Seems counter-intuitive to the cause really. The "protestors" here are now negotiating with local officials for locations where they can be protected from the elements etc. This thing is beginning to trade in the street cred (what little it had) for some comfort.
A bank account? Seriously. While protesting banking.

Love it.

They are not "protesting banking". They are not against bank accounts - that's ridiculous.

They have a bank account (at a credit union, actually, not a bank), they have an independent 501C administering it, they have unions that have donated free office space to them.

They have a New York City public approval rating of over 60%, a national rate over 55% (including 2/3 of Republicans).

And, a NYC (correction, not mayor, Governor) that just admitted today he's going against what they demonstrated against Saturday, what 65% of his public think about the NY millionaires tax, and he is going ahead with rescinding it against what his city and state thinks and wants him to do with it (keep it in place)

Occupy Wall Street is gonna be around for a long time with responses to public demonstrations like that. When the people you elect say they won't do what you want them to .... ?

Wall St. is the home of the banking industry though. And while protesting banking is broad brush, it is certainly not false.
Office space and ready cash will lead to leaders emerging from the group, once this happens they will separate themselves from the rest and start their own little version of the big pyramid that is representative of the country and eventually it will fall apart.

Yes, it's entirely false. They are not protesting banking at all. You clearly haven't been paying any attention at all to this protest.

Only if they think like you do.

"We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%." Who are the 1%? I lived and worked in NYC and happen to know they are the people running banks. Believe what you want. 1% = Banking.

"We are growing change in the shadow of the wealth, greed, and thievery that is Wall Street"

Power corrupts, thinking otherwise is foolish.

From www.occupywallstreet.com

(other good info with blogs, pictures on Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, etc.)

Yes, that's not being anti-banking. It's being anti-corruption, anti-plutocracy. They want reinstitution of Glass-Steagall, control and regulation over unregulated derivatives markets, they want a tax of 0.1% on all trades (to slow down market volitility) and 0.01% tax on derivatives. They are not "anti-banking".

They are also not anti-government, but want 100% of the corruption and lobbyists out of Washington.

As long as banks are people (like corporations) they will be evil. Separation of corruption and lending is never going to happen. The acts are intertwined and always have been.

They also want a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

They think differently than you do. That is exactly what they are trying to change. You think it is inevitable - they do not.

You can continue to mock their efforts, or you can support them if you believe as they do: that corruption and lending have to be separated.

Add: The Daily Show, Jon Oliver, had a funny segment when he went down to visit Occupy Wall Street, regarding who "comprises" the "movement".

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...calvin-trillin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act


read up, on glass- steagall. of course you read quite often these days that republicans introduced legislation to repeal G/S, but you don't see many who mention it was clinton who signed it into law. actually, i didn't know who was president when it was repealed, til reading this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_201557.html


"Sooner or later, perhaps starting with the next serious economic downturn," he wrote, "the US will have to confront one of the great challenges of our times: how does a sovereign nation govern itself effectively when politics are national and business is global?"

Consumer protection advocate Ralph Nader, meanwhile, was far more succinct in his skepticism. "We will look back at this and wonder how the country was so asleep," he said at the time. "It's just a nightmare."

When the Senate voted to pass Gramm-Leach-Bliley by a vote of 90-8, it reversed what was, for more than six decades, a framework that had governed the functions and reach of the nation's largest banks. No longer limited by laws and regulations commercial and investment banks could now merge. Many had already begun the process, including, among others, J.P. Morgan and Citicorp. The new law allowed it to be permanent. The updated ground rules were low on oversight and heavy on risky ventures. Historically in the business of mortgages and credit cards, banks now would sell insurance and stock.

Nevertheless, the bill did not lack champions, many of whom declared that the original legislation -- forged during the Great Depression -- was both antiquated and cumbersome for the banking industry. Congress had tried 11 times to repeal Glass-Steagall. The twelfth was the charm.

"Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," said then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."

"I welcome this day as a day of success and triumph," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn.).

"The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown," said Sen. Bob Kerrey, (D-Neb.).

"If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive."

Looking back, members of Congress have tried to downplay the significance of their support. One high-ranking Hill aide notes that his boss, who voted for the bill, did so because banks were already beginning to merge with investment houses. It should be noted, additionally, that Dodd and Schumer were able to hammer out, as part of the legislation, the Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to extend lines of credit to predominantly minority areas.

The first minute of this video is very powerful and simplistic and perfectly explainatory, regarding financial regulation and "how we got here" as the US industrialized:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK1MOMKZ8BI

and this story explains even better 'how we got here'

an adult baby, fully able to work, living with a now deceased obese women, whining. WAAAAAAHHHHH

In a much larger sense we got here because of government programs not the ability or desire of Americans' to work. And to think SSI money this whining piglet was receiving comes out of the SS fund, that citizens pay into but were worried they wouldn't receive is disgraceful! Fully fund the SS reserve account with actual investments YESTERDAY!


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak

Sorry, no. SSI funds are paid, quoting your own article, "The funds are paid out of general taxpayer revenues, not from payroll taxes."

You really should read what you get angry about.

Grout Bags and Fabriform are made and sold by the Intrusion Prepakt Company.These are woven nylon containers into which specially formulated cement mixtures are pumped.

Their use is many fold and does include revetments as well as knee walls for bridge abutment protection by water.

Fabriform is also used as an erosion control method under bridges on the slopes at each end.It has a "waffle" appearance.

Perhaps some of you have seen them.

I had waffles last weekend but they were made by Eggo not Fabriform.

Girly....





Oh never mind.

SS funds are also paid out of general taxpayer revenues. As soon as payroll taxes get to the treasury they get marked down and thrown into the same pile. The treasury supposedly holds over a trillion and a half of IOU's in the name of SS and a short time ago was in danger of missing a payment? No this adult 'baby' is stealing from the country and you're predictably making excuses for him. :zz:

well done :tro:

exactly what is your point about nitpicking on this? either way, taxpayers are paying for this fellow to pretend to be a baby. exactly what is his disability?
whether thru payroll taxes, or general revenue, those of us working are supporting this guy. absolutely ridiculous.

edit-ssdi, from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...lity_Insurance

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD or SSDI) is a payroll tax-funded, federal insurance program of the United States government. It is managed by the Social Security Administration and is designed to provide income supplements to people who are physically restricted in their ability to be employed because of a notable disability, usually a physical disability. SSD can be supplied on either a temporary or permanent basis, usually directly correlated to whether the person's disability is temporary or permanent.

Unlike Supplemental Security Income (SSI), SSD does not depend on the income of the disabled individual receiving it. A "legitimately" (i.e. according to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and via other similar legal and medical backing) disabled person of any income level can theoretically receive SSD. Most SSI recipients are below an administratively-mandated income threshold, and indeed these individuals must in fact stay below that threshold to continue receiving SSI; but this is not the case with SSD.

Informal names for SSDI include Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Title II benefits, named for the chapter title of the governing section of the Social Security Act.

First, nice try, fail.

Secondly, no, I'm not "making excuses" for him, I even didn't comment on him. I commented only on you, and your inevitable disconnect from reality whenever trying to justify your self-rightous indignation about others you hate.

What does his being weird have to do with it? Let's make sure those that have weird fetishes don't get government benefits? That would put a dent in Congress, no?

A Senator asked for his benefits to be reviewed, and apparently the guy passed under that increased scruitiny (goodness knows how, but he did). Seeing that "acting like a baby" doesn't fall under the requirements to obtain SSI, and isn't anybody's business but his own, and his medical record can't be published, I doubt that's the reason he gets it.

And nitpicking matters. This guy isn't getting SSDI out of our payroll taxes, he's getting something out of a completely different fund.

Dell is screaming about funding the Social Security Trust fund, and using this an example - but this guy isn't getting any monies out of the Social Security Trust Fund.

If you guys want to play, "all funds are 100% fungible", that's a big stretch.

And perhaps you haven't.

like i said, what's his disability? i don't care if he's 'weird', but from reading the article, the fellow has woodworking skills.
and nitpicking doesn't matter when the gist is that the govt isn't exactly being good stewards of our money. people get that there are those who need help; it's when you see examples of waste and fraud that people get angry...and rightfully so. some of us feel like fools at times when we work our tails off, only to see people who are capable of earning living off the dole. and it happens, we all know it does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsJPKMvWDmY

This cracked me up. Interviewing the occupiers.

Well, they can't release his medical records, yet he survived a Senator-ordered, "We suspect you're gaming the system" review and still won, so :zz: But whatever it is, it must be 100% solid.

I was thinking about the woodworking thing .. in Finland (Denmark?) if you are unemployed, they pay you a stipend and the government will give you a no-interest loan so you can start your own business if you want. Unemployment practically non-existent there. But obviously a much smaller country, with narrower range of variety in how people think. Even if the crazy-baby guy has some skills and wanted to, there's no way, on SSI, he'd be able to afford to start making furniture to sell. He already lost his home. Shame that in America, the way to pull yourself up is to get a reality TV show.

he's a fucl<ing lunatic.. that's his disability.

how's he going to pull himself up when he wears pull ups?


Where's Charles Darwin when you need him?

Interested in everyones opinion on this...

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_new...nators-propose

It isn't the worst idea I have ever heard. No renting it out though. Would need to be occupied by the purchaser for a predetermined period. I also agree with the engineering degree etc grads getting to stay. MIT diploma = citizenship. Why let them leave.

It's not like there are US Citizens looking for a job or anything.

Or places to, you know, live.