Bloomberg worries about homeless shelters being used by private jet owners.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bloomberg-worried-about-private-jet-owners-using-new-york-city-homeless-shelters_706686.html

The Mayor of New York stated on the radio that the law allows anyone, from the poorest hobos to millionaires with private jets.

"You can arrive in your private jet at Kennedy Airport, take a private limousine and go straight to the shelter system, walk in the door, and we've got to give you shelter."

Yeah...

Now, I think this article is bending Bloomberg's opinion somewhat. I cannot find clips of the full interview or radio appearance, but I am hoping this is a "why is this even possible?" discussion rather than a "Private jet owners are CLOGGING THE HOMELESS SHELTERS!"

Although, still, even in the case of the former, I still am baffled by this. Name me one logical reason why a person who can afford a private jet, a limousine in New York, and then spend his night in a very cramped place with people who last took showers n the 60's. The only one I can think of is some kind of "learn how the other side lives" kind of deal, but that in of it self is rare beyond measure. The rich guy in question would normally inform somebody in the shelter system that they were coming and give money to everybody as part of some self promotional deal or something.

If the article isn't overstating a single thing about the intended message of this statement... well, even I didn't think anyone in government is that stupid.

So, do you think this is even an issue that should be dealt with? Should shelters discriminate if a person is obviously wealthy?

Not G. Ivingname:
snip

Well I wouldn't put it past a few dicks to clog shelters on purpose or use it as a "free, temporary motel" just to... Be dicks.

Sort of like how Roman fines were never adjusted for inflation so towards the end of the empire there were a few rich people going around punching citizens in the face because the "assault fine" was incredibly inexpensive.

Witty Name Here:

Not G. Ivingname:
snip

Well I wouldn't put it past a few dicks to clog shelters on purpose or use it as a "free, temporary motel" just to... Be dicks.

Sort of like how Roman fines were never adjusted for inflation so towards the end of the empire there were a few rich people going around punching citizens in the face because the "assault fine" was incredibly inexpensive.

True, although there is a difference between "punching someone in the face for the LOLS" and "sleeping on a pee stained mattress next to a guy who thinks he is Sparticus and can turn invisible."

Well, nowhere in the quotes does Bloomberg state he's worried about it (very misleading title for the article). He just states that's how it works. And what probably worries him is that considering anyone can use these shelters people who are not in need of them but are extremely cheap may use them.

Not G. Ivingname:

Witty Name Here:

Not G. Ivingname:
snip

Well I wouldn't put it past a few dicks to clog shelters on purpose or use it as a "free, temporary motel" just to... Be dicks.

Sort of like how Roman fines were never adjusted for inflation so towards the end of the empire there were a few rich people going around punching citizens in the face because the "assault fine" was incredibly inexpensive.

True, although there is a difference between "punching someone in the face for the LOLS" and "sleeping on a pee stained mattress next to a guy who thinks he is Sparticus and can turn invisible."

Well some people go to great lengths over incredibly petty things. Like that woman who tried to run over her husband for not voting in the elections.

Obviously the only thing to do is give the super-rich more money so they won't feel the need to go to homeless shelters.

WTF?

Seriously, that's the only response. This is as much of a problem as private jet owners digging through the trash. If you're that fucking cheap, whatever, sleep on the dirty cot ya prick.

I think what he meant was it doesn't matter who you are, from a man with nothing to a man with everything, if you arrive at a shelter and ask for a bed they will give you one if they have room. Maybe as a kind of message to recently homeless who think shelters are for people who have been living on the street and are a lot worse off than them.

Methinks there's been some serious spin to add a 'Bloomberg is anti-rich, says they steal shelter beds from the poor' slant to the story.

Overhead:
Obviously the only thing to do is give the super-rich more money so they won't feel the need to go to homeless shelters.

Obviously the clearest head in the room! Shit! Why haven't you run for mayor of New York?

Even better we need you as president!

(But seriously bro, I think I'm falling in love with you)

Overhead:
Obviously the only thing to do is give the super-rich more money so they won't feel the need to go to homeless shelters.

No, close all the homeless shelters, that way the rich would be able to stay there.

Not G. Ivingname:
True, although there is a difference between "punching someone in the face for the LOLS" and "sleeping on a pee stained mattress next to a guy who thinks he is Sparticus and can turn invisible."

I think you're mistaking a homeless shelter for a cartoony version of a 1930's mental institution.

HardkorSB:

Not G. Ivingname:
True, although there is a difference between "punching someone in the face for the LOLS" and "sleeping on a pee stained mattress next to a guy who thinks he is Sparticus and can turn invisible."

I think you're mistaking a homeless shelter for a cartoony version of a 1930's mental institution.

I am mostly joking.

Still, no homeless shelter in the world is going to be nicer than the hotel rooms in New York a person that can own a private jet can get.

Not G. Ivingname:

HardkorSB:

Not G. Ivingname:
True, although there is a difference between "punching someone in the face for the LOLS" and "sleeping on a pee stained mattress next to a guy who thinks he is Sparticus and can turn invisible."

I think you're mistaking a homeless shelter for a cartoony version of a 1930's mental institution.

I am mostly joking.

Still, no homeless shelter in the world is going to be nicer than the hotel rooms in New York a person that can own a private jet can get.

I think that Bloomberg thinks that NY is spending too much money on shelters so he wants to introduce some law to get financial background checks on people before giving them a place to sleep. Less people in shelters, less money spent (sure, the money would be spent on background checking but that's creating jobs for people and the money wouldn't be wasted on these filthy peasants that don't even contribute to the economy - and maybe I'm exaggerating here but that's how politicians and rich people think, and Bloomberg is both).

Karma168:
I think what he meant was it doesn't matter who you are, from a man with nothing to a man with everything, if you arrive at a shelter and ask for a bed they will give you one if they have room. Maybe as a kind of message to recently homeless who think shelters are for people who have been living on the street and are a lot worse off than them.

Methinks there's been some serious spin to add a 'Bloomberg is anti-rich, says they steal shelter beds from the poor' slant to the story.

generals3:
Well, nowhere in the quotes does Bloomberg state he's worried about it (very misleading title for the article). He just states that's how it works. And what probably worries him is that considering anyone can use these shelters people who are not in need of them but are extremely cheap may use them.

Possibly, although there was another quoted thing I forgot to mention.

"That's what the law is. I didn't write the law."

Of course, that might be talking about an entirely different law discussed on the show, and quoted to make it seem like he doesn't support the la. Again, unsure as of now, still haven't found some recording of the actual discussion.

Still, if it is relevant, still does not sound like he supports this affair.

HardkorSB:

Not G. Ivingname:

HardkorSB:

I think you're mistaking a homeless shelter for a cartoony version of a 1930's mental institution.

I am mostly joking.

Still, no homeless shelter in the world is going to be nicer than the hotel rooms in New York a person that can own a private jet can get.

I think that Bloomberg thinks that NY is spending too much money on shelters so he wants to introduce some law to get financial background checks on people before giving them a place to sleep. Less people in shelters, less money spent (sure, the money would be spent on background checking but that's creating jobs for people and the money wouldn't be wasted on these filthy peasants that don't even contribute to the economy - and maybe I'm exaggerating here but that's how politicians and rich people think, and Bloomberg is both).

Seems likely.

For some reason, many people get very annoyed by people fraudulently using welfare services, and would rather much more money is spent making sure this doesn't happen than the actual costs involved. People complain about dole bludgers much more than inefficeincy and waste, no matter which is costing the system more.

Not G. Ivingname:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bloomberg-worried-about-private-jet-owners-using-new-york-city-homeless-shelters_706686.html

The Mayor of New York stated on the radio that the law allows anyone, from the poorest hobos to millionaires with private jets.

"You can arrive in your private jet at Kennedy Airport, take a private limousine and go straight to the shelter system, walk in the door, and we've got to give you shelter."

Yeah...

Now, I think this article is bending Bloomberg's opinion somewhat. I cannot find clips of the full interview or radio appearance, but I am hoping this is a "why is this even possible?" discussion rather than a "Private jet owners are CLOGGING THE HOMELESS SHELTERS!"

Although, still, even in the case of the former, I still am baffled by this. Name me one logical reason why a person who can afford a private jet, a limousine in New York, and then spend his night in a very cramped place with people who last took showers n the 60's. The only one I can think of is some kind of "learn how the other side lives" kind of deal, but that in of it self is rare beyond measure. The rich guy in question would normally inform somebody in the shelter system that they were coming and give money to everybody as part of some self promotional deal or something.

If the article isn't overstating a single thing about the intended message of this statement... well, even I didn't think anyone in government is that stupid.

So, do you think this is even an issue that should be dealt with? Should shelters discriminate if a person is obviously wealthy?

It's a non question and one certainly not worth taking money out of already struggling programs for the poor to 'combat' because I bet the number of times this would happen could be very easily and safely rounded to 0% of the time.

It's another conservative Bloomberg style scare tactic to spread thin money for the poor on combating a crime that basically never happens, so that both the politician can feel like they're being useful or like they give a shit about contemporary problems while not actively doing anything, and it has the double pleasure of making those solutions to those problems work less effectively so they can drum up support for dismantling them in the future. No easier way to claim the government is incapable of doing anything than by making it incapable of doing anything by spending what little cash they do have to do something chasing phantom crimes, after all.

This sort of non-solution doesn't surprise me coming from Mayor Bloomberg. This seems like his cup of tea, and isn't a lot different than his 'We'll solve wage equality and food insecurity and the resulting obesity it produces by banning foods!' sort of non-solution by reducing a large complex problem to the stupidest knee-jerk reaction possible, pretending that said solution is proof you give a shit about said problem, then using the non-solution as an excuse to prove that nothing can be done about the problem as another excuse to shift the monetary burdens in his city even more on the backs of the middle class and poor.

In the end it's 'possible' because the money needed to fight such a retarded fraud that absolutely certainly never happens isn't worth the money saved by keeping the 0% of no rich executives who stay in homeless shelters out of them.

WouldYouKindly:
WTF?

Seriously, that's the only response. This is as much of a problem as private jet owners digging through the trash. If you're that fucking cheap, whatever, sleep on the dirty cot ya prick.

The problem here is that Bloomberg thinks that allocating the money that reduces probably 10,000 said cots genuinely used by the homeless is worth it to keep all 0 rich people who sleep in homeless shelters out.

thaluikhain:

Seems likely.

For some reason, many people get very annoyed by people fraudulently using welfare services, and would rather much more money is spent making sure this doesn't happen than the actual costs involved. People complain about dole bludgers much more than inefficeincy and waste, no matter which is costing the system more.

That's why it grinds my shit that the myth that right-wingers are 'fiscally conservative' or 'fiscally responsible' is prevalent because it's the largest scam in modern history.

Nobody who is actually fiscally responsible or conservative would spend a billion dollars on a thousand dollar problem. If Bloomberg was actually fiscally responsible he wouldn't waste time on such obvious horse shit concerns. Bloomberg's concerns here aren't about being fiscally responsible, it's about putting the vice on the poor and homeless because "Lol, fuck those guys".

It would be like running a bar and saying we're going to cut waste by enforcing that nobody will ever spill a drink again, then setting up a million dollar set up of pullies and nets that make everybody miserable so you can save 100 dollars then claiming you're more fiscally responsible than the guy that just put up with the occasional broken glass because you saved 100 dollars he didn't.

thaluikhain:

Overhead:
Obviously the only thing to do is give the super-rich more money so they won't feel the need to go to homeless shelters.

No, close all the homeless shelters, that way the rich would be able to stay there.

Damien Granz:
That's why it grinds my shit that the myth that right-wingers are 'fiscally conservative' or 'fiscally responsible' is prevalent because it's the largest scam in modern history.

Nobody who is actually fiscally responsible or conservative would spend a billion dollars on a thousand dollar problem. If Bloomberg was actually fiscally responsible he wouldn't waste time on such obvious horse shit concerns. Bloomberg's concerns here aren't about being fiscally responsible, it's about putting the vice on the poor and homeless because "Lol, fuck those guys".

It would be like running a bar and saying we're going to cut waste by enforcing that nobody will ever spill a drink again, then setting up a million dollar set up of pullies and nets that make everybody miserable so you can save 100 dollars then claiming you're more fiscally responsible than the guy that just put up with the occasional broken glass because you saved 100 dollars he didn't.

Seconded. "Conservative" is supposed to mean you stick to the tried and tested methods which have worked up till now, not making new things to suit your ideology.

I don't think Bloomberg is actually concerned about rich people chilling in homeless sheleters. Hyperbole is a bitch amirite? I think what hes trying to say is that currently there is nothing keeping people who just don't want to pay for a meal or a bed for a night to stay in a shelter, not jet owning business executives.

Shock and Awe:
I think what hes trying to say is that currently there is nothing keeping people who just don't want to pay for a meal or a bed for a night to stay in a shelter, not jet owning business executives.

Is anyone that desperate to avoid paying for a motel though? I just don't see this being a big enough problem that it needs to be addressed

Dryk:

Shock and Awe:
I think what hes trying to say is that currently there is nothing keeping people who just don't want to pay for a meal or a bed for a night to stay in a shelter, not jet owning business executives.

Is anyone that desperate to avoid paying for a motel though? I just don't see this being a big enough problem that it needs to be addressed

I'm not agreeing with the man, I don't know enough about NYC's shelters and their issues. I'm just trying to say that I don't think hes really talking about rich people.

Damnit, what's that line again? "The rich and the poor both have the same right to sleep under bridges"?

Not G. Ivingname:
Snip

If that's true, then I agree with him, which is odd,
as I normally don't agree with him, especially when
he's trying to create some kind of totalitarian state in New York.
All people should be able to access shelters,
that's what they're there for,
to give what they can to all who ask.

*apparently trying

When I saw the title I assumed that some rich guy in New York City was allowed to park his jet in a homeless shelter...

I think this mainly stems from the fact that if there were such measures in place, people would have to 'prove' that they were poor/homeless. How does one prove that? Also, what if someone who was previously wealthy suddenly became poor and homeless and needed a place to stay? It would certainly be absurd and intolerable if some millionaire, or anyone who had a home for that matter, attempted to stay in a homeless shelter. But my point still stands, how would one prove to be homeless?

I think his argument is not so much about the wealthy potentially (ab?)using these shelters and more about should the shelters be means tested. Which would be a bad thing, interrogating the homeless or making the fill out reams of paper work will drive them away. Many people are homeless for a myriad of reasons and not simply because of poverty, poverty plays a part but mental illness and fleeing from something (abusive spouses, debts and petty criminal offenses) can cause it and some people even choose to be homeless.

Sounds bizarre are but its true. I think Bloombergs comments are coming from the right place, he is concerned that the homeless shelters should only be for the homeless. If they let anyone in people really could use them as motels, people who are not homeless but poor might use them to grab a free meal and a place to sleep. Maybe they are travelling or maybe they cannot afford energy bills in the winter so they go to a shelter to keep warm, times can be hard and some people will grab whatever help they can sometimes. In those cases I might even be OK with them using it, better than someone dying at home in a bad winter because they cannot afford electric or gas to heat their home.

So yeah his comments are not stupid, he just chose to say millionaires could use them to illustrate his point that there are not controls to stop anyone from using them and taking resources and beds from those who really need it and maybe hiding dangerous criminals. Means testing or controls is not the answer though and will drive vulnerable people away from the shelters.

The shelters are a good thing in other ways too, they are often the first and only point of contact to homeless from support groups that try to help with drug addictions and mental health issues. I have read about some shelters around the US having doctors around and providing free anti psychotics, anti depressants and opiate antagonists to treat Heroin overdoses. They do good work and the resources they have must be focused on the people that need them.

J Tyran:
I think his argument is not so much about the wealthy potentially (ab?)using these shelters and more about should the shelters be means tested. Which would be a bad thing, interrogating the homeless or making the fill out reams of paper work will drive them away.

Of course, if homeless people stopped going to shelters, for whatever reason, well, no point continuing to spend money on them...

thaluikhain:

J Tyran:
I think his argument is not so much about the wealthy potentially (ab?)using these shelters and more about should the shelters be means tested. Which would be a bad thing, interrogating the homeless or making the fill out reams of paper work will drive them away.

Of course, if homeless people stopped going to shelters, for whatever reason, well, no point continuing to spend money on them...

There is that but its a little bit cynical, I do not think many politicians would really want that. At most he might want to save some money by attempting to ensure that only the homeless and most vulnerable use the shelter and no money or resources are wasted supporting those that have more means of helping themselves.

J Tyran:

thaluikhain:

J Tyran:
I think his argument is not so much about the wealthy potentially (ab?)using these shelters and more about should the shelters be means tested. Which would be a bad thing, interrogating the homeless or making the fill out reams of paper work will drive them away.

Of course, if homeless people stopped going to shelters, for whatever reason, well, no point continuing to spend money on them...

There is that but its a little bit cynical, I do not think many politicians would really want that. At most he might want to save some money by attempting to ensure that only the homeless and most vulnerable use the shelter and no money or resources are wasted supporting those that have more means of helping themselves.

Possibly yes. But then deliberately breaking something so you don't have to pay for it anymore isn't unknown either.

On the other hand, the law in its wisdom forbids both the rich and poor from sleeping under bridges.

I'm wondering if he was actually boasting: the facilities are there for anyone to use?

Damien Granz:

The problem here is that Bloomberg thinks that allocating the money that reduces probably 10,000 said cots genuinely used by the homeless is worth it to keep all 0 rich people who sleep in homeless shelters out.

Not entirely unlike cutting welfare over here in order to keep scroungers out.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked