Law Oklahoma Senator's War on the homeless:

cooks1 said:
IF OKC and Tulsa have an abundance of underutilized resources for the homeless, it would certainly make sense to divert homeless to there. But there has not been any evidence presented in this thread that's the case. I'm no expert on Tulsa and OKC- but they would be rare cities indeed if they had surplus resources for homeless. Generally larger cities are even more stretched for resources than smaller ones.

And why should things have to be burdens on society to be done in the most efficient manner? If there are an abundance of people ready to stick their fingers up asses in OKC and not enough asses for them to check, surely it would be most efficient to bus those people to OKC for their fingerbangin.
Click to expand...
Your 3/4 virtue will kill us all.
 
What about religious institutions like Christian charities that donate food, etc.? how they will regulate them?
 
Natural Order said:
Absolutely. If you're unable to manage your own direction and require serious government assistance, to some degree they should be able to dictate the terms of assistance (within humane requirements of course - none of what I'm suggesting is even close to inhumane you fucking dolt)

Same with people collecting pogie/welfare/ei whatever the fuck you call it....guess what? There's work to be done around the city or town and you'll earn every dollar while you're an able bodied, work age human being.

You're a delusional can with no idea on how to do things efficiently....and retort from a nonsensical moral position that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Guy who thinks rural homeless people can just magically appear in a City to get access to resources calls ME a dolt.

A blanket ban on literall all but 2 Cities in a State from using their own land for ANY homeless outreach is not efficiency.
 
Sinister said:
Guy who thinks rural homeless people can just magically appear in a City to get access to resources calls ME a dolt.

A blanket ban on literall all but 2 Cities in a State from using their own land for ANY homeless outreach is not efficiency.
Click to expand...
You guys bus people all over. Is this the stone age?
 
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize that all states should have a geographically central city made and fueled by federal tax dollars
<{Heymansnicker}>
that supports the entirety of the welfare class. Everybody living off of it should have to move there.


All funding should be devoted to these centralized megacomplexes in major cities that are easily maintained and monitored. People would clearly be free to set foot wherever they may replant in society. They can gain skills needed for employment, additional skills, real life skills about banking, saving, etc.

These guys are sidestepping the fact that the services can still be adequately provided, but much more efficiently than their one-dimensional brains can fathom.
 
Wow, this seems like a dick move, however, most shelters are privately run and not run by the government. I did homeless outreach for years when I was in the pd, but now, I feel that the homeless situation has gotten so out of hand it’s ridiculous. My city has made it illegal to exchange items between vehicles and pedestrians which criminalizes panhandling at stop lights. Advocates have called it a war on the “unhoused.”
 
wonder how many transients are going to die in those red states because of these new policies from the self-proclaimed pro-life party? many of them will be veterans too, not like they'd actually give two shits.
 
Hdfi said:
What about religious institutions like Christian charities that donate food, etc.? how they will regulate them?
Click to expand...
- My experience is that leftists usually hate Christians, but Christians Churchs usually are the ones that help homeless more.
 
Natural Order said:
Imagine ever supporting the $$$ to Ukraine while simultaneously complaining about the lack of funding at home. You're not in that camp, are you @Sinister?

That's right. The county would shuttle them to the centers in the city where their needs would be met. You feelin'?

Driver's licenses and rectal exams are not burdens on society. What an inept analogy.
Click to expand...
- Ukraine is a money laudring scheme costing civilians lives!

How America’s Aid to Ukraine Actually Works​

Anastasiia Lapatina
Tuesday, July 16, 2024, 1:00 PM

Only a small percentage of the overall aid package takes the form of cash transfers to Kyiv; the vast majority goes right back into the U.S. economy.

It’s been nearly three months since President Biden signed the long-delayed and much-awaited Ukraine supplemental appropriations act, which allocated $62 billion to help Ukraine fight off the Russian full-scale invasion.

So why, six military aid packages later, has U.S. assistance failed to make a meaningful difference on Ukraine’s frontlines? Why have Russian forces continued to advance despite billions of dollars’ worth of promised military spending?

The reason is that after Congress finally acted, aid delivery has been proceeding slowly—at least, too slowly by Ukrainian lights. “The United States gives us too little to even stop Russia from advancing,” Ukrainian military analyst Ivan Kyrychevskyi said in an interview. Karolina Hird, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, sees this as a problem of both scale and speed. “Western aid is not yet necessarily arriving at the scale necessary for Ukrainian forces to fully turn the tide,” she added.

There’s also a third problem: the type of assistance. The last six aid packages, all made possible by the supplemental appropriations act, included many shells and air defense munitions but not enough long-range capabilities.

To be sure, the aid has made some difference. Months before the long-awaited supplemental funding was passed, when Ukraine was facing a serious shortage of interceptors for its air defense systems, the Kremlin began capitalizing on the mayhem in Congress. Russia targeted Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure, severely damaging the country’s largest hydroelectric power plant and destroying nearly all of the energy infrastructure in the city of Kharkiv, as well as other power plants around the country. Every assistance package passed since April has included air defense munitions to patch up this vulnerability, as Ukraine rushes to repair its energy grid.

And some analysts, including Hird, say American deliveries helped Ukraine stabilize the front, especially in northern Kharkiv Oblast, where Russians launched a short-lived but costly offensive in early May.

Yet Ukrainian analysts and officials are careful about drawing such connections, saying that Ukraine hasn’t yet received enough aid to see a decisive difference on the front line.

“You can’t really say that Russians stopped [in the Kharkiv area] because they were met with intense fire,” said Kyrychevskyi.

Responding to a request for comment, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense emphasized the country’s acute need for high-precision and long-range weapons to hit Russian airfields and weapons caches inside Russia.

“Our artillery units are getting more ammunition,” the statement concedes. “But the number of shells provided to us by our Western allies is not yet sufficient to satiate all areas of the front, and the Russian army still prevails in terms of artillery fire intensity.” The full statement is available here. A translation into English is available here.

Ukrainian calls for more aid might sound never-ending, but there is a big misconception about how much aid Ukraine truly needs, one Ukrainian defense official told me on condition of anonymity.

“They pledge to give us a million shells and announce it like it’s a huge deal. Meanwhile Russia sometimes spends that many shells in a number of weeks,” the official said.

There are actually a lot of misconceptions about the way U.S. security and financial assistance to Ukraine work.

Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the U.S. has poured tens of billions of dollars into the country’s attempt to survive. For many American voters and commentators, Ukraine aid headlines may evoke images of planes delivering palettes of cash to Kyiv, but this isn’t how the system works.

In reality, only a small percentage of the overall aid package takes the form of cash transfers to Kyiv; the vast majority goes right back into the U.S. economy through several federal government mechanisms.

One of the main mechanisms through which the U.S. provides security assistance to Ukraine is the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI)—a funding program led by the Department of Defense. Aimed at bolstering Ukraine’s armed forces, USAI provides funds for training and advising of Ukrainian military personnel, as well as for procurement of weapons. Nearly $32 billion has been allocated to USAI in three years of Russia’s all-out war.

The State Department’s Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program is a similar tool, yet its focus is not only on Ukraine but, rather, U.S. foreign policy goals more broadly. FMF helps American allies like Ukraine buy weapons specifically from U.S. manufacturers, supporting U.S. international interests and its military-industrial complex. FMF funding is not transferred to the recipient and is executed by American government agencies. Congress has allocated roughly $6.3 billion to this program for Ukraine security purposes since 2022.

And then there is the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), which allows the president to authorize the provision of weapons or services from Defense Department stockpiles to partners. This mechanism provides almost immediate help to allies in emergencies, with assistance sometimes arriving within days of presidential approval. Between August 2021 and April 2024, the State Department used PDA 44 times, providing Ukraine with military assistance worth $23.8 billion.

The U.S. also sends direct financial assistance to the Ukrainian government through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The majority of USAID funds fill up Ukraine’s budget and keep the country’s government running by paying salaries to state employees. A fraction of those funds address humanitarian projects of one sort or another.

The State Department also supports development initiatives in Ukraine through its Economic Support Funds and provides aid to Ukrainian refugees.

Taken together, these tools form the almost continuous flow of security and financial assistance to Ukraine.

The administration gets money for all these programs mainly through supplemental funding requests to Congress. Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Congress has approved five Ukraine supplemental appropriation acts, worth a total worth of $174.2 billion.

But that figure can be misleading. Importantly, every supplemental includes many more dollars than end up directly in Ukraine. Things that also fall under the umbrella of “Ukraine aid” include the financing of increased U.S. military presence in Europe, intelligence operations vis-a-vis Ukraine and Russia, support of European states that have also been affected by Russia’s war, and every other activity in any way related to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The majority of weapons and munitions the U.S. government has sent to Ukraine are pulled from America’s own stockpiles using presidential drawdowns, since this program allows for the quickest delivery. The supplementals then provide the Pentagon with funding to replenish those stockpiles, which it does primarily through the military contractors that build weapons for the U.S. military.

For example, the fifth supplemental covers the costs of the latest assistance package by giving money to the Pentagon to replenish its inventories of the air defense interceptors and artillery shells provided to Ukraine in April. The supplemental will also cover similar assistance packages this upcoming year.

The $62 billion package, however, does nothing to lift some of the key limitations placed on the use and supply of certain American weapons to Ukraine.

For example, to much frustration in Kyiv, Ukraine is still not allowed to use its longest-range weapons, like the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), against military targets far away inside Russia. A recent relaxation of this policy allows Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to target forces inside of Russia who are actively targeting the Kharkiv area, but the general restrictions remain in place.

The package also doesn’t specifically pledge to provide the longest-range missiles the U.S. has; these are needed if Ukraine is to destroy Russian weapons caches and bases deep inside Russia that are being used to attack Ukrainian cities.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/how-america-s-aid-to-ukraine-actually-works
 
This is very sad.

How many of you have 6 months saved up in savings? If not, you could be one major illness away from being homeless.
 
Reading the bill

No municipality with under 300,000 people may provide programs or housing to homeless.

It’s two pages guys. You can read it. I promise.
 
The government shouldn’t be allowed to tell cities they can’t build shelters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hog-train
Social New York Opening a $65 Million Dollar Homeless Shelter for Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming People
7 8 9
Replies
170
Views
6K
ermac88
ermac88

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,756
Messages
58,315,856
Members
175,999
Latest member
Rosabelot

Share this page

Back
Top