Why does Major Bloomberg want to kill off the homeless?
 

I thought "his people" were all about helping our fellow man?


what's with the recent trend of banning feeding and donating to the homeless?

This way when the homeless are mobilized to vote, they'll remember who fed them.

Supposing that your premise is true (that Mayor Bloomberg does wish to kill the homeless) I would posit that his intentions would be to decrease the secondary costs associated with a large homeless population (unpaid ER bills, litter removal, shopping-cart theft) and to improve the quality of life for productive members of society, by reducing the amount of fecal material deposited in subway stations and on public sidewalks, removing obstructions to pedestrian traffic (homeless camped out on sidewalks and near the Metrocard vending machines), etc.

Putting aside any fanciful notions of morality (eg: eugenics is "evil") it sounds like a net positive for society, and as a person who spends a fair amount of time in Manhattan and would prefer an end to sleeping homeless folks taking up an entire row of seats on the train during rush hour, I'd support such a program.

so it's okay to sacrfice a few for many?

Yes. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

This the whole underlying concept of proxy warfare, progressive taxation, representative democracy, and Star Trek II.

Is it an urban legen that Bloomberg once offered one-way train and plane tickets to the homeless in an effort to allow them to voluntarily vacate NYC?

Apparently not:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/ny.../29oneway.html

The fear if an area has a 'social welfare program', either public or private that benefits the homeless, the knowledge of that will spread resulting in an influx of homeless to that area.
Cities/counties do not want to incur expenditure on services provided to those who do not pay taxes.
Makes it hard to balance the budget and be seen as a hero.
So it's easier just to make it someone else's problem.

Today, one cannot successfully run an election campaign on an 'increasing taxes' platform, even if it were the solution to our problems.

Btw: I include Joe's assessments of costs as 'services provided.'

Rabbit-trail: Our government was not originally intended to take care of all the social ills that inevitably come along with a society. It was assumed that 'the people' would address these problems (in an ethical manner) thus not burdening the 'gov't' and themselves further.

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

If we claim to genuinely embrace Liberty, then we are compelled to satisfy the obligations due it. Today, we are a nation concerned with approaching 'government' as the panacea for all ills. We see these obligations as personal hindrance and impediment.
When we ignore, or demand another to fulfill, our obligations, we relinquish that Liberty we hold so dear and thrust ourselves as indentured servants to an unpredictable master.

The burdens of Liberty are obligation and responsibility.
Only in Liberty is there true freedom,
Only in freedom is there choice.

Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he knew how much we've indebted ourselves to China; that is, if he hadn't expected us to be this way eventually.



The Canadians and Germans see what's happened...

Urban legend.

China owes an absolutely miniscule fraction of our overall debt, and only owns a minority of our foreign-held debt.

If they immediately dumped all of the U.S. debt at a massive loss to them, it wouldn't amount to much more than a blip in our financial system realistically. Plus, this makes no sense. Why would China dump our debt to take a massive loss, unless we assume they are willing to substantially hurt themselves in order to hurt us? Or are we assuming China is some kind of psychopath?

/Drive-by posting, gotta get back to work.

The point I was trying to make is we shouldn't have indebted ourselves to anyone.
Not trying to turn this into a 'China/US' thread, it's just the principles are the same whether internal or abroad.
Jefferson seems to expect this kind of behavior from human beings.
Opportunism is oppression.

What "power" do they have over us? In what way are we indebted to them, beyond them having the power to say "We won't buy your debt anymore!"

/I admit that I do wish for that last part to happen. It'd be a wonderful wakeup call to our politicians.

it's actually a clever way to deincentivize homeless from staying in NY. I'd be pissed if I couldn't get free bagels anymore. Ask Lars.

You do love you some bagels.

"Why does Major Bloomberg want to kill off the homeless?"

Why are you against it? If we process the carcasses correctly, we have a new source of protein for Meals on Wheels, too.

gotta make sure the FDA approves it first. or the EPA. or Wildlife preserve...

It's obviously a conspiracy against Brainy's bagels.

Ironically, the city had a plan last year to feed all of the Canada geese (which are routinely rounded up and executed en masse) to the homeless, but the plan stalled as "there was no regulator framework in place with which to do so."

Instead, all the NY geese get shipped to Pennsylvania, as they are able to process Geese for Bums.

In the long term, however, I'd posit that the time and money spent delivering and processing goose carcasses (as opposed to dumping them into the east river) exceeds what it would cost to simply slaughter all the homeless and be done with it (presupposing that habeas corpus is suspended for the purpose of same.)

What's this? NY supports boiled goose for bums?

IDK if you've noticed or not, but we've been in an 'economic' war with them for the last sixty years or so.
My 'China' comment was just an aside to express the lengths we'll go to in order to make our obligations/responsibilities 'someone else's problem.'
(Btw, my first post addresses your signature as well.)

Brain addressed my overstated point quite succinctly.

While this all seems to cast local governments as unfeeling or uncaring, there are even more insidious motivations afoot. But not by governing bodies.

The new trend is that duplicitous organizations will exploit the homeless by providing seemingly charitable acts in order to garner publicity for their own agenda, which usually has nothing to do with homelessness and everything with funding their cause..
These events are usually somewhat publicized ahead of time and are designed to be 'friendly' to local media. If they get arrested, even better. Martyrdom sells.

Organizations that have an actual interest in caring for those homeless are usually not seeking media coverage, and do so much more than one lunch or shoes. They are also usually closely working with or alongside local government and community leaders, while being funded by corporate and individual donations raised somewhat separately on their behalf.

Then there's the Soylent Corp solution...

Sixty years?

I could see past decade, maaaaayyybe past two. Three's right out, and four? Don't get me started. But six decades?

Bro, China was nothing but a pissant third world country no better than Somalia today 60 years ago (Granted, slight hyperbole, but not much here).

Where are you getting this stuff from? It completely baffles me.

It sounds an awful lot like you are hearing what someone else is telling you, and are taking it at face value without thinking about it. But that's just IMO.