So the state or federal government should just commondeer private property to give to the poor?
Not at all. One solution would be to make a deal with the owners to rent the houses. There are many houses, in some places blocks of empty homes. There are places where the empty homes have been taken over by rodents and other wild life causing major destruction. Low cost rent until the property is sold and the tenant has to move within, say, 3 months. The homeowner would benefit. The government would benefit from not having to pay market value as they do under Section 8 and, of course, the poor person would benefit.
I think it's important to distinguish between today's circumstances and the depression of the 30s. There were shortages in the 30s, the "dust bowl" conditions affecting food and high unemployment resulting in a shortage of material goods being made. Today, there is no shortage. High unemployment does not result in a shortage of goods as technology has replaced the need for employees. People are doing without not because of a shortage of homes and material goods and food but because of money. The dynamics have changed which means we, as a society, have to change. It is no longer necessary for 95 people to work in order to support 100. (5% unemployment) Maybe 80 people can support 100 people (20% unemployment) and things will be fine.
If there's no need for those 20 people to be working chances are there won't be jobs for them and as we progress the "problem" will only increase. I use the word "problem" but it's not really a problem. The whole idea of progress is to lighten mankind's load. Because money is required and some folks are terrified of the term "redistribution of wealth" the only solution is for the government to devise a plan where the unemployed do jobs beneficial to society as a whole and tax the wealthy so as to be able to give money to the excess workers. The marketplace can not sustain an advanced society in the sense jobs are determined by what society wishes to purchase.
As society becomes more and more automated the only option is some type of sharing.
Our government does give out Section 8 housing vouchers to the poor. Go look up a City called Lancaster, California and see how Section 8 vouchers have changed it.
(Excerpt) Lancaster is the fifth-largest city in Los Angeles County, California, and the ninth-fastest growing city in the United States.
With family income above the national average (average family income in Lancaster is $61,298), and housing prices below the state average (the median home price in Lancaster is $302,000), 70% of residents of Lancaster own their own homes.
Today, the city has over 600 acres (2.4 km2) of developed or planned parkland, including playground and picnic areas as well as tournament-level sports facilities….
For residents and visitors seeking a cultured evening out, the Lancaster Performing Arts Center provides a varied array of fine arts from community theatre productions to classical music and various forms of dance. It also draws celebrity performers from across the country and around the world, including renowned singers, dancers and musicians of all genres as well as comedians and variety shows….Lancaster's location in Southern California's high desert also offers easy access to a variety of outdoor activities year around.
The city has spearheaded the development of the Lancaster University Center to provide local students with a chance to receive a first-rate education in engineering and technology….California State University, Long Beach beginning in fall 2011 will now offering BS degrees in engineering (electrical and mechanical) at the LUC, ensuring students in the Antelope Valley will receive a first-rate education without leaving the area. (End)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster,_California
Not sure what your point is. Sounds like quite a nice place to live.
You're Canadian so it is not surprising to me you hold the views you do. You would prefer a more European welfare type society than the system we have in the U.S. You of course have every right to hold those beliefs but to me the proof is in the pudding for what America has achieved vs the others.
I suppose it depends on the definition of "achievement". Is it success to have the most food when some citizens are going hungry? Is it prosperity to have the biggest houses when some people are homeless? Is it victory to have the latest medical technology while 45,000 people are dying every year due to their inability to afford basic care?
<----------Dixie!
