Best
83 Comments
Post
  • #5
    !
    Wow...if this becomes a trend ...it will be more lucrative to be homeless than to work full time at WalMart...the homeless could just travel from place to place and collect their "pack up and leave" money...great way to see the country for free
  • #14
    !
    I never thought about that. It would be a very generous and indirect form of public assistance on top of the taxes for social assistance payments taxpayers already pay!
  • #28
    !
    When life has changed, and not for the better, society seems to wash their hands of them. So, if your tired of having homeless people where you live, get them an apartment and enough assistance to get back up. And yes, sometimes it won't work, but they are still fellow humans, and some we may need to carry.
  • #43
    !
    I was thinking the same thing, only that one doesn't need to actually be homeless to take advantage of it. Just camp out for awhile and pretend you're homeless; get paid to leave; profit.
  • #55
    !
    I'd camp out in the woods for a week for $3000 any day. Seriously though, these people don't need money, they need food, shelter, and help. Mental treatment and some sort of program would be a better way to get them off the streets.
  • R Load more replies

  • #10
    !
    Frankly, I would like to offer them a job, thus an opportunity to earn a lot more than $3000 (and even more so the opportunity to get off the streets).
  • #7
    !
    Nothing new here. The State of California, through it's welfare dept., paid a friend of mine an extra, one time lump sum if he'd pack his family up and leave the state. I don't know the exact amount, but it was enough for him to pack his truck, drive 1000 miles, and get set up somewhere else. They just wanted his family off the California welfare rolls.
  • #29
    !
    Seems friends of yours are looking for a handout. Hardly surprizing, but a bit hypocritical considering things you've said about my politics...
  • #30
    !
    @Knightkore This has got everything to do with liberalism. Socialism would give them homes and require them to work at jobs. Liberals, as well as many "compassionate" conservatives prefer welfare to govt jobs. Socialist prefer everyone have jobs, even if they are govt jobs. Not make work jobs, but real jobs, doing necessary work or providing needed services and paying decent wages so everyone has the dignity of being a contributing member of soceity, instead of free loaders who take govt money and pile the family in a truck to move elsewhere and look for there next handout.
  • #2
    !
    I see a lot of room for fraud, just another case of the government throwing away taxpayers money with no accountability.
  • #33
    !
    They are not homeless...they are squatters and this is how squatters are dealt with in third world nations like the Philippines (legally, anyway).

    Since the US is becoming more and more of a Third World nation, this is to be expected.
  • #76
    !
    Yeah right. Only people with lands that bribe the squatters. The cities still full of homeless. Get your eyes check in case you can't tell the difference between land owners vs. City governments unless if the cities own the land.

    FYI, landowners cannot chase the squatters away without giving them financial assistance.

    Do your research.
  • #77
    !
    The squatters feel that they should own the land they occupy and the government protected them from demolition. It takes a lot of effort to remove them. Ya know, I'm a Filipino, and know how we do our justice here.
  • #79
    !
    @pakupaku "FYI, landowners cannot chase the squatters away without giving them financial assistance.

    Do your research."

    Uh, I did say that, Pakupaku. Or rather, the article did and I mentioned how they do that in the Phils.
  • #81
    !
    You deliberately implied that the Philippines' government pay people to leave. There is nothing wrong with the government. It is the people who work in the system that exercise their power for their own interest, not for the public.

    Big difference.
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    !
    Imagine that. Even law enforcement has been banned, through Court decisions, from enforcing any 'Get Out of Town By Sundown" laws. Who knew that Albany, CA, would be able to get around that by offering them $3,000. each in taxpayer money? Isn't it nice to be able to spend other people's money and kicking the can down the road to other jurisdictions of taxpayers?
  • #61
    !
    Funny thing occurred to me. If Red states offered the same deal to the homeless with one exception. That they have to go to a blue state like California. Imagine Texas buying a plane ticket for every homeless person in the state to San Francisco or Washington D.C.

    I imagine the homeless would like it as well. Going to a place run by liberals where they preach about helping the poor with handouts.
  • #53
    !
    I just love the Liberal life cycle, tax the hello out of them and then pay them to go peter someone else. This isn't the first liberal to "help the poor" in this manner.
  • #40
    !
    It would be cheaper and better for California Liberals to just adopt those homeless and put them up at their homes for the next 5-10 years.
  • #36
    !
    Rather than cash, they couldn't set them up in a halfway house or a drug treatment facility (for those that are mentally ill or dependent)? May as well just go buy a truckload of booze and drugs for the most part... Sad sad sad.
  • #19
    !
    Only in California buy off the problem and send it somewhere else. Lefts hope they don't use taxpayer money for this garbage.
  • #52
    !
    This bunch goes away, another bunch comes in. Giving them money, doesn't solve any problem.
  • R Load more comments...
Post