"National Emergency" it is!

[_Jersey Girl]

The polar vortex hasn't killed people. People who don't give a crap about the other guy let people die in the cold.

[_subgenius]

While Trump is preparing a National Emergency over the BORDER...

The polar vortex has killed more people in one week than illegal immigrants have killed in 5 years.

Why no national emergency to build shelters for those dying in the streets?

Ask the plethora of Democrats who are running Chicago that question.

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes, because National emergencies are declared at the local level, right?

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes, because National emergencies are declared at the local level, right?

Nobody knows who the hell you're talking to because your post is just floating out there directed at no one. Polar vortex my ass. Unless the grid goes down and wide swaths of people in the midwest are freezing to death in their homes, they can by god open their homes and businesses to the homeless.

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh and subgenius is talking about state and local declared emergencies. I assume that's been done. Is the mid-west calling for federal intervention and if so, what do they want and need?

I mean besides the fact that you pulled homeless people out of your ass and decided to use them to shame Trump when the communities can help themselves.

[_Chap]

...

Why no national emergency to build shelters for those dying in the streets?

Ask the plethora of Democrats who are running Chicago that question.

Now if the Republicans were in charge, private enterprise would be allowed to provide shelters for homeless people, the market would set the price, and those people would have the shelters they need to stay alive, while avoiding the shame of being the slaves of welfare.

Or alternatively ...

Lessons from Finland: helping homeless people starts with giving them homes

Sounds simple but Finland’s housing first model shows it’s always more cost-effective to try to end homelessness rather than manage it

A recent report by the communities and local government committee on homelessness pointed out that the “housing first” model “appears to have had a positive impact in Finland”. From 2008 to 2014 the number of people who were long-term homeless decreased by approximately 1,200, and homelessness continues to decrease. However, the conclusion of the committee is puzzling: “We are cautious about investing further in housing first in England because of the severity of England’s homelessness challenge and the scarcity of funding and of social housing.” This certainly requires some further comments.

The housing first model is quite simple: when people are homeless, you give them housing first – a stable home, rather than progressing them through several levels of temporary and transitional accommodation. The idea stems from the belief that people who are homeless need a home, and other issues that may cause them to be at risk of homelessness can be addressed once they are in stable housing. Homeless people aren’t told they must conquer their addictions or secure a job before being given a home: instead it is accepted that having a home can make solving health and social problems much easier.

Finland is the only European country where homelessness has decreased in recent years. At the end of 2015 the number of single homeless people was for the first time under 7,000 and this number includes people living temporarily with friends and relatives, who constitute 80% of all homeless people. This development is mainly due to a national programme to reduce long-term homelessness.

The main explanation for this success is quite simple: when the national programme started housing first was adopted as a mainstream national homelessness policy. This common framework made it possible to establish a wide partnership of state authorities, local communities and non-governmental organisations. Cooperation and targeted measures in the implementation of the programme led to the aforementioned results, which were backed up by independent international evaluations.

Implementing housing first is not reasonable without proper housing options. It should go without saying that you can’t offer homeless people homes if the homes do not exist. It is this scarcity of homes that engenders the system in Britain, with demand outstripping supply, and people in crisis forced to jump through hoops to avoid sleeping on the street.

In Finland, housing options included the use of social housing, buying flats from the private market to be used as rental apartments for homeless people, and building new housing blocks for supported housing. An important part of the programme was the extensive conversion of shelters and dormitory-type hostels into supported housing, to address the huge need for accommodation that offered help to tenants. The last big hostel for homeless people in Helsinki with 250 bed places was run by the Salvation Army. A couple of years ago this hostel was renovated and now consists of 80 independent apartments with on-site staff. The disappearance of temporary solutions like hostels has completely changed the landscape of Finnish homelessness policy in a very positive way, for vulnerable individuals and in combatting antisocial behaviour.

All this costs money, but there is ample evidence from many countries that shows it is always more cost-effective to aim to end homelessness instead of simply trying to manage it. Investment in ending homelessness always pays back, to say nothing of the human and ethical reasons.

To get the most out of housing first in terms of social and economic benefits it needs to be mainstream homelessness policy, not just individual pilot projects. Housing first needs housing stock and there is no real homeless policy without the housing supply to implement it. The cornerstone of any decent housing policy is the sufficient supply of affordable social housing. Especially in these times of economic scarcity building new housing is an economically wise and value-creating investment with positive side-effects ranging from reducing youth unemployment to boosting the local economy.

To say that the scarcity of funding in any western European country is the reason for lack of affordable social housing is either an understatement or a conscious misunderstanding. It is simply a question of political will.

[_Xenophon]

In case anyone missed it: Trump does plan to sign the spending bill while declaring a national emergency in roughly the same breath to get wall funding.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/14/69464756 ... rt-unclear

resident Trump will support a border security funding compromise reached by a group of bipartisan lawmakers, averting a partial government shutdown early Saturday — but he also will declare a national emergency in order to build the wall he has pushed for along the U.S.-Mexico border.

"President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action — including a national emergency — to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. "The President is once again delivering on his promise to build the wall, protect the border, and secure our great country."

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://Twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 45?lang=en

Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump
More

45 year low on illegal border crossings this year. Ice and Border Patrol Agents are doing a great job for our Country. MS-13 thugs being hit hard.

- Doc

[_subgenius]

As a reminder, when Congress would not give Obama money for ACA subsidies he took executive action via executive order. Congress sued and a federal judge ruled in favor of Congress. If Trump echoes Obama then possibly expect the same but with the added legal test of "under emergency".

[_Brackite]

President Trump is doing what Hannity wants him to do.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/with-nati ... -him-to-do

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... pt-vpx.cnn