this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023

85 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19158 readers

2603 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

One-way plane tickets: NYC offers migrants free travel anywhere to move (www.politico.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave to c/politics

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

New York City is moving migrants out of shelters and offering them plane tickets to anywhere in the world.

Here’s one approach to discourage migrants from settling in New York City: Give them a free, one-way plane ticket out of town.

Mayor Eric Adams is ramping up efforts to fly migrants to the destination of their choice, figuring it’s cheaper than sheltering them for months on end. And he’s simultaneously warning that those opting to stay in New York may be in for a winter of sleeping outside with shelters full.

“When you are out of room, that means you’re out of room,” Adams told reporters Tuesday. “Every year, my relatives show up for Thanksgiving, and they want to all sleep at my house. There’s no more room. That’s where we are right now.”

all 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is going to sound crazy. But what if we like... Reduce our military spending budget by just 2% and use that money to build infrastructure/new towns. Those towns will need a workforce...

You know. 2% less on the military budget.

[+] [email protected] -12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

China has tried that and they have ghost cities.

There is nothing preventing people from buying a large piece of land in the hope of becoming a town. They can build infrastructure, and that's all fine. Yes, it will require people to run.

But who wants to move there? There's nothing there for entertainment. There's no family and friends there. Unless a lucrative company builds an HQ there, there aren't really good decent jobs. So either 1) they have to promote remote work or 2) They have to be close enough to an area with lots of existing jobs. Otherwise, most people are going to have to commute if they don't work for the local municipality.

How do you propose to solve the desirability problem?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You just focused on the dumbest part of his proposal. We won't be literally China if we reinvest money in people, infrastructure and housing.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Other than reduce the military budget by 2%, that was his entire proposal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt-Pa5s5zZI

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is called a strawman argument.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm going to need you to explain that a little better as I don't get it. But the thing is (now that I'm on a computer and can type more), whether or not we take the funding from the military (of which I have no objection to), his solution makes no sense.

Let's say we have 2% of the military funding (and actually not from the military, in case there are people who are opposed), his proposal still doesn't stand. If you take that money, you need to put it somewhere worthwhile. That's all I'm trying to say. The first part is inconsequential because it doesn't actually affect the solution.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The original point was that we as a country have resources. Resources can be reallocated.

If you don't believe that resources can help or resolve and issue like homelessness or the growth in costs for housing... Well then you'd have to explain why.

What you chose to do instead, was focus in on the idea of building "new" "town" which you understood to be some harebrained scheme to take cheap land in the middle of no where, build a "town" there and then shuttle all the poor people there. Even if the commenter literally wanted that, it's still a strawman argument as you are taking the weakest version of the idea that resources can help solve the problem, and instead fixating on a bunch of ghost towns that are never going to be built anyways.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I guess you read into it more than I did. I took it literally at face value.

There is nothing wrong with allocating or re-allocating our resources to help issues in the country. I don't think this point is contested. But what is the best use of those resources such that we can accomplish the goal of mitigating housing prices skyrocketing more or homelessness?

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Phoenix got in a lot of trouble for sending their homeless to California a few years ago. This problem will continue as long as we let capitalists dictate the economy.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Send them to Indiana and Ohio, those states need people.

[–] captainlezbian 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah but then they’ll have to live here.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

NIMBY