Faux compassion is only worsening homeless crisis

You and all the other right wingers, said that killing Trayvon, after stalking him, was OK, as he CLEARLY was going to play the knockout game on Caucasians. You want to abort teens.

 

Because, GOVERNMENT, of the people, is the PROPER organization, sworn to commit community actions called for. By our constitution.

That's why PAL.

 

Your care for people ends at your wallet

 

My care for people starts right here, me using my voice. And it ends where I am willing to pay for that voices things called for. I don't have to justify my choice of how best to handle human progress. I have books FULL of why we aren't still in the trees. You can climb back in the trees for all I care, just leave us all the hell out of your fantasies.

 

How many homeless do have you taken in?

 

I converse with illiterates, that oughta count for sumpin'.

 

None, I get it

 

Thats not how it works. You made a tall claim and that puts the burden of supporting it on you. If what you claim is correct, shelters would be closing down. The opposite is happening. How do you explain that?

 

Highly unlikely. I live in a wilderness area, and I spend very little time in big cities. I do spend time in small rural cities .. and they have literally zero homeless people. Even welfare bums can afford the rent in such places. No need to ever be homeless. Also, in this country our homeless are the same type that have always been homeless - crazies and drunks. There is no influx of working class people, 'priced out of real estate' etc, as you have in America. Our welfare covers rent (not in an expensive inner cities obviously, but in rural towns and run down outer suburbs etc).

 

It is extremely wasteful, if not judiciously applied. How could it not be? If you have $1000 to give, and give it to the 58 year old drunk who's lived on the streets for the past 30 years, what is he going to do with it? Is he going to suddenly get clean and become a productive citizen? OTOH, if you were to give that $1000 to a child currently at risk from starvation or war, they could survive to potentially contribute many more $1000's of dollars to helping others. Closer to home, you could contribute that $1000 to an academic scholarship for gifted and motivated students living in poverty. Imagine what that could do? You could directly help in producing the person who ends up finding a cure for cancer? Or who becomes a zillionaire and ends all poverty.

But since you gave your $1000 to the old drunk (who's drinking it away as we speak), you won't be able to do that, will you. If that doesn't explain exactly why help must be triaged, then you've simply chosen to not care.

 

Instead of adjusting their lifestyle, they ask 'daddy' to bail 'em out.

Basically, spoiled rich kids.

 

It's not their problem to solve. Nor is it the other side's problem to solve. It's the individual homeless person's (and their family) problem to solve.

Yes, stubbornness is what leads to disaster. When we stubbornly refuse to stop spending money we don't have, doing drugs, gambling, drinking, being lazy, alienating all who once loved us, etc etc etc, we become homeless.

 

I don't know. How dumb do have to be to not realise that if you can't afford the rent, you can't live there? Or .. if you're on minimum wage, you can't afford to buy fast food, tattoos, cigarettes, alcohol, or rent a private individual residence (sharing is essential, if you hope to get ahead on minimum wage, obviously)?

 

So you regard dramatically increased social problems as 'human progress'? I suppose you regard those whose more conservative approach has kept them relatively free from such stuff, as somehow regressive?. If so, you may want to consider that you don't understand really understand progress - because it sure as heck has nothing to do with politics. EITHER side can produce progress, just as either side can produce regress.

PROGRESS: that which advances the human condition.

REGRESS: that which produces a decline in the human condition.

IDEAL HUMAN CONDITION: health, security, stability, productivity.

 

And not so rich

 

Check out any country on earth without a welfare system and tell me what it is like

 

The opposite is happening in SLC?

 

I've lived in a country without welfare. While everyone was relatively poor, there were very few homeless people. Families stuck together .. it's the only way to ensure everyone survives. In contrast, I now live in a country with very good welfare (roughly US$400 per week for unemployment or disability benefits PLUS rent assistance). So, while we definitely have negligent families here - a direct result of parents knowing they don't have to try, because their kids will survive even if unemployed - we don't have a lot of homeless people.

 

But they clearly have the mentality of rich people. That's what comes of believing someone will always bail you out.

If more poor people actually thought like poor people, you'd see less homelessness.

 

Then explain why shelters are overflowing and new ones are being built.

 

In SLC?

 

Yes.

 

Show me

 

If it was working, wouldn't the need for shelters be reduced over time?

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...tion-after-slow-start-in-south-salt-lake.html

 

Housing first us designed for the chronically homeless.....homeless more than a year