Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then why not let the homeless live in overcrowded dwellings just like those of us who are already overcrowded, instead of giving them for free better housing than the overcrowded pay for?
I have a solution for you........just become homeless and they will move you into a posh home with hot tubs, wifi, maids, and room service. I know that is what you think these places are like, but, once again, you are talking out of somewhere south of your mouth.
Then why not let the homeless live in overcrowded dwellings just like those of us who are already overcrowded, instead of giving them for free better housing than the overcrowded pay for?
It doesn't get them off the streets. You won't stop them from being homeless, they choose to be.
As for it being a liberal issue, it is... every liberal city that has such policies are swarming with homeless problems.
Being poor is not the same as living in poverty, there are many people in conservative areas that while not having much income, tend to own their homes or live in a manner that isn't "impoverished". There is a major difference between liberal slums and rural conservative poor areas.
Actually, giving the homeless homes can and does help curtail homelessness. Yes, SOME do choose to be homeless. Others desperately want a place to live so they can get a job, get clean and start living a productive life.
Didn't realize that helping homeless veterans with housing and services was a bad thing.
Isn't it amazing that we have people in this thread saying this type of charity should be private yet they have no issue spending BILLIONS of dollars to send these men and women overseas to do our government's bidding.
Homelessness cannot be treated with the same solution.
It's as prejudice as any comment could be. It smacks of liberal absolutism, which breeds prejudice. Not all homeless are homeless because of the same circumstance.
Albeit, use of the term, homeless, does sound appealing from a political perspective.
Treating the homeless with a blanket solution is like treating everyone with 'disease', any disease, with the same drug. We don't need to know what disease you have, just take these two pills once a day for 10 weeks.
Refurbing buildings is the msot costly solution. that's why old building are torn down and new buildings built. The cost to update old buildings to the standard of new codes will cost far more than new construction.
Setting up homeless in posh hotels is criminal in that the cost is prohibitive and takes away funding from directing at other homeless people. I'd bet the gift of government money to influence wealthy hotel owners for personal benefit of the bureaucrat who tosses that government money in their direction is a crime.
Plenty of cheap hotels around. If indeed you want to house homeless in hotels.
The best approach to solving homeless ness is to approach individuals and consider their circumstances and give them appropriate help. A guy down on his luck vs a drug addict wil not benefit form the same solution if that solution is to be considdered a cure rather than chronic treatment.
Liberal absolutism is the breeding ground of prejudice and mortally stunts creativity to a success rate equal to that of a broken clock.
Isn't it amazing that we have people in this thread saying this type of charity should be private yet they have no issue spending BILLIONS of dollars to send these men and women overseas to do our government's bidding.
Both wrong.
And yet you'd put a gun to your neighbors head and make them pay for both (a.k.a taxation).
Both wrong.
And yet you'd put a gun to your neighbors head and make them pay for both (a.k.a taxation).
Huh?
Both wrong? Who and why are they or the statements made wrong?
Taxation isn't going away nor should it. All I'm saying is if we can send these men and women overseas, betting their very lives on the whims of governmental decisions, we sure as hell can afford to give them housing, medical care, etc. when they come home.
Both wrong? Who and why are they or the statements made wrong?
Taxation isn't going away nor should it. All I'm saying is if we can send these men and women overseas, betting their very lives on the whims of governmental decisions, we sure as hell can afford to give them housing, medical care, etc. when they come home.
they shouldn't be overseas in the first place and why shouldn't charity be private?
you do realize they are building the apartments right ??????
houses arent free.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
