CDZ Should the government do more for the homeless?

RandomVariable

VIP Member
Jan 7, 2014
5,103
360
85
I hope threads get notice over here in CDZ. I was going back and forth on the effectiveness of certain political parties and decided I needed to come up with a solid question to ask of both parties, of all parties, of all Americans: Should the government do more for the homeless?
 
No. The government only wastes money when they "help". Let churches and assorted charities help the homeless with hands-on help providing temporary shelter, assistance in finding a job, assistance in finding permanent housing, follow up assistance for a while till the people are on their own feet.
 
No. The government only wastes money when they "help". Let churches and assorted charities help the homeless with hands-on help providing temporary shelter, assistance in finding a job, assistance in finding permanent housing, follow up assistance for a while till the people are on their own feet.
So the government makes the rules for success and those that do not succeed are on their own?
 
Should the government do more for the homeless?

Step back a moment and reconsider your question:

1. Honestly define "the homeless." Virtually all homeless adults suffer from mental illness and/or drug addiction. The only choices are to institutionalize them or let them roam the streets. The small minority of homeless who are children should be placed in foster care.

2. Consider what the government is already doing for the homeless: Free food, free shelter, free job training, free medical, etc. What if they don't want it? Are you going to force them to accept it? What "more" should the government do?
 
We could and we could do it easily.
Hell, we spent 800K to see if a scientist could train a lion to run on a treadmill! With that alone, how many homeless could that help? A bunch.
I am all for responsibility and getting people off the dole, but I would MUCH rather see our bloated government spend the money where it could count.
 
No. The government only wastes money when they "help". Let churches and assorted charities help the homeless with hands-on help providing temporary shelter, assistance in finding a job, assistance in finding permanent housing, follow up assistance for a while till the people are on their own feet.
So the government makes the rules for success and those that do not succeed are on their own?
No. The government only wastes money when they "help". Let churches and assorted charities help the homeless with hands-on help providing temporary shelter, assistance in finding a job, assistance in finding permanent housing, follow up assistance for a while till the people are on their own feet.
So the government makes the rules for success and those that do not succeed are on their own?
Did you pull that question out of your butt?
I apologize for the butt remark. That was out of line. I am however, confused by your question. Who said anything about government defining success or that the non successful are on their own -and what does that have to do with your OP question?
 
No. The government only wastes money when they "help". Let churches and assorted charities help the homeless with hands-on help providing temporary shelter, assistance in finding a job, assistance in finding permanent housing, follow up assistance for a while till the people are on their own feet.
So the government makes the rules for success and those that do not succeed are on their own?

images


The first thing the government does when it says this is to help the homeless is try to tell them how to live i.e. No Smoking, No Alcohol, No Drugs, No Pets, Wash Up, Do This, Do That, etc, etc, etc,...

Most of these people are homeless because they got tired of people telling them how to live their lives and only wish to be left alone. The best thing one can do for them is offer them things like food, shelter, medical care, etc... with no strings attached then hope that they might feel like becoming part of society again if treated with some respect instead of telling them they're doing everything wrong.

There were some very basic shelters made from pallets and other lumber that a local Christian charity built at one of the parks in Des Moines. The homeless were not asked to do anything but some helped build the shelters. The first thing that the progressive city council did was have those shelters torn down and the homeless told to leave. The conservatives stance in the matter was to leave them be but they did not have the majority.

*****SMILE*****



:)
 
Last edited:
No. The government only wastes money when they "help". Let churches and assorted charities help the homeless with hands-on help providing temporary shelter, assistance in finding a job, assistance in finding permanent housing, follow up assistance for a while till the people are on their own feet.
So the government makes the rules for success and those that do not succeed are on their own?
No. The government only wastes money when they "help". Let churches and assorted charities help the homeless with hands-on help providing temporary shelter, assistance in finding a job, assistance in finding permanent housing, follow up assistance for a while till the people are on their own feet.
So the government makes the rules for success and those that do not succeed are on their own?
Did you pull that question out of your butt?
I apologize for the butt remark. That was out of line. I am however, confused by your question. Who said anything about government defining success or that the non successful are on their own -and what does that have to do with your OP question?
No need to apologize. Living within a system people often think there is some rational behind it, that it is not completely arbitrary, that of course this is what capitalism looks like, or would look like if we were to follow the absolute truths of the capitalist ideal. Truth of the matter is it is pretty much all arbitrary. It is like the subconscious mind making a decision and the conscious mind coming up with all kinds of bs to try and explain it.
 
So the government makes the rules for success and those that do not succeed are on their own?

The Government doesn't make the rules for success. Individuals make their oen success. Therefore the Government has no legitimate role in guaranteeing success.
True, the absolute is false: no guarantee of success. But the government very much does influence the chances of success. If public schools do not teach marketable skills then someone relying on their public education to get a job is not only not going to be not guaranteed success, they will work hard just to make ends meet.

I picked the question of homeless because it is a pretty low bar for if someone has or has not. If some kid graduates high school and has nothing so joins the service and gets sent into combat and sees and does some really fucked up shit which fucks up his head and then gets wounded and discharged and months later ends up on the streets some people seem to think he is now living the good life off free shit. Not so.

"..., one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
No. The government only wastes money when they "help". Let churches and assorted charities help the homeless with hands-on help providing temporary shelter, assistance in finding a job, assistance in finding permanent housing, follow up assistance for a while till the people are on their own feet.
So the government makes the rules for success and those that do not succeed are on their own?

images


The first thing the government does when it says this is to help the homeless is try to tell them how to live i.e. No Smoking, No Alcohol, No Drugs, No Pets, Wash Up, Do This, Do That, etc, etc, etc,...

Most of these people are homeless because they got tired of people telling them how to live their lives and only wish to be left alone. The best thing one can do for them is offer them things like food, shelter, medical care, etc... with no strings attached then hope that they might feel like becoming part of society again if treated with some respect instead of telling them they're doing everything wrong.

There were some very basic shelters made from pallets and other lumber that a local Christian charity built at one of the parks in Des Moines. The homeless were not asked to do anything but some helped build the shelters. The first thing that the progressive city council did was have those shelters torn down and the homeless told to leave. The conservatives stance in the matter was to leave them be but they did not have the majority.

*****SMILE*****



:)

Many do not want to hear that. They should have left those people be as they really were not hurting anyone.

I met a lot of homeless people through the years. Some like to have help others just want to be left alone, some are just looking for an easy way.... it varies a lot. Did Des Moines ever fix the problem or did they just displace all those people there?
 
I think the homeless should be helped. But I don't know what to do.

Those who need mental treatment can't get it. Those with no skills can't find work because we've shipped out the kinds of jobs they used to do. And how does a homeless person even get a job? No address, no phone, who would hire someone like that?
 
I think the homeless should be helped. But I don't know what to do.

Those who need mental treatment can't get it. Those with no skills can't find work because we've shipped out the kinds of jobs they used to do. And how does a homeless person even get a job? No address, no phone, who would hire someone like that?
Some work day labor jobs. Certain corners or spots where people stand in cities as others look for someone to help work for a day or two.
 
No. The government only wastes money when they "help". Let churches and assorted charities help the homeless with hands-on help providing temporary shelter, assistance in finding a job, assistance in finding permanent housing, follow up assistance for a while till the people are on their own feet.
So the government makes the rules for success and those that do not succeed are on their own?

images


The first thing the government does when it says this is to help the homeless is try to tell them how to live i.e. No Smoking, No Alcohol, No Drugs, No Pets, Wash Up, Do This, Do That, etc, etc, etc,...

Most of these people are homeless because they got tired of people telling them how to live their lives and only wish to be left alone. The best thing one can do for them is offer them things like food, shelter, medical care, etc... with no strings attached then hope that they might feel like becoming part of society again if treated with some respect instead of telling them they're doing everything wrong.

There were some very basic shelters made from pallets and other lumber that a local Christian charity built at one of the parks in Des Moines. The homeless were not asked to do anything but some helped build the shelters. The first thing that the progressive city council did was have those shelters torn down and the homeless told to leave. The conservatives stance in the matter was to leave them be but they did not have the majority.

*****SMILE*****



:)

Many do not want to hear that. They should have left those people be as they really were not hurting anyone.

I met a lot of homeless people through the years. Some like to have help others just want to be left alone, some are just looking for an easy way.... it varies a lot. Did Des Moines ever fix the problem or did they just displace all those people there?


upload_2015-10-15_20-15-14.jpeg


The city council didn't care. The homeless were told to use the shelter where they had to follow all the rules set by the city..... Figure the odds if you reread the first line of my last post.

*****SMILE*****



:)
 
I think the homeless should be helped. But I don't know what to do.

Those who need mental treatment can't get it. Those with no skills can't find work because we've shipped out the kinds of jobs they used to do. And how does a homeless person even get a job? No address, no phone, who would hire someone like that?

We allow people with mental illnesses the right to deny they have them. That is appropriate.

In most cases, the best thing you can do with a mentally ill homeless person is get them in touch with family. If the family won't take care of them, then you have a real tricky choice.

Because if you force them under the thumb of the state....you are really walking on thin ice.
 
I think the homeless should be helped. But I don't know what to do.

Those who need mental treatment can't get it. Those with no skills can't find work because we've shipped out the kinds of jobs they used to do. And how does a homeless person even get a job? No address, no phone, who would hire someone like that?

We allow people with mental illnesses the right to deny they have them. That is appropriate.

In most cases, the best thing you can do with a mentally ill homeless person is get them in touch with family. If the family won't take care of them, then you have a real tricky choice.

Because if you force them under the thumb of the state....you are really walking on thin ice.

images


Agreed

If the government starts taking away the rights of some where does it end?

*****SMILE*****



:)
 
I hope threads get notice over here in CDZ. I was going back and forth on the effectiveness of certain political parties and decided I needed to come up with a solid question to ask of both parties, of all parties, of all Americans: Should the government do more for the homeless?

Yes. A lack of will and an abundance of selfishness are the only reasons anyone is homeless in the USA. I mean really. The country can and will fund, to the sum of a trillion dollars, the survival of industries and corporations that drive themselves into bankruptcy and erode the savings of the millions of citizens who must, via their tax dollars, pay to make that happen. The only reason a U.S. citizen should be without a home (house or apartment) of their own is because they expressly choose not to live in one.

To put that in perspective, there are about 580K homeless people in the U.S. Just outright giving each homeless citizen a one time $250K gift would cost ~15% of what we spent to save the automotive and financial services industries. Giving every homeless person that much is obviously preposterous, but that figure makes patently clear that homelessness can be eliminated for a good deal less.

Am I intimating that we should not have bailed out those industries? No, I'm not. I'm saying that the sum it would cost to eradicate homelessness in America is paltry in relation to the sums the nation has available to spend. One might ask how would we pay for eliminating homelessness. Well, one way might be to dispense with the over $100B in corporate tax breaks (subsidies) for just two years, which would fully fund making the $250K gift noted above. Heck, even just cutting the those subsidies in half would almost totally pay for outright giving every American homeless person a $100K gift. So, one can easily see that eradicating homelessness isn't a matter of affording it, it's a matter of having the will to do so.

Now tell me, were you homeless and bereft of marketable skills, would giving you $100K (to say nothing of $250K) be enough to get your life together and become a contributing member of society? I think for anyone it is. That's enough to pay for transportation to a low or moderate cost-of-living town, housing in that town, food, daily transportation and training to allow one to get a decent job.

To close, one might wonder what is the per-taxpayer cost of this, be it the corporate subsidies or using the same money to eradicate homelessness. Well it's about $900 per person. By comparison, we pay ~$40 per person to fund welfare.
The fact is that you and I are already paying that $900. Eliminating homelessness is just a matter of redirecting it one time to house 580K people. It's not as though another 580K folks are going to show up the following year in need of homes. Unlike the $900/per person spent annually to fund corporate tax breaks, housing 580K people isn't something we have to afford every year. You pay for it once and get it over with. Then we only have a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, folks to deal with in any following years, and as one can tell from the figures above, doing that costs "chump change."

How does one fund the effort?
  • Tell corporations that for two years, they will be disallowed their $100B in tax breaks.
  • Allocate part of the money to finance administering the homelessness eradication program.
  • Put the rest of the money into an interest bearing account.
  • Have homeless people sign up or go round them up.
  • Enroll them in training that provides the skills that America most needs.
  • Buy them bus tickets, housing, modest furnishings, a change of clothing for three days, etc.
  • Move them into their furnished quarters.
  • Dole out the remainder of each person's gift-less-recurring cost. on a periodic basis until they finish the training or use up the totality of their gift.
Let them take their training, get a job in that field, and that's it; they're on their own from that point forward. On their own because although I believe in eradicating homelessness, I also believe that by not taking advantage of the gift to the extent that they can fend for themselves afterwards, the homeless folks are tacitly stating they are willfully without a home. If one doesn't want to have a home, far be it from me to force one to do so.

No. The government only wastes money when they "help". Let churches and assorted charities help the homeless with hands-on help providing temporary shelter, assistance in finding a job, assistance in finding permanent housing, follow up assistance for a while till the people are on their own feet.

It would be nice if that approach actually worked. It's the one we've been using for over 100 years and we still have homeless people. There's a simple reason why it doesn't work: the total of U.S. charitable giving amounts to about $360B. Divy that among all the needy, and it's just not enough.

The point of the matter isn't who should ensure that every citizen has a home. The question is whether any citizen should, other than by their own choice, not have a home. One, that is we taxpayers, either commits to the principle that nobody should be homeless (other than by expressly choosing to be so) and does one's part to make sure that happens, or one does not commit to it and allows people to be homeless.

Neither I nor the government can force the nation as a whole to espouse the principle that nobody should be unwillfully homeless. The thing is that by opposing the use of national funds to eliminate homelessness, one tacitly asserts
  • unwillful homelessness is an acceptable state of existence for some U.S. citizens
  • one's parsimony and/or refusal to give the benefit of the doubt is more important that allowing the government to use one's tax dollar(s) to eliminate homelessness.
Frankly, I don't see much difference between government charity and private charity. A dollar paid in taxes and used to help destitute vagrants or a dollar donated to a church or other charitable organization, is the same dollar being used for the same purpose. The only difference, as things stand now, is that one must make two "donations" rather than one.
 
I hope threads get notice over here in CDZ. I was going back and forth on the effectiveness of certain political parties and decided I needed to come up with a solid question to ask of both parties, of all parties, of all Americans: Should the government do more for the homeless?

Yes. A lack of will and an abundance of selfishness are the only reasons anyone is homeless in the USA. I mean really. The country can and will fund, to the sum of a trillion dollars, the survival of industries and corporations that drive themselves into bankruptcy and erode the savings of the millions of citizens who must, via their tax dollars, pay to make that happen. The only reason a U.S. citizen should be without a home (house or apartment) of their own is because they expressly choose not to live in one.

To put that in perspective, there are about 580K homeless people in the U.S. Just outright giving each homeless citizen a one time $250K gift would cost ~15% of what we spent to save the automotive and financial services industries. Giving every homeless person that much is obviously preposterous, but that figure makes patently clear that homelessness can be eliminated for a good deal less.

Am I intimating that we should not have bailed out those industries? No, I'm not. I'm saying that the sum it would cost to eradicate homelessness in America is paltry in relation to the sums the nation has available to spend. One might ask how would we pay for eliminating homelessness. Well, one way might be to dispense with the over $100B in corporate tax breaks (subsidies) for just two years, which would fully fund making the $250K gift noted above. Heck, even just cutting the those subsidies in half would almost totally pay for outright giving every American homeless person a $100K gift. So, one can easily see that eradicating homelessness isn't a matter of affording it, it's a matter of having the will to do so.

Now tell me, were you homeless and bereft of marketable skills, would giving you $100K (to say nothing of $250K) be enough to get your life together and become a contributing member of society? I think for anyone it is. That's enough to pay for transportation to a low or moderate cost-of-living town, housing in that town, food, daily transportation and training to allow one to get a decent job.

To close, one might wonder what is the per-taxpayer cost of this, be it the corporate subsidies or using the same money to eradicate homelessness. Well it's about $900 per person. By comparison, we pay ~$40 per person to fund welfare.
The fact is that you and I are already paying that $900. Eliminating homelessness is just a matter of redirecting it one time to house 580K people. It's not as though another 580K folks are going to show up the following year in need of homes. Unlike the $900/per person spent annually to fund corporate tax breaks, housing 580K people isn't something we have to afford every year. You pay for it once and get it over with. Then we only have a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, folks to deal with in any following years, and as one can tell from the figures above, doing that costs "chump change."

How does one fund the effort?
  • Tell corporations that for two years, they will be disallowed their $100B in tax breaks.
  • Allocate part of the money to finance administering the homelessness eradication program.
  • Put the rest of the money into an interest bearing account.
  • Have homeless people sign up or go round them up.
  • Enroll them in training that provides the skills that America most needs.
  • Buy them bus tickets, housing, modest furnishings, a change of clothing for three days, etc.
  • Move them into their furnished quarters.
  • Dole out the remainder of each person's gift-less-recurring cost. on a periodic basis until they finish the training or use up the totality of their gift.
Let them take their training, get a job in that field, and that's it; they're on their own from that point forward. On their own because although I believe in eradicating homelessness, I also believe that by not taking advantage of the gift to the extent that they can fend for themselves afterwards, the homeless folks are tacitly stating they are willfully without a home. If one doesn't want to have a home, far be it from me to force one to do so.

No. The government only wastes money when they "help". Let churches and assorted charities help the homeless with hands-on help providing temporary shelter, assistance in finding a job, assistance in finding permanent housing, follow up assistance for a while till the people are on their own feet.

It would be nice if that approach actually worked. It's the one we've been using for over 100 years and we still have homeless people. There's a simple reason why it doesn't work: the total of U.S. charitable giving amounts to about $360B. Divy that among all the needy, and it's just not enough.

The point of the matter isn't who should ensure that every citizen has a home. The question is whether any citizen should, other than by their own choice, not have a home. One, that is we taxpayers, either commits to the principle that nobody should be homeless (other than by expressly choosing to be so) and does one's part to make sure that happens, or one does not commit to it and allows people to be homeless.

Neither I nor the government can force the nation as a whole to espouse the principle that nobody should be unwillfully homeless. The thing is that by opposing the use of national funds to eliminate homelessness, one tacitly asserts
  • unwillful homelessness is an acceptable state of existence for some U.S. citizens
  • one's parsimony and/or refusal to give the benefit of the doubt is more important that allowing the government to use one's tax dollar(s) to eliminate homelessness.
Frankly, I don't see much difference between government charity and private charity. A dollar paid in taxes and used to help destitute vagrants or a dollar donated to a church or other charitable organization, is the same dollar being used for the same purpose. The only difference, as things stand now, is that one must make two "donations" rather than one.
Right now, yes, I give two donations but only one is by choice. Let's just say, I am more inclined to want to give money to people I know and often work with in using my money to help the homeless. Government "donations" vanish. You know, no accountability.

True, there are still homeless people even though they are being helped. There will always be poor people, as Jesus told us. There is no magic wand. I believe in charity that serves those in need from private individuals and groups. It is not charity for the government to take our money and use it for their version of "helping".
 
I hope threads get notice over here in CDZ. I was going back and forth on the effectiveness of certain political parties and decided I needed to come up with a solid question to ask of both parties, of all parties, of all Americans: Should the government do more for the homeless?

Yes. A lack of will and an abundance of selfishness are the only reasons anyone is homeless in the USA. I mean really. The country can and will fund, to the sum of a trillion dollars, the survival of industries and corporations that drive themselves into bankruptcy and erode the savings of the millions of citizens who must, via their tax dollars, pay to make that happen. The only reason a U.S. citizen should be without a home (house or apartment) of their own is because they expressly choose not to live in one.

To put that in perspective, there are about 580K homeless people in the U.S. Just outright giving each homeless citizen a one time $250K gift would cost ~15% of what we spent to save the automotive and financial services industries. Giving every homeless person that much is obviously preposterous, but that figure makes patently clear that homelessness can be eliminated for a good deal less.

Am I intimating that we should not have bailed out those industries? No, I'm not. I'm saying that the sum it would cost to eradicate homelessness in America is paltry in relation to the sums the nation has available to spend. One might ask how would we pay for eliminating homelessness. Well, one way might be to dispense with the over $100B in corporate tax breaks (subsidies) for just two years, which would fully fund making the $250K gift noted above. Heck, even just cutting the those subsidies in half would almost totally pay for outright giving every American homeless person a $100K gift. So, one can easily see that eradicating homelessness isn't a matter of affording it, it's a matter of having the will to do so.

Now tell me, were you homeless and bereft of marketable skills, would giving you $100K (to say nothing of $250K) be enough to get your life together and become a contributing member of society? I think for anyone it is. That's enough to pay for transportation to a low or moderate cost-of-living town, housing in that town, food, daily transportation and training to allow one to get a decent job.

To close, one might wonder what is the per-taxpayer cost of this, be it the corporate subsidies or using the same money to eradicate homelessness. Well it's about $900 per person. By comparison, we pay ~$40 per person to fund welfare.
The fact is that you and I are already paying that $900. Eliminating homelessness is just a matter of redirecting it one time to house 580K people. It's not as though another 580K folks are going to show up the following year in need of homes. Unlike the $900/per person spent annually to fund corporate tax breaks, housing 580K people isn't something we have to afford every year. You pay for it once and get it over with. Then we only have a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, folks to deal with in any following years, and as one can tell from the figures above, doing that costs "chump change."

How does one fund the effort?
  • Tell corporations that for two years, they will be disallowed their $100B in tax breaks.
  • Allocate part of the money to finance administering the homelessness eradication program.
  • Put the rest of the money into an interest bearing account.
  • Have homeless people sign up or go round them up.
  • Enroll them in training that provides the skills that America most needs.
  • Buy them bus tickets, housing, modest furnishings, a change of clothing for three days, etc.
  • Move them into their furnished quarters.
  • Dole out the remainder of each person's gift-less-recurring cost. on a periodic basis until they finish the training or use up the totality of their gift.
Let them take their training, get a job in that field, and that's it; they're on their own from that point forward. On their own because although I believe in eradicating homelessness, I also believe that by not taking advantage of the gift to the extent that they can fend for themselves afterwards, the homeless folks are tacitly stating they are willfully without a home. If one doesn't want to have a home, far be it from me to force one to do so.

No. The government only wastes money when they "help". Let churches and assorted charities help the homeless with hands-on help providing temporary shelter, assistance in finding a job, assistance in finding permanent housing, follow up assistance for a while till the people are on their own feet.

It would be nice if that approach actually worked. It's the one we've been using for over 100 years and we still have homeless people. There's a simple reason why it doesn't work: the total of U.S. charitable giving amounts to about $360B. Divy that among all the needy, and it's just not enough.

The point of the matter isn't who should ensure that every citizen has a home. The question is whether any citizen should, other than by their own choice, not have a home. One, that is we taxpayers, either commits to the principle that nobody should be homeless (other than by expressly choosing to be so) and does one's part to make sure that happens, or one does not commit to it and allows people to be homeless.

Neither I nor the government can force the nation as a whole to espouse the principle that nobody should be unwillfully homeless. The thing is that by opposing the use of national funds to eliminate homelessness, one tacitly asserts
  • unwillful homelessness is an acceptable state of existence for some U.S. citizens
  • one's parsimony and/or refusal to give the benefit of the doubt is more important that allowing the government to use one's tax dollar(s) to eliminate homelessness.
Frankly, I don't see much difference between government charity and private charity. A dollar paid in taxes and used to help destitute vagrants or a dollar donated to a church or other charitable organization, is the same dollar being used for the same purpose. The only difference, as things stand now, is that one must make two "donations" rather than one.
Right now, yes, I give two donations but only one is by choice. Let's just say, I am more inclined to want to give money to people I know and often work with in using my money to help the homeless. Government "donations" vanish. You know, no accountability.

True, there are still homeless people even though they are being helped. There will always be poor people, as Jesus told us. There is no magic wand. I believe in charity that serves those in need from private individuals and groups. It is not charity for the government to take our money and use it for their version of "helping".

Yes, it is. It's money you and I pay the government. The government's in turn gives it to needy people. When we donate to XYZ charitably NGO, the NGO passes it on to needy folks. The only difference is that by donating to the NGO, we spend more in total than if we only paid our taxes. More importantly, however, is the fact that the approach you propose has for a century shown itself not to work to eliminate homelessness.

So I ask you, yes or no: should homelessness exist as an involuntary state of being for U.S. citizens? You have an issue with how either organization comes by the money it donates to others. I'm concerned with how the money they receive is used. In my mind, one of the uses needs to be to eradicate homelessness, and of the organizations that receive our money, the government is the one having enough of it to do so.

Above you equated homelessness with poverty. It's so that homeless people are largely poor as well. It's not so that poor people are largely homeless. My comments don't have anything to do with eradicating poverty because poverty, unlike homelessness, is relative. Compared to Beyonce, one might be poor, but compared to the average American, the same individual can be very well off.

Homelessness is something that need only be "fixed" one time for any one person, and any additional people who suffer it can be "fixed" at next to no incremental cost. It's at that point that the sort of donations of which you write can be effective at preventing it.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top