The Homelessness Conundrum

Not sure why the wealthy should be expected to suffer...
Well, when Republicans consider contributing to the society from which you prosper to be suffering you have to wonder why we still subsidize the wealthy with tax breaks
 
Not sure why the wealthy should be expected to suffer...

As for the homeless the majority are content with their lifestyle.
You give them housing and take care of their every need hoping it will lead to them accepting responsibility is naive.
They were perfectly content with being homeless.

Schizophrenics are content? ... are you mad? ...

The drug addicts are only contented by drugs ... and that's where all the crime comes from ... the need for expensive street drugs ...

The rest of them are fine ... their needs aren't great ... just it isn't safe anymore for "seeking out the poorer quarters, where ragged people go looking for the places only they would know" ... druggies and crazies ruin it for everyone ...
 
No, you make lazy ones shame for their situation, and you treat the ones who are mentally ill.
Another Conservative solution

Make the poor suffer
Shame them for being poor
 
Another Conservative solution

Make the poor suffer
Shame them for being poor

Not the poor, the homeless, and specifically the ones that find it easier to subsist on handouts designed for those with actual issues than to contribute to society.

The poor are the ones who suffer the most from excessive funding of homelessness, as that money can be better used for those who WANT to improve themselves.
 
Not the poor, the homeless, and specifically the ones that find it easier to subsist on handouts designed for those with actual issues than to contribute to society.

The poor are the ones who suffer the most from excessive funding of homelessness, as that money can be better used for those who WANT to improve themselves.
What type of society should we live in?

We are the wealthiest nation on earth and can afford to take care of our poor.
Some are poor because they are down on their luck, some have alchohol and drug problems, some have mental health issues, some are just assholes who can’t hold a job.

Do we just cast them aside?
 
What type of society should we live in?

We are the wealthiest nation on earth and can afford to take care of our poor.
Some are poor because they are down on their luck, some have alchohol and drug problems, some have mental health issues, some are just assholes who can’t hold a job.

Do we just cast them aside?

We aren't taking care of the homeless, we are keeping them in squalor, because the system wants to perpetuate itself.

We let the system be used by the assholes because the left doesn't want to call anybody out for this.
 
Well, when Republicans consider contributing to the society from which you prosper to be suffering you have to wonder why we still subsidize the wealthy with tax breaks

Actually I wonder why the liberals accept the tax breaks. People like you celebrate rich liberals when they attack MAGA yet you lump all the rich together when you want to complain.
 
Schizophrenics are content? ... are you mad? ...

The drug addicts are only contented by drugs ... and that's where all the crime comes from ... the need for expensive street drugs ...

The rest of them are fine ... their needs aren't great ... just it isn't safe anymore for "seeking out the poorer quarters, where ragged people go looking for the places only they would know" ... druggies and crazies ruin it for everyone ...

Still falls back on liberals who encourage/support drug use.
 
I wonder what the modern version of a Railroad Bull would be? ;)

172d34f820aefe4efc752afe08a2339e.jpg
 
Of course ... always somebody else's fault ... Purdue Pharmaceutical had nothing to do with the opioid crisis ... Big Pharm is good for us ...

Purdue sells heroin and meth?
 
Do you know what an opioid is? ... how deep have you buried your head in the sand? ...

Methamphetamine? ... pull your head out and do something non-Zone 1 with it ... Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

I know the pharma companies are being blames for the oxy crisis, and maybe they have some blame for it, but they don't make heroin, or meth, or fentanyl, or other abused illegal drugs.
 

Here in Pittsburgh, the homeless "crisis" is steadily increasing in magnitude as the civic officials fret over how to "solve" it. It is a little more urgent here than it is in, say, Los Angeles, because we will have a few days this Winter (thanks to Global Warming) when it could actually be life-threatening to be sleeping out on the streets.

My son recently sent me his thoughts on the matter, expressed in "music."


But the homelessness conundrum is, in my opinion, the more painless "we" make life for the homeless, the more people will simply decide that homelessness is a better option that their alternatives, e.g., working a lot of hours to rent a hovel. To illustrate, imagine that Elon Musk had his engineers devise an inexpensive retrofit for excess ocean shipping containers, making them into livable sleeping rooms with minimal but complete facilities. He makes them available to municipalities at a reasonable cost to address their respective homeless crises, and guess what? A LOT of people on the edge of homelessness decide to jump off and avail themselves.

In California, they spend BILLIONS on the "homeless crisis" and it never gets any better. Indeed, there are armies of NGO workers who would be - dare I say it - homeless themselves if the problem were solved because they would not have jobs.

In the face of this matter, as we, the general public, ponder what should be done, I think the relevant question to ask is, "Why is 98% of the general public NOT homeless?" And the answer is, Because we go out to work every day in order to put a roof over our heads. Nobody is giving us a place to sleep; we have to WORK for it. Aside from the "Deserving Poor" (mainly widows, orphans, and crazies), why should "we" fret over the lives of those who simply won't do what WE are doing in order to stay warm and dry There are a shitload of jobs out there for anyone who wants one.

I just don't care as much as I'm supposed to. Sorry.

No money in homelessness for politicians -

 
The reality is that before WWII, there was tons of homelessness, lots of people living in boarding houses, there would be extended families with 15 people living in a house, etc.
But with WWII came great prosperity since the competition in Europe and Asia had to rebuild and buy from the US.
So we came out with the nuclear family idea, to sell more houses.
But it can't last.
The homeless used to be 1 or 2%, but has shot up to over 10%, and is accelerating.
They are predicting 50% homeless rates in the next 10 years.
People can't afford homes any more.
And with the government deficits, the entire currency is being ruined, so the whole country may go bankrupt.
BRICS may well take over, since we keep trying to finance wars like the Ukraine and Palestine.
 

Here in Pittsburgh, the homeless "crisis" is steadily increasing in magnitude as the civic officials fret over how to "solve" it. It is a little more urgent here than it is in, say, Los Angeles, because we will have a few days this Winter (thanks to Global Warming) when it could actually be life-threatening to be sleeping out on the streets.

My son recently sent me his thoughts on the matter, expressed in "music."


But the homelessness conundrum is, in my opinion, the more painless "we" make life for the homeless, the more people will simply decide that homelessness is a better option that their alternatives, e.g., working a lot of hours to rent a hovel. To illustrate, imagine that Elon Musk had his engineers devise an inexpensive retrofit for excess ocean shipping containers, making them into livable sleeping rooms with minimal but complete facilities. He makes them available to municipalities at a reasonable cost to address their respective homeless crises, and guess what? A LOT of people on the edge of homelessness decide to jump off and avail themselves.

In California, they spend BILLIONS on the "homeless crisis" and it never gets any better. Indeed, there are armies of NGO workers who would be - dare I say it - homeless themselves if the problem were solved because they would not have jobs.

In the face of this matter, as we, the general public, ponder what should be done, I think the relevant question to ask is, "Why is 98% of the general public NOT homeless?" And the answer is, Because we go out to work every day in order to put a roof over our heads. Nobody is giving us a place to sleep; we have to WORK for it. Aside from the "Deserving Poor" (mainly widows, orphans, and crazies), why should "we" fret over the lives of those who simply won't do what WE are doing in order to stay warm and dry There are a shitload of jobs out there for anyone who wants one.

I just don't care as much as I'm supposed to. Sorry.


The problem with the homeless crisis is that it needs to be tackled from the bottom up. Why do people end up homeless? High property prices, lack of security etc.

Are they going to deal with these? Hell no.
 

Here in Pittsburgh, the homeless "crisis" is steadily increasing in magnitude as the civic officials fret over how to "solve" it. It is a little more urgent here than it is in, say, Los Angeles, because we will have a few days this Winter (thanks to Global Warming) when it could actually be life-threatening to be sleeping out on the streets.

My son recently sent me his thoughts on the matter, expressed in "music."


But the homelessness conundrum is, in my opinion, the more painless "we" make life for the homeless, the more people will simply decide that homelessness is a better option that their alternatives, e.g., working a lot of hours to rent a hovel. To illustrate, imagine that Elon Musk had his engineers devise an inexpensive retrofit for excess ocean shipping containers, making them into livable sleeping rooms with minimal but complete facilities. He makes them available to municipalities at a reasonable cost to address their respective homeless crises, and guess what? A LOT of people on the edge of homelessness decide to jump off and avail themselves.

In California, they spend BILLIONS on the "homeless crisis" and it never gets any better. Indeed, there are armies of NGO workers who would be - dare I say it - homeless themselves if the problem were solved because they would not have jobs.

In the face of this matter, as we, the general public, ponder what should be done, I think the relevant question to ask is, "Why is 98% of the general public NOT homeless?" And the answer is, Because we go out to work every day in order to put a roof over our heads. Nobody is giving us a place to sleep; we have to WORK for it. Aside from the "Deserving Poor" (mainly widows, orphans, and crazies), why should "we" fret over the lives of those who simply won't do what WE are doing in order to stay warm and dry There are a shitload of jobs out there for anyone who wants one.

I just don't care as much as I'm supposed to. Sorry.

There's a little grace of God involved too.

On another note, Pittsburgh is a great town. Been there a couple of times. Lotta history and an easy town to navigate for an out-of-stater like me. Got a few friends there too.
 
Well, when Republicans consider contributing to the society from which you prosper to be suffering you have to wonder why we still subsidize the wealthy with tax breaks
Those tax breaks are incentives for investing in economic growth. Less money to the government means more productivity in the private sector.
 
Those tax breaks are incentives for investing in economic growth. Less money to the government means more productivity in the private sector.
Yea…the old “trickle down” claim

Only they don’t invest in economic growth……they keep it
 
Back
Top Bottom