Your reasoning on this subject is very muddled, my friend. I, unfortunately, worked my way backward through the thread, so I hadn't realized how far astray you had wandered previously. Others have taken the laboring oar in redirecting your thoughts.
That is a different thread.
your approach is like having first responders to a fire insist that because they cannot save everyone, their efforts should not be expended to help those they could reach
We have crime fighting programs aimed at only those that commit misdemeanors. They are quite effective. They are called "diversion" programs, and aim at societal benefits. That, by the way, was the point of having juvenile detention in the first place.
What is interesting about this - and history - is that Milton Freidman was wrong about so many things, but this is one point that he was right about that was ignored by the very people he was preaching it to. (You note Fulbright's dismissive tone? - god, he always was an arrogant asshole.) A negative income tax would be so much easier to administer than the myriad systems we currently have in place, and addresses, directly, the very population that needs it most.
Again, my friend, your approach to this is very muddled. I think the better analogy is this: Firefighters use a variety of techniques to fight a variety of fires. Forest fires are fought differently than dumpster fires, or house fires. You don't use water on a grease fire, do you? Let the technique fit the problem. You are trying to apply forest fire solutions on a kitchen fire.
Again, this is a different thread - we all know that there is a serious, serious problem with our penal system, and the mass incarceration of minor, non-violent criminals. You want to import those mistakes into homelessness?
Unfortunately the wealthy in america have managed to create a welfare system for themselves while convincing the majority of americans that welfare for the poor is nothing more than that hated word, communism.
So we should simply ignore kitchen fires? And the house fires they lead to?
significantly, Milton Friedman was the fellow who taught the reagan administration to curb federal spending when our economy was being devastated by runaway inflation and resulting high interest rates
I thought you posted that the human rights commission said so?
WTF are you blabbering about now?
Ah, but you are missing a HUGE point.
(National Fire Protection Association). Cumulatively, home fires are far more destructive than forest fires.
And that's from the TRUMP administration. (Don't get me started on the hypocrisy of the report itself.)
Unfortunately, as with most things in the Reagan administration, they took the wrong lessons from the process. In the end, what saved the economy (and the Reagan administration) was resistance to the Reagan administration's austerity programs. Bush, Sr. was right to call it "voodoo economics" (and why I voted for him).
I have found that a disproportionate amount of homeless services goes to a relatively small portion of the homeless population. It's the old "80% of the effort goes to 20% of the problem" adage of management.
But in this analogy, you are arguing that we shouldn't address the 80%.