I'd love for them to have jobs! Of course I would! So take a look at that homeless person with that shopping cart. How exactly is he going to get a bath, get cleaned up, shaved, brush his teeth, get his clothes clean and pressed (assuming he has any clothes appropriate for the job), and get to work...and just as importantly, how's he going to do that day after day? It's not like he has a place to keep his clothes neat and clean until the next day.
This, btw, is one of the things that paying for apartments for the homeless does - it makes it easier for them to get and keep jobs.
Thing is, study after study has found that yes, it IS cheaper to pay for apartments for homeless to live in than it is to pay for what happens because they're out on the streets (police, courts (and lawyers), jails, emergency rooms, increased insurance costs for businesses). I've seen nothing yet showing that it's more expensive to provide apartments than it is to leave them on the streets.
It's not a presupposition - it's a fact. A counterintuitive fact to be sure, but a fact nonetheless.
No, it's not extortion, I'm just pointing out that a junkie on the streets costs us all a lot of money. If he steals and is caught, you provide free housing, 3 meals a day, TV, healthcare in jail, and he comes out and usually starts using again, with a record, even harder to get a job, and so steals again. IMO, if it is cheaper and works better to provide free housing in an apartment instead of jail, I'll gladly support that effort. It's just a function of what works.
10% a success depends on the alternative. If that 10% is an avoided AIDS case or Hep C or whatever, and a lifetime of expensive medical care, and those cases in effect pay for the others who fail, no problem with me.
We just apply different standards to who should receive aid, which is understandable. I don't much care why they're homeless, only what works best and is better for them and society in the long run. Some here think the potential for abuse is high and maybe they're right. If so the programs long term might be a failure. All I have to go on are the studies to date, which are of mostly pilot programs, and certainly are only open to a small slice of the total homeless population. Perhaps these programs will work for only a small slice of that population. We know our little charity doesn't work for many because to stay they do have to follow some basic rules - look for work, cook, clean, stay sober, get treatment. Theft is permanent dismissal with no chance of return. Getting high gets you kicked out, but when sober can return. Etc. Those are our rules, but if different rules work better, OK.
I have a different view of human nature, at least when it comes to thieves.
Okay. I don't really concern myself with preventing other people's ailments.
As long as your charity is a charity and not a government program, help all you want however you want. As a government program, I consider whether that money could be better spent somewhere else with better results for other people.
Right, throw them in jail. That costs us, you, something like $30,000 per year to provide free housing, food, etc.
Or maybe you think once a thief, always a thief? Sometimes, but often those people are just doing what they have to do to survive. When they do, they pay a penalty and I support that - jail is necessary. I'd rather give them an option that doesn't require theft and maybe that works better than kicking them to the streets. But the prison industry thanks you for your support!
You should, we all end up paying for it, either through medical costs, Medicaid, disability, food stamps, etc. for someone chronically ill, too sick to work. Even worse is that people with untreated communicable diseases spread them to others, and we pay for that one way or the other. Better hope that sick cook with Hep C doesn't nick his finger while preparing your dinner....
I think the point is the money IS better spent on apartments than prison, etc. Cheaper, freeing up money for better uses. So your objection appears to be on principle and not on what works. My point has been that I'm judging it like you - "whether money could be better spent somewhere else" than prisons, cops, etc. And the studies show it can be - a housing first approach to long term homeless.
Right, throw them in jail. That costs us, you, something like $30,000 per year to provide free housing, food, etc.
Or maybe you think once a thief, always a thief? Sometimes, but often those people are just doing what they have to do to survive. When they do, they pay a penalty and I support that - jail is necessary. I'd rather give them an option that doesn't require theft and maybe that works better than kicking them to the streets. But the prison industry thanks you for your support!
You should, we all end up paying for it, either through medical costs, Medicaid, disability, food stamps, etc. for someone chronically ill, too sick to work. Even worse is that people with untreated communicable diseases spread them to others, and we pay for that one way or the other. Better hope that sick cook with Hep C doesn't nick his finger while preparing your dinner....
I think the point is the money IS better spent on apartments than prison, etc. Cheaper, freeing up money for better uses. So your objection appears to be on principle and not on what works. My point has been that I'm judging it like you - "whether money could be better spent somewhere else" than prisons, cops, etc. And the studies show it can be - a housing first approach to long term homeless.
No, I'm asking where this supposed savings is that people are claiming exists. If you can't demonstrate it, it doesn't exist. If you're spending exactly the same money on everything else, plus $20k for each apartment, that's not savings, that's losing money.
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. We as citizens vote for public officials who make these decisions and levy the taxes and spend the money. It's how this thing works, and if you don't like it, vote in people who agree with you, and I'll vote for people who share my views. Thankfully, the clear majority favors public spending on social services.
And, sure, we aren't obligated to help ANYONE. Kids die because they can't get an infection treated and mom can't afford the doctor bills? We CAN say - well too bad, freedom! But then don't preach to me about religion and Christianity and assert that those who do want to help don't understand their religion. Just say you don't give one damn about them, and if they die in the streets, f'em because liberty or something demands suffering.
You didn't answer my question about why you feel the need to make idiotic blanket statements besmirching all Christians.Because if we as society or Christians aren't obligated to help them, that is the alternative in real life, in our communities, to people we pass every day on the streets. The charitable resources just are not there to serve the population as we speak. It's easy to say, "Well, charities SHOULD address these problems" but when they do not (i.e. in real life) address them because they don't have the resources, it's just fact that people will in fact die on the streets.
If you don't favor that or accept it as the acceptable price of freedom and liberty, and don't favor public efforts, then what is your suggestion?
BTW, if we are honest we all accept that to some degree. There are millions or billions of starving, destitute people worldwide, and unless we give away all our possessions and live in poverty and move to some poor area to devote our lives to help them out as much as is humanly possible, we do accept that state of affairs. That's just the reality. But then let's be honest and say that instead of pretending we're doing something else.
The money can be spent elsewhere that has nothing to do with homeless people. 1) I don't care what it costs to put someone in prison or jail. 2) I think they deserve to be there or I do not.
You see these people as victims.
I see a woman with an abusive husband as a victim. I do not see someone who likes to stick needles in their arm a victim. I would rather we gave the money to a woman who needs a new car to get to work so she can keep her job and not become homeless than to spend it on someone who likes to lay around getting high because it helps them "cope" or whatever excuse they want to come up with. My priority is to want to have the government help the people that I think most deserve the help first. People who are out there working and trying will always be a bigger priority for me than people who are not.
Since when has government solved any problem completely? What makes you think it will be different in this case?And guess what, guy - with all the thousands of "Christian" churches in America, we still have a severe homelessness problem. Even in the deepest parts of the Bible Belt where I come from, there's still lots of homeless.
Sorry, but charity only goes so far. It's nice to think that charity can solve it...but in real life, no. Never has, not in all human history.
You didn't answer my question about why you feel the need to make idiotic blanket statements besmirching all Christians.
Valid point about representation, butut we are taxed enough already. What's wrong with people deciding for themselves?
Since when has government solved any problem completely? What makes you think it will be different in this case?
So many different perspectives. "Cheaper" is relative. If done right it is certainly more cost effective in the long run but also much more effectvie for the individuals. That SHOULD be the goal.
Utah's chronic homeless numbers drop from 1,932 to 178 in 10 years | The Salt Lake Tribune
If you want to talk just $$$, then look at the case of Million Dollar Murray. Its cost MILLIONS of dollars to do nothing and in the end, the man died, and society just ended up with another body to bury and bill to pay.
Million-Dollar Murray
A program that JUST keeps people tucked into a room somewhere cheaper isnt very effective or humane. A program that helps people get their feet under them, make new beginnings, and maybe even change their future for the better and be productive members of society...thats well worth it.
I'll point back to representation. We are taxed the amount those we as a community decide to tax us.
And I wish people would decide for themselves to fund programs adequate to serve this population. In my area, that has not happened. Again, 100s on the waiting list, could be longer.... So WHEN voluntary charity fails, then what? I'm just answering a practical question with an IMO practical answer - public services provide some of the help.
If it is shown that it costs less in taxpayer dollars to provide apartments for the homeless than it would be to just let them remain homeless in the streets, would you support using taxpayer dollars to pay for apartments for the homeless?
Why or why not?
If it's actually cheaper then yes but I wouldn't trust the numbers because liberals will skew them to fit their agenda of wealth redistribution and so I would probably vote against it unless the study were done by some group I trust
If it's actually cheaper then yes but I wouldn't trust the numbers because liberals will skew them to fit their agenda of wealth redistribution and so I would probably vote against it unless the study were done by some group I trust
Since when has government solved any problem completely? What makes you think it will be different in this case?
My response to you was to indicate that the poll was poorly worded because of the prejudicial language. I personally have not looked at the link you posted. I don't know if the study was done by a group with an agenda. I don't know about the validity of the study. I'm not commenting on the study.
And the reality is that guy is probably mentally ill, or addicted to drugs or alcohol, likely both, and is in a downward spiral that's tough to stop on your own. It is tough for those with support - family, friends, lots of money. Put them on the streets and there is little actual chance. If the housing first approach works, my guess is it does so by providing a way for someone to 'fail' a few times and not be immediately back on the downward spiral on the streets and so gives them an actual chance to make it long term. It's a guess, but we know from our own population that lots of them take 2 or 3 or 4 tries before it "sticks" long term. We expect it and plan for it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?