Who am I going to throw quarters at? Who's going to help me find drugs? Who am I going to blame all my problems on?!?! These are the tough questions you need to start asking before you start your homelessness genocide folks..
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
1382 points (98.1% liked)
Political Memes
7852 readers
3328 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Isn't that what Los Angeles is currently doing? Anyway solving problem of homeless that just got unlucky and ended up on the street is the easy part. You provide support which they will use it to get back on their feet.
The hard part is that they are not the only people that are homeless. The more difficult ones are addicts, who first need to be cleaned and not all of them wants to. And the most difficult ones are mentally ill. Those should be committed to a mental institution, unfortunately during Reagan they must agree for this to happen and they obviously won't.
Thats because they wanted to solve the problem.
America doesnt want to solve problems.
It just wants cruelty. Cruelty isnt a byproduct. Its the end product.
The problem with making an addict choose between a roof an heroin, is they already know they can live without the roof.
Don't know how Finland does it exactly. But here in Germany the rent would be paid directly by the city to the landlord. The addict would not have any real way to get to the money, because he is not involved in this process. But there aren't enough appartments, so despite that we also have homlesness here (not at a USA level though).
That's the thing, in Finland they can't, they'd freeze to death otherwise.
Where profits?
Yeah but the rich have to pay taxes!
Do they? I believe such solutions are surprisingly cost effective
When Milwaukee implemented a housing-first homeless policy, they actually saved money.
Turns out that, by almost completely eliminating homelessness, you can save a lot of money on the legal system, policing, healthcare, and other costs associated with homelessness.
Housing-first homeless policy is the obvious solution: it's humane, it's effective, and it saves us money.
Not if you're exploiting them for cheap labor.
Is the hommeles man providing them with cheap labor?
No. Their existence scares shit out of everyone else to work hard for piss money.
So the solution is cost effective like my initial statement said and youre just arguing for arguments sake? Idgi
I don't get what you did with all the time you saved by typing "Idgi" instead of "I don't get it".
You mean "cost" as in the cost of the collective people. Such is not given a fuck about by anyone with enough to not be a communist. That and such wealth would give zero fucks if it weren't for the fact that this level of wealth can, instead of forcing people, simply buy anything to be done that is delirious, disgusting and more that even I don't want to talk about here.
At the end of the day it become the choice of every individual who doesn't want to die to sell their kid to Bill Gates who will do you know what.
I just meant that in terms of tax payer money offering homeless people cheap free housing is not more expensive than not doing that and having all these other costs go up to combat the symptoms nothing more.
Note that the "homeless" people in Finland are mainly people who refuse to accept support from the social welfare, this is because they prefer to get drunk instead of spending it on food and rent. The social welfare eventually suggests a different system for such people: pay the rent for them and give a special card that can be used for anything except alcohol and cigarette. If the people keep refusing that other option, then they went homeless on their own accord and keep spending the welfare on alcohol and living on the streets. Such people are very rare in Finland in reality however, but they do exist.
Buy food abd stuff, trade for alcohol. That's what similiar folk do here.
If you work part time in Finland, and spend that pay on booze and drugs, can you still collect to social welfare for home and food?
Channel 5 has been making great documentaries on YouTube about this. No preconditions isn’t true. No drugs, need Id. Housing programs exist aswell as shelters (no Id required) but you can’t be on drugs. They exist in canada heavily. It’s not the full solution.
Vancouver, and I imagine most of Canada's major cities are experiencing a massive homelessness crisis, I dont know of these housing programs you speak of. There certainly isnt enough provided housing to go around
It's not just a no drugs rule. Addicts get free addiction treatments and the money they receive is unable to be spent on alcohol or nicotine products.
view more: next ›