Please slap Canada too Finland.
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
1382 points (98.1% liked)
Political Memes
7873 readers
3015 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
thanks for the meme sounds good love bart simson
Homelessness is a tactic in social marketing. America needs homelessness to stay America.
But how will such a classist society survive if the privileged cannot judge,extort and feel better for it?
Won't someone think of the capitalists!
Correct! If someone cannot profit from it, it can't be done in the US.
That's why wars have been so lucrative for the US. Imagine the return of investment of the US military.
It's important to note that this is a two fold application. Counseling is just as important as the home.
Mental health is vital.
The mental health needs to be optional to the rehomed or it won't work.
As Americans, we desperately need a mental health services for all program.
While I agree that the mental health is vital, I disagree that it's of equal importance. Housing first has a winning track record, and bundling services can deter people from using either.
Someone might be just one restful night's sleep away from deciding that counseling isn't a trap.
It's worth noting that this is true for the vast majority of homeless, but the most visible contingent of homeless have severe mental issues that preclude a "housing first" approach.
Having no housing precludes keeping a proper medication schedule, record keeping, and a whole list of other things.
There's very little about mental illness that permanently frustrates sleeping indoors. Transitional housing, housing with shared bathing and kitchen facilities already exist.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Yeah, also when you throw in drug addiction. Housing-first really runs into issues with people who have destructive tendencies due to addiction or illness.
load more comments
(1 replies)
We have a similar program in my city, but unfortunately the scale of the problem is just too big at this point, and too wrapped up in a parallel mental health crisis to be solved by housing alone. A lot of these people basically need something closer to assisted living or a halfway to get back into any kind of normal routine. The US needed these programs 40 years ago.
People need to get comfortable with the knowledge that large problems take decades to actually solve and won’t be fixed in a single election cycle.
Yes I’ll never understand this weird mentality that thinks the moment whomever they vote in all their promises will be fulfilled immediately like a fast meal though a McDonald’s drive through.
If everyone voted for a wealth tax we could have small apartments and counseling for the homeless. No more homeless in our streets. :) the surplus of cash could also improve our infrastructure. More public transportation and bullet trains 😉
We already spend more dealing with homelessness issues than we would need to spend to house them.
As a country, we need to understand our puritanical roots and eject them from our collective conscious.
US only has 650k homeless people. With its budget it doesn't even need to tax the wealthy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The "no preconditions" part is surprisingly important to solving lots of social issues.
Half of the system exists to prevent people from exploiting the system. Most likely at a net loss. As in, it costs more to prevent people from exploiting the system, than would be lost by people exploiting the system.
You shouldn't think of it that way. It's not about saving money, it's about punishing, dehumanizing and marginalizing people in need and sadly, in the eyes of some people it's worth it
It would preferably be about targetting the most egregious cases of fraud, as they're the most risky for both parties (the government, and the majority of recipients). Those extreme cases are the ones most likely to endanger such programs.
...i guess I'm not completely against all oversight. Even though "not doing extreme acts of fraud" is a pretty loose condition (which probably applies across the majority of society anyways, wish it applied to the ruling classes and elites a bit more though).
Definitely at a net loss. It always costs more to police the system than is ever recovered or saved. The benefits given to any single person are insignificant to a government budget.
The fraud occurs on the service provider side. Medicare/Medicaid providers are a big one but anyone that collects the dispersement of these services since those create literal billionaires and aka support the exploiter class.
"Hey I've got homelessness... but I want homelessness. " Murica goes to the Mayor starring Tim Hidecker and Eric Wareheim.