Quote:
Originally Posted by berryberry
This is a bullshit question posted so juveniles can just attack conservatives: Really? I believe it was a request to have a different perspective and invite the same to the conversation.
If the OP wanted a legitimate discussion, he would not have asked "What would conservatives do about homelessness" rather he would have asked "What would anyone do about homelessness"
he wanted your guys side for input, but if you can only look at the question, instead of the solutions, then the input is really more mute, than particpatory.
You notice not one leftist has a plan to fix something that their leftist run cities and policies have created. You break it, you fix it
|
I put in a few solutions, so thats not true..
What's incredible is that so far the folks on the right have offered solutions like:
They bulk of homeless ppl are in blue cities, and therefore are their problem, - damned democrats love the homeless (right
) No republican Red cities have any homeless ppl, due to them imposing laws against it, and incarceration is an option. (what does incarceration cost vs. homeless shelter per person)
here's some facts:
https://www.npscoalition.org/post/fa...f-homelessness
Prisons and Jails
People who are homeless spend more time in jail or prison, which is tremendously costly to the state and locality. Often, time served is a result of laws specifically targeting the homeless population, including regulations against loitering, sleeping in cars, and begging.
According to a University of Texas two-year survey of homeless individuals, each person cost the taxpayers $14,480 per year, primarily for overnight jail.
A typical cost of a prison bed in a state or federal prison is $20,000 per year.
Eat the homeless or kill them- Devo - do you like them extra crispy with spicy seasoning or more smooth n creamy like Jiff? LOL JK.
Natural selection- Chizzy- let them all fend for themselves- (cause they are so resourceful smart Whiley bunch of ppl who are gaming the system.)
And finally BX2 "not my problem, you created the problem, you fix it".
When the request if for a solution, how about something that you genuinely think would "solve" some of the problems?
Some solutions that are not palatable but likely are reasonable:
incarceration. But comes at added costs- and adding crazy addicted ppl is likely a much more expensive problem to add to the jail system which isn't set up to deal with that population. A lot of other countries do deal with addiction and homeless ppl in more humane ways. They also treat prisoners in a better way too. I'm thinking some of the Scandinavian models and such. Now, they don't have the repeat offenders we have. Their models likely couldn't work here due to our catch and release of chronic offenders. (*That's likely a whole different topic). Those folks need to be in the old work camp style of camps ala cool hand luke or the like. Work those boys till they drop.
It seems terrible to me that prisoners literally have it better in jail than they do in their own homes prior. Access to tv, gym, food, entertainment, education and all in AC. There needs to be reconfiguration of how jails work IMHO. prisoners rights could be one of those hallmark legislation that both sides of the aisle work on to combat homelessness. Such as homeless incarceration means going to a bunk house while you work on social skills, addiction, or getting back out in the population, with the knowledge that 2nd or 3rd time offenders, move to work crews that get progressively harder and very undesireable.
The biggest problem with any incarceration, is that you take on the healthcare needs of a population when you deny them the freedom to walk around and seek it on their own. Despite the bad decisions that some of these folks make, they really could be a bad choice to do so when there are pandemics or outbreaks of other disease. I'm not a fan of this choice for the simple one way direction of keeping ppl, means they rely on you for EVERYTHING, and you have to provide that to some extent. Now detainment camps might work a bit better, but that would be another thing to look at for both homeless and those who break laws of overstaying visa's or being caught as illegal entries.
To many here, the point is that homeless and illegals don't vote (here comes the guys on the right - "yes they do". ..no- they really don't-in any appreciable way, from fear, or from not wanting to be caught in a system, or it's just a PITA), and since they don't vote, no politicians will give them too much of a glance. The compassionate citys in the past - and those who offer a good climate or social supports always get an unfair amount of those folks staying there. The ppl who are homeless are not R or D by definition. They don't vote (by any appreciative amount) so what does it matter?
It doesn't to politicians, but it does to the people who give money for public causes like:
The Red Cross
Family Promise
Coalition for the Homeless
Covenant House
StandUp for Kids
U.S. Veterans Initiative
Abode Services
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless
DePaul USA
Building Changes
Save the Family
National Alliance to End Homelessness
Harvest Home
Streetwise
And it might be worth note that the following are also in place so ppl don't become homeless
Tunnels to Towers.
Gary Sinese foundation
Equal justice foundation
Fisher House
Rotary Clubs.
While the list of foundations is long, and there are some specialty areas; the point is that there is money and giving to help. Help to get resources or learning to those in need, so they don't become homeless. The point is, that if you train ppl well enough they don't enter into the fray and become part of the problem by becoming homeless.
BUT,
Clearly- as stated before- money is NOT the solution to the problem. The adminstration of services is really where most ppl stop engaging in any system; The falloff from any systemic approach is, that if you make it difficult to follow, the percentage of drop-off is going to increase and therefore the cycle is doomed to repeat and increase to more you put road blocks in, and the more there are reporting agencies that need to "validate" the effectiveness of the programs. Republicans are not against these programs, but most want FAR reaching levels of review and a report card so they can say " we told you it wasn't going to work"., or limit the spend. Point is, it seems that D's are more interested in solutions from my research, and R's are more interested in validating the grade of the work, vs. the ideas.
It's a shame it's a political football, but today, what isn't?
