"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler
Okay. I don't really concern myself with preventing other people's ailments.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.
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.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.
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....Okay. I don't really concern myself with preventing other people's ailments.
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.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.
I think the fallacy here is that you believe that the homeless people come with the same value system, the same work ethic, the same respect for themselves, for others and for property, that you have, and that you falsely assume that everyone else has the same. I hate to break it to you, but they don't. Case in point are the low income housing developments and how they are hates and slowly but surely destroyed, bit by bit, broken window by broken window. Destroyed by the occupants which paid nothing for them, which I think would be a more accurate model and expected outcome than whatever fallacies you have in your head there.
Give away something for free, and it's not valued. Make someone pay, even a little bit for it, and it'll have a greater chance to be respected and cared for. This is the basis for a low income housing project I heard about on NPR (sorry can't find it on Google), and since the residents are in fact paying for it (even if it's just a little bit), it gives them a stake in what goes on there and what is allowed to go on there. The residents administer the development for themselves with an elected board, with some help, and their own rules are from more stringent, and far more observed and far more peer-enforced than any others.
One example is no illegal drug use tolerated. Anyone in the family caught abusing, either the abuser is evicted, or the entire family is evicted, by their own rules and their own enforcement. There's no drug, drug gang, or property destruction problem here.
Clearly, giving it away isn't the best course nor the best choice, nor the only choice available.
Nancy Pelosi said: “We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it.” A Doctor called to a radio show & said: "That's the definition of a stool sample"
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Barack Obama January 2008
When people aren't living on the streets they're less inclined to use social services such police and emergency rooms because they got beat up or ate rotten food or OD'd. And too, the mentally ill are more inclined to take their medication on regular basis which also translates into less medical care and less crime. Surely even you can see the savings in both lives and cost in that.
Last edited by Moot; 06-09-15 at 03:36 PM.
2) OK, and I've agreed that thieves should go to jail.
Sometimes they are. If you heard some of their stories, you'd agree. Raped regularly by family from a young age, beaten, abused, etc. Lots of veterans with PTSD, asked to do things by our government most humans cannot do, and not able to cope. Sure they're victims - no one would wish their lives on anyone. Others made their own beds and aren't victims in that sense. And I don't actually care. If it costs me and you $10,000 versus $30,000, I'll go with the $10k victim or not.You see these people as victims.
OK, but again, that guy sticking needles in his arm costs you and me a lot of money, like it or not. I'd rather get him clean and producing instead of warehouse that guy in 5 stints in jail at $100k/round trip.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.
And the point is if you save $20k on that junkie, you'd have $20k more to spend on maybe 5 women who need help buying a car. I'm all for that! IF the junkie gets a good deal out of it, so what? I'd rather save the tax money or spend it on women like you mention.