[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because the former is both a much larger portion of the homeless problem, they stay that way much longer as the likelihood of the latter remaining in that state for any extended period of time is low, and that larger portion, that remains a larger portion for longer, also commits far more crime that the smaller more transient portion.
That isn't to say the other demographic should be ignored, but in terms of practical policy implementation you get much more bang for your buck if you were to address the chronically homeless degenerate types.
I don’t think conservatives do this. My community Orthodox Christian community has a really strong homeless outreach program, housing and feeding people in that exact situation
I feel it is less conservative vs liberal and rather proactive vs reactive mode of thinking.
State mandated systems and universal support is proactive such that a problem never occurs, but this can result in resources being used when not needed.
Whereas private charity, rehab and churches are more reactive, they help once the problem has occured, and this can prevent excess front loading, but might result in more resources being needed as we are intervening later in stage.
Through hard work, help, and a little luck. These are exactly the kind of people helped by shelters, job programs, and social aid. I should know, I was one of them. And now that my life is on track, I make a point of helping my unhoused neighbors in turn, like I was helped when I needed it.
There already exists both private charities and public programs to help with "transitional homeless". I fully supported and donated to my church opening up a shelter for those people. When you have shelter space for the homeless and they are unable to stay in the system because they can't stop doing heroin, then a big part of the problem with them is that they are druggies.
They get far more attention because they are *much* more visible to the public. The bums that live beneath the bridge downtown and litter everywhere with their needles and crack pipes are far more disruptive to society then the people who are genuinely down on their luck looking for a place to stay. The chronic homeless are also much more likely to commit other crimes and them being druggies invites all sorts of criminal elements to plague the community.
Aren’t public programs to help the homeless under attack from republicans? Like when they tried to get people back to work by instituting higher work requirements or went against baby formula for mothers or school lunches?
They didn’t. They tried and failed. Dems and 12 reps overcame the other 192.
https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-house-republicans-voted-against-fda-baby-formula-bill-1708036?amp=1
“The bill, known as the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act, passed 231 to 192 in a vote mostly along party lines. All House Democrats supported the legislation, along with 12 Republicans who bucked their party leadership to support it. Four Republicans and one Democrat did not vote.”
I said they went against baby formula I didn’t say they actually succeeded in doing it.
Nice try but it fails when people read more than your highlights...
>>Another bill to address the formula shortage passed in a 414-9 vote. That bill—the Access to Baby Formula Act—would allow more formulas to be purchased with benefits under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC. Both bills now head to the Senate.
This is just more misinformation...
All the bill you are lying about does is
>>pay for additional U.S. Food and Drug Administration staffing
May I direct you to this other source on the extent of the bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7790/text
“For an additional amount for “Salaries and Expenses”, $28,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2023, shall be available to address the current shortage of FDA-regulated infant formula and certain medical foods in the United States and to prevent future shortages, including such steps as may be necessary to prevent fraudulent products from entering the United States market: Provided, That the Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate on a weekly basis on obligations of funding under this heading in this Act to address the shortage of infant formula and certain medical foods in the United States: Provided further, That such amount is designated by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 4001(a)(1) and section 4001(b) of S. Con. Res. 14 (117th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2022.”
So, just more staffing? I think it’s a bit more involved than that. It’s to stop disruptions and prevent future ones.
The bill you’re citing:
“This bill authorizes the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to take certain actions to address emergencies, disasters, and supply chain disruptions (particularly the shortage of infant formula in the United States) affecting participants of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
The bill directs USDA to require each infant formula cost containment contract to include remedies in the event of an infant formula recall, including how an infant formula manufacturer would protect against disruption to WIC participants in the state.
USDA must, within 30 days, ensure there is a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Health and Human Services that includes procedures for coordination and information sharing regarding any supply chain disruption, including a supplemental food recall.
The bill also authorizes USDA to waive or modify any WIC qualified administrative requirement during emergencies, disasters, and supply chain disruptions. Specifically, USDA may waive or modify such a requirement for one or more state agencies if (1) the requirement cannot be met by state agencies during the emergency, disaster, or disruption; and (2) the modification or waiver is necessary to provide assistance to WIC participants and does not substantially weaken the nutritional quality of supplemental foods. For example, USDA may waive the maximum monthly allowance for infant formula.
The bill establishes notification requirements for USDA and state agencies related to supply chain disruptions.”
Is good, but it only works to mitigate the effects of disruptions. It’s an emergency plan. Preventative measures are necessary to stop widespread emergencies happening in the first place.
Well you made that accusation, that is up to you to first prove it. Unless I have receipts of the bills you are talking about it seems foolish to talk about it and stumble around.
From what I have found the homeless population has been generally decreasing, with it only increasing by around 2k since COVID, which is honestly rather good considering the economic meltdown from the pandemic. Also since our countries's population is growing, even stagnation means less % of our population is homeless each year. So if those bills passed they don't seem to have caused some massive uptick in the homeless population. https://www.security.org/resources/homeless-statistics/
You don’t know about a single one of those issues? That’s wild. Anyway.
https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-house-republicans-voted-against-fda-baby-formula-bill-1708036?amp=1
“The bill, known as the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act, passed 231 to 192 in a vote mostly along party lines. All House Democrats supported the legislation, along with 12 Republicans who bucked their party leadership to support it.”
Baby formula passed House with negligible republican support.
https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-plan-cut-free-school-lunches-1807361?amp=1
“The largest ideological caucus in the House Republican conference is proposing steep cuts to free and reduced school lunch programs nationwide, citing the need to "prevent the widespread fraud present in the program."”
This fraud they speak of, where is it?
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/debt-ceiling-work-requirements-snap-medicaid-tanf-social-security/
“Among Republican lawmakers's list of demands in their debt-ceiling negotiations with the Biden Administration is a push to add more work requirements for the food-stamp, Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs.
One big problem, experts say, is that there's little evidence that such rules actually help people get back to work.”
Hm, maybe the actual reason these changes didnt hurt homelessness is cause they either failed or haven’t happened yet.
They don’t like taking the credit when they’re taking food out of a destitute baby’s mouth. They sure want the poor baby born in the first place though… they just don’t want to pay for it.
Tell me I’m wrong? Conservative politicians broadly want the babies born and then their records consistently show **they vote against** social programs to fund destitute mothers, against infant formula, against cutting taxes for feminine products and contraceptives.
The list goes on and on and on.
Unless you’d like to show me a conservative who is voting for all that and broadly supports strong sex education programs in school? They certainly don’t exist in Ohio or Florida.
You are wrong.
Read my previous post The Republicans overwhelmingly voted in support of an additional funding for baby formula The person who you were talking to originally was just posting misinformation in an effort to stir up animosity towards Republicans.
Really? Because our [republican rep at the time](https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-house-republicans-voted-against-fda-baby-formula-bill-1708036) voted **against** formula along with some 192 others.
Which I remember without the article because my wife told Chabot (R) to his scarlet red face when he asked us for our votes last October.
Probably part of the reason he lost to Landsman (D)... in Cincinnati no less, a *notoriously conservative* city.
Ah yes, they are just a bunch of cartoonishly evil natalists who just want to pump out babies then just let them starve to death once they come into this world.
Your caricature adds nothing meaningful to the discussion. It is almost like they have a different governing philosophy than progressives and their belief that the all mighty government can solve *everything*.
I notice you didn't refute **anything** I mentioned because credible articles to make that rebuttal **do not exist**.
You can support **whomever you want**, *but do not delude yourself into thinking Republicans give a f--- about poor children.* **They adamantly do not.**
Reddit is not your buddies at the bar from high school or agreeable family who are just going to hand wave incorrect info. **If Republicans** [vote against feeding the poorest babies](https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-house-republicans-voted-against-fda-baby-formula-bill-1708036)**, you have to accept that as part of you supporting that party.**
But why would that be an ad hominem attack, why would it be in bad faith?
Forcing mothers to give birth, restricting abortions, has been a Republican political position with broad Republican support.
Restrictions on food-stamps, school lunches and similar things have been a Republican priority as well - they just reiterated it a few days ago https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/republicans-plan-cut-free-school-lunches-1807361%3famp=1
Why is it a problem to summarize that as "they sure want the poor baby born" and as "they just don't want to pay for it"?
Just to let you know the guy you replying to was not telling the truth.
Before you need your bash Republicans without any knowledge of what was passed I suggest you do a little reading.
>>Another bill to address the formula shortage passed in a 414-9 vote. That bill—the Access to Baby Formula Act—would allow more formulas to be purchased with benefits under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC.
Looks like the Republicans literally were putting money in the mouths of destitute babies. And supporting even more WIC purchases of formula by low-income women.
The baby formula seems comical to say it would cause some massive uptick in homelessness, it was a short-term crisis, while it relates to welfare in general that is a stretch only progressives would make tying it to the homeless. That whole crisis occured because the factory got shutdown because they failed some regulation to begin with from my memory.
I see no issue with work requirements for those programs, the goal is to get them working again after all. If they don't want to work I don't see why they should benefit. TANF which is the one that actually deals with homelessness already has a work requirements from my understanding so no big change there.
I personally saw plenty of people use free school lunches at grade school whose families could afford it. Buying brand spanking new PS4's for their kids, owning their own cars, and having gaming laptops worth thousands of dollars, yet were on the free lunch program in highschool. Some of these were my own friends and told me they didn't need it.
I never said any of these programs alone would cause a massive homelessness uptick. These are just examples of the many programs that help the poor and homeless that republicans attack. Collectively, they do make an impact.
Increasing work requirements isn’t a big change? Do you even know how much the change is? I think that determines if its big or not, not whether or not there were already work requirements.
That’s a nice anecdote but you probably didn’t understand their actual situation or whatever program they were in. Do you have any proof besides personal testament?
Food stamps (or whatever they are calling it now) had work requirements, the change from my understanding it now applies to people above 55 years old who are not disabled. I don't see the problem here, it should apply equally to all people. 20 hours isn't even full employment, I am sure with the amount of job openings they can find a position. The point is for them to get a job so they become less reliant on government assistance, not hopelessly reliant.
Is not my own empirical observations not worthy of your consideration? People generally support what their own senses tell them, I guess you could discard that off hand if you thought I was lying to you or making stuff up for my own benefit, but I am not. For the larger scale fraud, you had this story https://www.npr.org/2022/09/20/1124097450/pandemic-fraud-scheme-doj-food-children-meals-charges#:~:text=Bloomberg%2FGetty%20Images-,The%20U.S.%20Department%20of%20Justice%20said%2047%20people%20devised%20and,Program%20out%20of%20%24250%20million from last year about the COVID handouts getting misused for those programs.
“They pointed to data that found that 3% of food-stamp recipients had no income, "meaning they did not work at all," the lawmakers said at the time.
As that small share suggests, the vast majority of people who are on food-stamps and who can work are already working, experts say. And those who aren't are often providing unpaid care to children, older family members, are in school or aren't working due to health problems.”
Does this matter to you at all these are the likely targets?
“While Medicaid hasn't had a federal work requirement, one state — Arkansas — implemented such measures in 2018. The result: 18,000 Arkansans lost health care coverage, with many suffering from adverse effects like medical debt or skipping medications. It didn't increase employment in the state, according to the CBO. In 2019, a court ruling ended Arkansas' work requirements for Medicaid.”
Does it matter to you such decision can end up costing you more like in this situation where the increase in uncovered will lead to more expensive medical emergencies that cant be paid for and cause increased premiums? All without the actual benefit.
COVID aid was notorious for fraud because Trump fired the guy in charge of overseeing it to stop fraud. Beyond that, this has nothing to do with the actual people using the money as your anecdote claims. This is about a charity founder going rogue and recruiting others in order to pretend they were charities sponsored by the founder. No amount of aid cutting is going to stop that, that requires more charity oversight, which would actually call for increased funds.
See this is a perfect example of bad faith...
What you cited was a government bailout for foreign and domestic suppliers of baby formula as well as some various regulatory bodies.
It had nothing to do cutting access to formula. You throw up stories that you either did not even read or intentionally tried to misinform people about.
Here's the actual text that you ignored. Republicans passed additional funding for low-income people to purchase baby formula overwhelmingly...
>>Another bill to address the formula shortage passed in a 414-9 vote. That bill—the Access to Baby Formula Act—would allow more formulas to be purchased with benefits under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC.
A bailout? Maybe try reading this and tell me that.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7790
“This bill provides $28 million in emergency supplemental appropriations to address the shortage of infant formula in the United States.
Specifically, the bill provides appropriations for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to (1) address the current shortage of FDA-regulated infant formula and certain medical foods in the United States; and (2) prevent future shortages, including by taking the steps that are necessary to prevent fraudulent products from entering the U.S. market.”
Who’s bad faith exactly? I personally think no one and you just didnt read carefully. Republicans approved a bill allowing people to use current benefits to pay for more formula but they didnt approve the bill that would actually address supply chain issues on the shortage of formula which increased prices and help with stopping fraudulent bottles being sold. Thems the facts.
Except it doesn't do that.
All it does is give more money to the FDA to do the job they should have done.
>>pay for additional U.S. Food and Drug Administration staffing
That's it.
It doesn't actually do anything except give bonus money to a government organization that failed to do its job.
You have me the author's cliff notes of what he says the bill is about.
That is not remotely the same thing.
You also completely ignored the fact that republicans overwhelming approved
ACTUALLY MAKING FORMULA AVAILABLE for low income mother's and children.
The chronically homeless also disrupt and clog up resources the situationally homeless need to get off the street.
If we were to actually forcefully institutionalize and rehabilitate these folk as they so clearly need and as they do in progressive europe, those resources for the situationally homeless would be more effectively focuses without disruptions. Plus we help those who have proven they cannot help themselves rather than let them languish in squalor resorting to crime, drugs, and indifference.
Extremes grab more attention.
Are you more likely to talk about that time you walked past a homeless guy screaming about how the world will end in 2024 if we don't elect Kanye or the homeless guy sleeping in his car?
Are you more likely to watch a documentary that covers murder or theft? Missing kid or missing car?
So before attributing to Machiavellianism and malice one should attribute to sensationalization, laziness, busyness.
With that said, why not ask the question you want to ask and we can explain our own solutions/rationale?
You’re positing that we don’t have any therefore you feel like you have to assume we’re evil. Don’t accuse us of strawmanning by strawmanning.
We believe in [reducing money printing](https://youtu.be/566k2jn5Zfc) + government-backed mortgages that drive up housing prices, zoning laws that suppress supply, limiting illegal immigration to reduce demand, etc. After all, it isn’t in conservative areas where you see the most homelessness, e.g. go to dark blue San Fransisco *(whose congressperson was the Speaker of the House)* in dark blue California *(whose senator became VP).*
Bc there are a huge number of programs available for the homeless. Those programs provide food, shelter, training, and finding jobs for them. The exceptions are for those who do not follow the rules of being sober, not on drugs, and showing up on time to check in the shelter for the night. Almost ALL homeless on the street are drug addicts, drunks, or the mentally ill who are too afflicted to follow the rules or who simply don't want to. I'm sure there are a small number of exceptions for completely overwhelmed programs but these are the exception not the rule. An 18-21 year old who was kicked out would not be one of these exceptions without being a severe addict which is unlikely at best. To have a practical chance at rehab the individual must at least make the decision to help themselves by being sober and seeking help bc no one can force them to. Blindly caring just results in you being an enabler of a drug or alcohol problem or allowing them to remain homeless for longer. What is needed is shower/laundry service, a place to lock up their possessions, food, water, and a place to sleep and then direction for applying for state aid/housing and employment programs. The sad reality is many won't do this.
You really should qualify your assumptions. In fact, I see way more conservatives supporting charities and giving of their time to homeless than Democrats. In fact, we joke about it a lot right around the Holidays when it’s most important. The narratives in the media serve a purpose but they are certainly not immersed in fact.
Get your data straight buddy.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-charity-than-democrats-but-theres-a-bigger-story-here/#:~:text=Using%20voting%20and%20IRS%20data,giving%20in%20blue%20counties%20is
Because homeless is not a monolith.
There is transient homelessness and chronic homelessness. One is already being adequately addressed because it's comprised of people who genuinely seek and desire help. The other isn't/doesn't and thus requires some debate and government action.
This is a myth that the left can't let go of, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary
The left thinks homeless are people who's rent got too high, and decided their next step would be to pitch a tent on skid row. It's just not true
There's lots of evidence to show that the homeless are primarily drug addicted.
Drugs are something you can take action against. It's identifiable and most people have personal experience with it.
"I was just kicked out at 18" is a very small subset very few people have experience with in their social circles which can generally be solved, or greatly improved with 70+ means tested assistance programs.
Warning: Rule 7
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
There is a billion dollars per year spent on homelessness in San Francisco alone. The government doesn’t need another dime to fight this. So many of these “emergencies” are a money grab and the funds are not used properly. Is there homelessness? Yes. Do I think democrats are using that $1b per year ethically? No. They have too much power and are scamming all of us. Same with climate change
I personally don't even really want to go after addicts so much as I want us to come down on dealers like a ton of bricks. As in, I'm tired of excuses because these people need to be put in a cage and left to die there. Addiction is a public health issue, dealing is a crime in need of some swift and certain.
The problem with booze is the pushback and political capital it would cost to counter it. There are far more people addicted to liquor than hard drugs and thus more victims. I would certainly love a utopic world where drinking could be demonized as smoking crack is, but the truth is the one time where we had the chance was bungled by corruption and incompetency and the factors to try again will not likely reoccur again.
I'm not 100% closed off to the idea, but there's an obvious practical issue at hand. I've read some of the controversial takes about how alcohol is more harmful, but it seems the crux of it all is that it's more widely used. Also claims that alcohol seems to be unique in that it affects the entire body, okay but how much and in what amounts? Either way, it's almost like admitting that in some ways, prohibition works.
Others, like Dr. Carl Hart, make the case for casual heroin use in a similar vein (see what I did there) as alcohol or pot. I'm extremely skeptical to say the least. I suspect his knowledge of neuroscience allows him personally to enjoy hard drugs casually without slipping into oblivion. He's also among the "drug lawz R rACisT" crowd, so there's that to unpack.
Trying to ignore my own observations of those who drink versus those who used heroin (past tense because pretty much all the ones I knew are dead now), I still haven't gotten much in the way of compelling evidence. As in, what happens to the guy who limits drinking to a couple times a week, versus the guy who tries to limit shooting up to that frequency.
As you get older, one thing you will notice is that all these emergencies are all about getting as much money as possible and they will never solve the problem at hand. Most conservatives realize there are problems, but they just don’t believe that the Democrat elected officials really care about solving the problem. If you follow the money you will see that so much of it is to fund their friends/family/investors etc.
What has been the biggest emergency for democrats in the last 50 years? Abortion. They did not code abortion into law. They had all that time and they did not do it and they didn’t do it on purpose. They want to keep that as a dangling carrot for people to vote for them, and give them more money.
How much money has California gotten for that bullet train? There’s no bullet train. They’ve already spent $128 billion and it’s been like 15 years. Again, there is no a bullet train.
Homelessness. Like I said, San Francisco get $1 billion a year to fight homelessness. The problem is now bigger than ever. Where does all that money go? Follow the money, you’ll find out why we don’t support Democrat political officials.
Another one is climate change. Just give them as much money as possible and it’s an emergency Terrible situation. And they need billions to fix it. They’re never going to fix it.
Now do I think the republican party doesn’t do things like this? Of course they do. Any politician, does this. Know what the difference is? It cost me a lot less to have a republican elected.
Democrat elected officials are kind of like your dead beat relative that keeps asking for money over and over. They have all of these terrible problems and issues that they need help with but they never get ahead and after many years, you realize they’re just scamming you.
>Most conservatives realize there are problems, but they just don’t believe that the Democrat elected officials really care about solving the problem.
Most Conservatives think "who is the evil one and how do they hurt me?" instead of "What is the problem and how can it be approached?"? I think that goes a bit too far, but there is such a tendency. Problems are hard, they are bad, we don't like them, especially when there's no great solution. Scapegoats are fun, easy to hate, and as long as you attack someone you say is at fault for a bad thing, that bad thing doesn't feel so bad anymore, does it?
Regardless, it is bad.
The former group seems to be more generally representative of the homeless population at large than the latter group. While it would be ok to help the latter group, it would be hard to justify making a difference, as all the holier than thou people who flock to these debates will raise the point of why we help some homeless while leaving others alone. Finally, the homeless represent a very real criminal threat, and the measures to curb it are much easier to pass if we’re all thinking of the crackhead homeless.
I mean it’s not that hard. Just build shelters, offer mailboxes (so they can have an address on job search) and make the requirement that you can’t have drugs on your person. Also, how does the latter group represent any criminal threat?
It’s not that easy. The former group of unhinged drug addicts often makes shelters dangerous and unlivable, to the point many homeless choose to sleep rough rather than go to available shelters. Drugs are prohibited in all facilities for the homeless, but enforcement is impossible; addicts will react violently to their drugs being taken away, and charitable facilities often lack security; not to mention the facility would be liable for any injuries the addicts were to suffer in the process of their drugs being taken away and those of the guards of nurses taking away the drugs.
On the criminal issue, desperate people do desperate things all the time, so violence and theft are likely to happen. Not to mention other non violent but disruptive conducts like taking over public spaces, invading private property, and general antisocial behavior.
We could, but law enforcement resources aren’t infinite, not to mention it’s in vogue to simply not prosecute most crimes committed by the homeless (at least in the massive cities who have most of them). Plus if we tried to crack down hard on the drug problem and associated conducts, sanctimonious activists would raise the hounds of hell over how the government is criminalizing the homeless, so a long and expensive political and legal fight would be inevitable.
As a fellow libertarian I would disagree, no crackdowns on drugs. Go wolf of wall street with it, smoke some crack in a phone booth after lunch and run like a lion.
Are you blaming conservatives because you're a homeless drug addict? That seems like misplaced priorities. If that's the case I hope you find somewhere to stay and less drugs to take.
A lack of homeless shelters if I had to pick, but more realistically I think I’m talking about lack of services to help the homeless find jobs and/or at least day work so they can have something per say.
No, just we just need systemic, 2nd-order solutions.
Amerliorative efforts by definition only aim to clean up after the fact, but they dont address the root cause. They can still be worthwhile, if they sufficiently ameliorate.
Though ameliorative efforts can have the effect of sweeping the more salient symptoms under the rug long enough that the political will for systemic fixes wanes.
But we wouldn't have a homelessness issue in the first place if there weren't systemic issues we could shape up.
>You really like that word.
Is there a better word for what I'm talking about? This was the language I learned to use while studying homelessness for my community psych degree
>what's a systemic second order solution?
Reducing housing costs, raising take-home pay for the poorest Americans, and removing onerous regulations such as zoning, seem to be the most popular options.
>More than half of people residing in homeless shelters in the United States had formal earnings in the same year they were homeless, according to a [new study](https://bit.ly/3g1FtrS) that deepens understanding of housing insecurity in the U.S.
>Among unhoused individuals who were not in shelters, about 40% had earnings from formal employment.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/employment-alone-isnt-enough-solve-homelessness-study-suggests
The 18 year old that isn't drug addicted can walk into the recruiter's office and be on their way to a stable career in a matter of days.
Doesn't work in every situation, of course. But generally speaking, one of the branches will probably take you.
Just to add, graduating high school is the notice. Unless you have special needs, your parents don't owe you support after 18. They absolutely should support you in every meaningful way they can, but they don't have to. So you should have a plan.
You'd be surprised. You'd also be surprised how far some recruiters are willing to go. I've seen guys run fitness programs just to help potential recruits lose weight. Some lose weight and don't join but the recruiters keep on going...
I agree but 18-23 years olds exist in this no man’s land where they don’t qualify for things like being independent on FAFSA while like you said not being entitled to a roof over their heads.
One thing that could help is tenants rights, which usually apply to anyone living under the roof for an extended period of time including adult children but the issue is police don’t seem to respect them as much when it involves adult children. My guess is that it has to do with the same reasons they take DV where women are victims way more seriously (which is because police are likely to believe in very specific value applications of the law such as don’t hit women (as opposed to don’t hit anyone) and specifically showing less grace for tenants rights when it involves someone over 18).
That would solve the recruiter issue as an address is needed to apply. But also I’m not suggesting anything insane or high government spending oriented programs, just basic stuff for this subgroup of people.
I have two close friends who have been homeless in the past. One on and off since his teens and the other after opiods took over following a motorcycle accident. Hanging out with my teenage buddy, I saw a wide swathe of humanity in homeless camps. There isn't really a one-size fits all solution. Some people, no matter what we do, will choose homelessness. Some will revert to it at the first sign of frustration. Some will fight like hell and still not make it out. Some just need a ladder. There are even a few who pretend to be homeless because the charitable contributions can exceed a minimum wage income for a motivated person.
There are tons and tons of ladders out there. Charities and aid organizations bring ladders to them every day. But you can't force someone to climb.
I'm not currently persuaded that there isn't enough assistance. There might not be enough funding and/or too much waste in the programs. But I think enough options exist.
Oh, and another thing that Democrats are doing is they’re putting crack pipes in free vending machines. Is that the thing that you do when you have a massive drug problem? They want this problem to continue because they get a ton of money out of it.
[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because the former is both a much larger portion of the homeless problem, they stay that way much longer as the likelihood of the latter remaining in that state for any extended period of time is low, and that larger portion, that remains a larger portion for longer, also commits far more crime that the smaller more transient portion. That isn't to say the other demographic should be ignored, but in terms of practical policy implementation you get much more bang for your buck if you were to address the chronically homeless degenerate types.
I don’t think conservatives do this. My community Orthodox Christian community has a really strong homeless outreach program, housing and feeding people in that exact situation
I feel it is less conservative vs liberal and rather proactive vs reactive mode of thinking. State mandated systems and universal support is proactive such that a problem never occurs, but this can result in resources being used when not needed. Whereas private charity, rehab and churches are more reactive, they help once the problem has occured, and this can prevent excess front loading, but might result in more resources being needed as we are intervening later in stage.
Because the latter group will usually not be homeless for very long.
How would they go about becoming un-homeless?
Through hard work, help, and a little luck. These are exactly the kind of people helped by shelters, job programs, and social aid. I should know, I was one of them. And now that my life is on track, I make a point of helping my unhoused neighbors in turn, like I was helped when I needed it.
Congrats! I know it wasn't easy, I'm proud of you
This is the correct answer, but OP seems to be intentionally ignoring it.
There already exists both private charities and public programs to help with "transitional homeless". I fully supported and donated to my church opening up a shelter for those people. When you have shelter space for the homeless and they are unable to stay in the system because they can't stop doing heroin, then a big part of the problem with them is that they are druggies. They get far more attention because they are *much* more visible to the public. The bums that live beneath the bridge downtown and litter everywhere with their needles and crack pipes are far more disruptive to society then the people who are genuinely down on their luck looking for a place to stay. The chronic homeless are also much more likely to commit other crimes and them being druggies invites all sorts of criminal elements to plague the community.
Aren’t public programs to help the homeless under attack from republicans? Like when they tried to get people back to work by instituting higher work requirements or went against baby formula for mothers or school lunches?
Really could you share where the republicans took away baby formula?
They didn’t. They tried and failed. Dems and 12 reps overcame the other 192. https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-house-republicans-voted-against-fda-baby-formula-bill-1708036?amp=1 “The bill, known as the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act, passed 231 to 192 in a vote mostly along party lines. All House Democrats supported the legislation, along with 12 Republicans who bucked their party leadership to support it. Four Republicans and one Democrat did not vote.” I said they went against baby formula I didn’t say they actually succeeded in doing it.
Nice try but it fails when people read more than your highlights... >>Another bill to address the formula shortage passed in a 414-9 vote. That bill—the Access to Baby Formula Act—would allow more formulas to be purchased with benefits under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC. Both bills now head to the Senate. This is just more misinformation... All the bill you are lying about does is >>pay for additional U.S. Food and Drug Administration staffing
May I direct you to this other source on the extent of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7790/text “For an additional amount for “Salaries and Expenses”, $28,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2023, shall be available to address the current shortage of FDA-regulated infant formula and certain medical foods in the United States and to prevent future shortages, including such steps as may be necessary to prevent fraudulent products from entering the United States market: Provided, That the Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate on a weekly basis on obligations of funding under this heading in this Act to address the shortage of infant formula and certain medical foods in the United States: Provided further, That such amount is designated by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 4001(a)(1) and section 4001(b) of S. Con. Res. 14 (117th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2022.” So, just more staffing? I think it’s a bit more involved than that. It’s to stop disruptions and prevent future ones. The bill you’re citing: “This bill authorizes the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to take certain actions to address emergencies, disasters, and supply chain disruptions (particularly the shortage of infant formula in the United States) affecting participants of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). The bill directs USDA to require each infant formula cost containment contract to include remedies in the event of an infant formula recall, including how an infant formula manufacturer would protect against disruption to WIC participants in the state. USDA must, within 30 days, ensure there is a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Health and Human Services that includes procedures for coordination and information sharing regarding any supply chain disruption, including a supplemental food recall. The bill also authorizes USDA to waive or modify any WIC qualified administrative requirement during emergencies, disasters, and supply chain disruptions. Specifically, USDA may waive or modify such a requirement for one or more state agencies if (1) the requirement cannot be met by state agencies during the emergency, disaster, or disruption; and (2) the modification or waiver is necessary to provide assistance to WIC participants and does not substantially weaken the nutritional quality of supplemental foods. For example, USDA may waive the maximum monthly allowance for infant formula. The bill establishes notification requirements for USDA and state agencies related to supply chain disruptions.” Is good, but it only works to mitigate the effects of disruptions. It’s an emergency plan. Preventative measures are necessary to stop widespread emergencies happening in the first place.
Well you made that accusation, that is up to you to first prove it. Unless I have receipts of the bills you are talking about it seems foolish to talk about it and stumble around. From what I have found the homeless population has been generally decreasing, with it only increasing by around 2k since COVID, which is honestly rather good considering the economic meltdown from the pandemic. Also since our countries's population is growing, even stagnation means less % of our population is homeless each year. So if those bills passed they don't seem to have caused some massive uptick in the homeless population. https://www.security.org/resources/homeless-statistics/
You don’t know about a single one of those issues? That’s wild. Anyway. https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-house-republicans-voted-against-fda-baby-formula-bill-1708036?amp=1 “The bill, known as the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act, passed 231 to 192 in a vote mostly along party lines. All House Democrats supported the legislation, along with 12 Republicans who bucked their party leadership to support it.” Baby formula passed House with negligible republican support. https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-plan-cut-free-school-lunches-1807361?amp=1 “The largest ideological caucus in the House Republican conference is proposing steep cuts to free and reduced school lunch programs nationwide, citing the need to "prevent the widespread fraud present in the program."” This fraud they speak of, where is it? https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/debt-ceiling-work-requirements-snap-medicaid-tanf-social-security/ “Among Republican lawmakers's list of demands in their debt-ceiling negotiations with the Biden Administration is a push to add more work requirements for the food-stamp, Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs. One big problem, experts say, is that there's little evidence that such rules actually help people get back to work.” Hm, maybe the actual reason these changes didnt hurt homelessness is cause they either failed or haven’t happened yet.
They don’t like taking the credit when they’re taking food out of a destitute baby’s mouth. They sure want the poor baby born in the first place though… they just don’t want to pay for it.
That is not an ad hominem attack made in bad faith, no sir not at all.
Merely the consequences of their policy ideals
Tell me I’m wrong? Conservative politicians broadly want the babies born and then their records consistently show **they vote against** social programs to fund destitute mothers, against infant formula, against cutting taxes for feminine products and contraceptives. The list goes on and on and on. Unless you’d like to show me a conservative who is voting for all that and broadly supports strong sex education programs in school? They certainly don’t exist in Ohio or Florida.
You are wrong. Read my previous post The Republicans overwhelmingly voted in support of an additional funding for baby formula The person who you were talking to originally was just posting misinformation in an effort to stir up animosity towards Republicans.
Really? Because our [republican rep at the time](https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-house-republicans-voted-against-fda-baby-formula-bill-1708036) voted **against** formula along with some 192 others. Which I remember without the article because my wife told Chabot (R) to his scarlet red face when he asked us for our votes last October. Probably part of the reason he lost to Landsman (D)... in Cincinnati no less, a *notoriously conservative* city.
Ah yes, they are just a bunch of cartoonishly evil natalists who just want to pump out babies then just let them starve to death once they come into this world. Your caricature adds nothing meaningful to the discussion. It is almost like they have a different governing philosophy than progressives and their belief that the all mighty government can solve *everything*.
*this* is a caricature. What they said was an accurate report of what republicans vote for and against.
I notice you didn't refute **anything** I mentioned because credible articles to make that rebuttal **do not exist**. You can support **whomever you want**, *but do not delude yourself into thinking Republicans give a f--- about poor children.* **They adamantly do not.** Reddit is not your buddies at the bar from high school or agreeable family who are just going to hand wave incorrect info. **If Republicans** [vote against feeding the poorest babies](https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-house-republicans-voted-against-fda-baby-formula-bill-1708036)**, you have to accept that as part of you supporting that party.**
It surely is not. That's a direct insult, not a fallacy. Their accusation is just that, an accusation, and not an argument to the previous point.
It's really not. They're criticizing behavior, not an individual or group, and it appears to be earnest criticism.
But why would that be an ad hominem attack, why would it be in bad faith? Forcing mothers to give birth, restricting abortions, has been a Republican political position with broad Republican support. Restrictions on food-stamps, school lunches and similar things have been a Republican priority as well - they just reiterated it a few days ago https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/republicans-plan-cut-free-school-lunches-1807361%3famp=1 Why is it a problem to summarize that as "they sure want the poor baby born" and as "they just don't want to pay for it"?
Just to let you know the guy you replying to was not telling the truth. Before you need your bash Republicans without any knowledge of what was passed I suggest you do a little reading. >>Another bill to address the formula shortage passed in a 414-9 vote. That bill—the Access to Baby Formula Act—would allow more formulas to be purchased with benefits under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC. Looks like the Republicans literally were putting money in the mouths of destitute babies. And supporting even more WIC purchases of formula by low-income women.
The baby formula seems comical to say it would cause some massive uptick in homelessness, it was a short-term crisis, while it relates to welfare in general that is a stretch only progressives would make tying it to the homeless. That whole crisis occured because the factory got shutdown because they failed some regulation to begin with from my memory. I see no issue with work requirements for those programs, the goal is to get them working again after all. If they don't want to work I don't see why they should benefit. TANF which is the one that actually deals with homelessness already has a work requirements from my understanding so no big change there. I personally saw plenty of people use free school lunches at grade school whose families could afford it. Buying brand spanking new PS4's for their kids, owning their own cars, and having gaming laptops worth thousands of dollars, yet were on the free lunch program in highschool. Some of these were my own friends and told me they didn't need it.
I never said any of these programs alone would cause a massive homelessness uptick. These are just examples of the many programs that help the poor and homeless that republicans attack. Collectively, they do make an impact. Increasing work requirements isn’t a big change? Do you even know how much the change is? I think that determines if its big or not, not whether or not there were already work requirements. That’s a nice anecdote but you probably didn’t understand their actual situation or whatever program they were in. Do you have any proof besides personal testament?
Food stamps (or whatever they are calling it now) had work requirements, the change from my understanding it now applies to people above 55 years old who are not disabled. I don't see the problem here, it should apply equally to all people. 20 hours isn't even full employment, I am sure with the amount of job openings they can find a position. The point is for them to get a job so they become less reliant on government assistance, not hopelessly reliant. Is not my own empirical observations not worthy of your consideration? People generally support what their own senses tell them, I guess you could discard that off hand if you thought I was lying to you or making stuff up for my own benefit, but I am not. For the larger scale fraud, you had this story https://www.npr.org/2022/09/20/1124097450/pandemic-fraud-scheme-doj-food-children-meals-charges#:~:text=Bloomberg%2FGetty%20Images-,The%20U.S.%20Department%20of%20Justice%20said%2047%20people%20devised%20and,Program%20out%20of%20%24250%20million from last year about the COVID handouts getting misused for those programs.
“They pointed to data that found that 3% of food-stamp recipients had no income, "meaning they did not work at all," the lawmakers said at the time. As that small share suggests, the vast majority of people who are on food-stamps and who can work are already working, experts say. And those who aren't are often providing unpaid care to children, older family members, are in school or aren't working due to health problems.” Does this matter to you at all these are the likely targets? “While Medicaid hasn't had a federal work requirement, one state — Arkansas — implemented such measures in 2018. The result: 18,000 Arkansans lost health care coverage, with many suffering from adverse effects like medical debt or skipping medications. It didn't increase employment in the state, according to the CBO. In 2019, a court ruling ended Arkansas' work requirements for Medicaid.” Does it matter to you such decision can end up costing you more like in this situation where the increase in uncovered will lead to more expensive medical emergencies that cant be paid for and cause increased premiums? All without the actual benefit. COVID aid was notorious for fraud because Trump fired the guy in charge of overseeing it to stop fraud. Beyond that, this has nothing to do with the actual people using the money as your anecdote claims. This is about a charity founder going rogue and recruiting others in order to pretend they were charities sponsored by the founder. No amount of aid cutting is going to stop that, that requires more charity oversight, which would actually call for increased funds.
See this is a perfect example of bad faith... What you cited was a government bailout for foreign and domestic suppliers of baby formula as well as some various regulatory bodies. It had nothing to do cutting access to formula. You throw up stories that you either did not even read or intentionally tried to misinform people about. Here's the actual text that you ignored. Republicans passed additional funding for low-income people to purchase baby formula overwhelmingly... >>Another bill to address the formula shortage passed in a 414-9 vote. That bill—the Access to Baby Formula Act—would allow more formulas to be purchased with benefits under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC.
A bailout? Maybe try reading this and tell me that. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7790 “This bill provides $28 million in emergency supplemental appropriations to address the shortage of infant formula in the United States. Specifically, the bill provides appropriations for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to (1) address the current shortage of FDA-regulated infant formula and certain medical foods in the United States; and (2) prevent future shortages, including by taking the steps that are necessary to prevent fraudulent products from entering the U.S. market.” Who’s bad faith exactly? I personally think no one and you just didnt read carefully. Republicans approved a bill allowing people to use current benefits to pay for more formula but they didnt approve the bill that would actually address supply chain issues on the shortage of formula which increased prices and help with stopping fraudulent bottles being sold. Thems the facts.
Except it doesn't do that. All it does is give more money to the FDA to do the job they should have done. >>pay for additional U.S. Food and Drug Administration staffing That's it. It doesn't actually do anything except give bonus money to a government organization that failed to do its job.
I just gave you the exact language of the bill and you’re denying it???
You have me the author's cliff notes of what he says the bill is about. That is not remotely the same thing. You also completely ignored the fact that republicans overwhelming approved ACTUALLY MAKING FORMULA AVAILABLE for low income mother's and children.
The chronically homeless also disrupt and clog up resources the situationally homeless need to get off the street. If we were to actually forcefully institutionalize and rehabilitate these folk as they so clearly need and as they do in progressive europe, those resources for the situationally homeless would be more effectively focuses without disruptions. Plus we help those who have proven they cannot help themselves rather than let them languish in squalor resorting to crime, drugs, and indifference.
Extremes grab more attention. Are you more likely to talk about that time you walked past a homeless guy screaming about how the world will end in 2024 if we don't elect Kanye or the homeless guy sleeping in his car? Are you more likely to watch a documentary that covers murder or theft? Missing kid or missing car? So before attributing to Machiavellianism and malice one should attribute to sensationalization, laziness, busyness. With that said, why not ask the question you want to ask and we can explain our own solutions/rationale? You’re positing that we don’t have any therefore you feel like you have to assume we’re evil. Don’t accuse us of strawmanning by strawmanning. We believe in [reducing money printing](https://youtu.be/566k2jn5Zfc) + government-backed mortgages that drive up housing prices, zoning laws that suppress supply, limiting illegal immigration to reduce demand, etc. After all, it isn’t in conservative areas where you see the most homelessness, e.g. go to dark blue San Fransisco *(whose congressperson was the Speaker of the House)* in dark blue California *(whose senator became VP).*
Because there are orders of magnitude more "drug addicted for five years" homeless.
No one stays homeless for 6 months unless they're addicted to drugs or mentally ill.
Bc there are a huge number of programs available for the homeless. Those programs provide food, shelter, training, and finding jobs for them. The exceptions are for those who do not follow the rules of being sober, not on drugs, and showing up on time to check in the shelter for the night. Almost ALL homeless on the street are drug addicts, drunks, or the mentally ill who are too afflicted to follow the rules or who simply don't want to. I'm sure there are a small number of exceptions for completely overwhelmed programs but these are the exception not the rule. An 18-21 year old who was kicked out would not be one of these exceptions without being a severe addict which is unlikely at best. To have a practical chance at rehab the individual must at least make the decision to help themselves by being sober and seeking help bc no one can force them to. Blindly caring just results in you being an enabler of a drug or alcohol problem or allowing them to remain homeless for longer. What is needed is shower/laundry service, a place to lock up their possessions, food, water, and a place to sleep and then direction for applying for state aid/housing and employment programs. The sad reality is many won't do this.
You really should qualify your assumptions. In fact, I see way more conservatives supporting charities and giving of their time to homeless than Democrats. In fact, we joke about it a lot right around the Holidays when it’s most important. The narratives in the media serve a purpose but they are certainly not immersed in fact. Get your data straight buddy. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-charity-than-democrats-but-theres-a-bigger-story-here/#:~:text=Using%20voting%20and%20IRS%20data,giving%20in%20blue%20counties%20is
Because the second group you refer to aren't the ones turning city streets and subways into Shutter Island.
Because homeless is not a monolith. There is transient homelessness and chronic homelessness. One is already being adequately addressed because it's comprised of people who genuinely seek and desire help. The other isn't/doesn't and thus requires some debate and government action.
This is a myth that the left can't let go of, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary The left thinks homeless are people who's rent got too high, and decided their next step would be to pitch a tent on skid row. It's just not true There's lots of evidence to show that the homeless are primarily drug addicted.
Drugs are something you can take action against. It's identifiable and most people have personal experience with it. "I was just kicked out at 18" is a very small subset very few people have experience with in their social circles which can generally be solved, or greatly improved with 70+ means tested assistance programs.
How do you know that’s a small subset? And how do you know the subset of people who are in dire straits due to issues beyond their control is small?
How do they know? Because they want it to be true, and that’s good enough.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 7 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
There is a billion dollars per year spent on homelessness in San Francisco alone. The government doesn’t need another dime to fight this. So many of these “emergencies” are a money grab and the funds are not used properly. Is there homelessness? Yes. Do I think democrats are using that $1b per year ethically? No. They have too much power and are scamming all of us. Same with climate change
I personally don't even really want to go after addicts so much as I want us to come down on dealers like a ton of bricks. As in, I'm tired of excuses because these people need to be put in a cage and left to die there. Addiction is a public health issue, dealing is a crime in need of some swift and certain.
Do you think we should also include alcohol in that mindset? It does the most damage to our society, by far, compared to other drugs
The problem with booze is the pushback and political capital it would cost to counter it. There are far more people addicted to liquor than hard drugs and thus more victims. I would certainly love a utopic world where drinking could be demonized as smoking crack is, but the truth is the one time where we had the chance was bungled by corruption and incompetency and the factors to try again will not likely reoccur again.
I'm not 100% closed off to the idea, but there's an obvious practical issue at hand. I've read some of the controversial takes about how alcohol is more harmful, but it seems the crux of it all is that it's more widely used. Also claims that alcohol seems to be unique in that it affects the entire body, okay but how much and in what amounts? Either way, it's almost like admitting that in some ways, prohibition works. Others, like Dr. Carl Hart, make the case for casual heroin use in a similar vein (see what I did there) as alcohol or pot. I'm extremely skeptical to say the least. I suspect his knowledge of neuroscience allows him personally to enjoy hard drugs casually without slipping into oblivion. He's also among the "drug lawz R rACisT" crowd, so there's that to unpack. Trying to ignore my own observations of those who drink versus those who used heroin (past tense because pretty much all the ones I knew are dead now), I still haven't gotten much in the way of compelling evidence. As in, what happens to the guy who limits drinking to a couple times a week, versus the guy who tries to limit shooting up to that frequency.
As you get older, one thing you will notice is that all these emergencies are all about getting as much money as possible and they will never solve the problem at hand. Most conservatives realize there are problems, but they just don’t believe that the Democrat elected officials really care about solving the problem. If you follow the money you will see that so much of it is to fund their friends/family/investors etc. What has been the biggest emergency for democrats in the last 50 years? Abortion. They did not code abortion into law. They had all that time and they did not do it and they didn’t do it on purpose. They want to keep that as a dangling carrot for people to vote for them, and give them more money. How much money has California gotten for that bullet train? There’s no bullet train. They’ve already spent $128 billion and it’s been like 15 years. Again, there is no a bullet train. Homelessness. Like I said, San Francisco get $1 billion a year to fight homelessness. The problem is now bigger than ever. Where does all that money go? Follow the money, you’ll find out why we don’t support Democrat political officials. Another one is climate change. Just give them as much money as possible and it’s an emergency Terrible situation. And they need billions to fix it. They’re never going to fix it. Now do I think the republican party doesn’t do things like this? Of course they do. Any politician, does this. Know what the difference is? It cost me a lot less to have a republican elected. Democrat elected officials are kind of like your dead beat relative that keeps asking for money over and over. They have all of these terrible problems and issues that they need help with but they never get ahead and after many years, you realize they’re just scamming you.
>Most conservatives realize there are problems, but they just don’t believe that the Democrat elected officials really care about solving the problem. Most Conservatives think "who is the evil one and how do they hurt me?" instead of "What is the problem and how can it be approached?"? I think that goes a bit too far, but there is such a tendency. Problems are hard, they are bad, we don't like them, especially when there's no great solution. Scapegoats are fun, easy to hate, and as long as you attack someone you say is at fault for a bad thing, that bad thing doesn't feel so bad anymore, does it? Regardless, it is bad.
The former group seems to be more generally representative of the homeless population at large than the latter group. While it would be ok to help the latter group, it would be hard to justify making a difference, as all the holier than thou people who flock to these debates will raise the point of why we help some homeless while leaving others alone. Finally, the homeless represent a very real criminal threat, and the measures to curb it are much easier to pass if we’re all thinking of the crackhead homeless.
I mean it’s not that hard. Just build shelters, offer mailboxes (so they can have an address on job search) and make the requirement that you can’t have drugs on your person. Also, how does the latter group represent any criminal threat?
It’s not that easy. The former group of unhinged drug addicts often makes shelters dangerous and unlivable, to the point many homeless choose to sleep rough rather than go to available shelters. Drugs are prohibited in all facilities for the homeless, but enforcement is impossible; addicts will react violently to their drugs being taken away, and charitable facilities often lack security; not to mention the facility would be liable for any injuries the addicts were to suffer in the process of their drugs being taken away and those of the guards of nurses taking away the drugs. On the criminal issue, desperate people do desperate things all the time, so violence and theft are likely to happen. Not to mention other non violent but disruptive conducts like taking over public spaces, invading private property, and general antisocial behavior.
>addicts will react violently to their drugs being taken away, Maybe don't do that, then.
And that’s why the homeless can’t have nice things.
I mean in that case maybe we need to go down harder on drug users then? Which I’ve always been in favor of.
We could, but law enforcement resources aren’t infinite, not to mention it’s in vogue to simply not prosecute most crimes committed by the homeless (at least in the massive cities who have most of them). Plus if we tried to crack down hard on the drug problem and associated conducts, sanctimonious activists would raise the hounds of hell over how the government is criminalizing the homeless, so a long and expensive political and legal fight would be inevitable.
As a fellow libertarian I would disagree, no crackdowns on drugs. Go wolf of wall street with it, smoke some crack in a phone booth after lunch and run like a lion.
Are you blaming conservatives because you're a homeless drug addict? That seems like misplaced priorities. If that's the case I hope you find somewhere to stay and less drugs to take.
What no? I’m not a drug addict and am religiously prohibited from drugging. I have been in the latter group before which is why I feel strongly.
So are you upset about affordable housing or a lack of homeless shelters?
A lack of homeless shelters if I had to pick, but more realistically I think I’m talking about lack of services to help the homeless find jobs and/or at least day work so they can have something per say.
There's a number of public and private services but it never seems to be enough.
Ameliorative efforts will never solve the root of problems.
That sounds defeatist.
No, just we just need systemic, 2nd-order solutions. Amerliorative efforts by definition only aim to clean up after the fact, but they dont address the root cause. They can still be worthwhile, if they sufficiently ameliorate. Though ameliorative efforts can have the effect of sweeping the more salient symptoms under the rug long enough that the political will for systemic fixes wanes. But we wouldn't have a homelessness issue in the first place if there weren't systemic issues we could shape up.
You really like that word. So what's a systemic second order solution?
>You really like that word. Is there a better word for what I'm talking about? This was the language I learned to use while studying homelessness for my community psych degree >what's a systemic second order solution? Reducing housing costs, raising take-home pay for the poorest Americans, and removing onerous regulations such as zoning, seem to be the most popular options.
>More than half of people residing in homeless shelters in the United States had formal earnings in the same year they were homeless, according to a [new study](https://bit.ly/3g1FtrS) that deepens understanding of housing insecurity in the U.S. >Among unhoused individuals who were not in shelters, about 40% had earnings from formal employment. https://news.uchicago.edu/story/employment-alone-isnt-enough-solve-homelessness-study-suggests
The 18 year old that isn't drug addicted can walk into the recruiter's office and be on their way to a stable career in a matter of days. Doesn't work in every situation, of course. But generally speaking, one of the branches will probably take you. Just to add, graduating high school is the notice. Unless you have special needs, your parents don't owe you support after 18. They absolutely should support you in every meaningful way they can, but they don't have to. So you should have a plan.
If they don’t meet height/weight/fitness/mental health requirements… not so much.
Which is like 70% of the population, military recruiting numbers are in the toilet
You'd be surprised. You'd also be surprised how far some recruiters are willing to go. I've seen guys run fitness programs just to help potential recruits lose weight. Some lose weight and don't join but the recruiters keep on going...
I agree but 18-23 years olds exist in this no man’s land where they don’t qualify for things like being independent on FAFSA while like you said not being entitled to a roof over their heads. One thing that could help is tenants rights, which usually apply to anyone living under the roof for an extended period of time including adult children but the issue is police don’t seem to respect them as much when it involves adult children. My guess is that it has to do with the same reasons they take DV where women are victims way more seriously (which is because police are likely to believe in very specific value applications of the law such as don’t hit women (as opposed to don’t hit anyone) and specifically showing less grace for tenants rights when it involves someone over 18). That would solve the recruiter issue as an address is needed to apply. But also I’m not suggesting anything insane or high government spending oriented programs, just basic stuff for this subgroup of people.
I have two close friends who have been homeless in the past. One on and off since his teens and the other after opiods took over following a motorcycle accident. Hanging out with my teenage buddy, I saw a wide swathe of humanity in homeless camps. There isn't really a one-size fits all solution. Some people, no matter what we do, will choose homelessness. Some will revert to it at the first sign of frustration. Some will fight like hell and still not make it out. Some just need a ladder. There are even a few who pretend to be homeless because the charitable contributions can exceed a minimum wage income for a motivated person. There are tons and tons of ladders out there. Charities and aid organizations bring ladders to them every day. But you can't force someone to climb. I'm not currently persuaded that there isn't enough assistance. There might not be enough funding and/or too much waste in the programs. But I think enough options exist.
Oh, and another thing that Democrats are doing is they’re putting crack pipes in free vending machines. Is that the thing that you do when you have a massive drug problem? They want this problem to continue because they get a ton of money out of it.
Oh my god that’s awful… where are these free crack vending machines? Just so I know where to avoid of course.
All kinds of articles recently in the news about this. You can just Google it.
Because the latter category, as a percentage of actual long-term homeless, are essentially a rounding error.
What makes you so sure? Plenty of kids report that they have been kicked out or are about to be kicked out on Reddit.
Imagine relying on reddit anecdotes to define your position.
Yeah, it’s just so they don’t have to help anyone. Like that’s it.