[–] dalik 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I tend to tell people to pick your battles. Sometimes just giving people money now and tools to help them get out of their hole is a far better option and cheaper than to just let them fend for themselves. Sadly, once you're in a bad place, people tend to avoid you so getting back on your feet is extremely hard if not impossible for most. I would think most homeless people do not have the mental fortitude to have this battle.
If we only give welfare to those that paid into the system than those that didn't will likely cause much more costly problems for everyone else. How much does it cost to jail someone? How much does it cost for someone to be homeless from the problems they create? Home much does it cost if disease breaks out? All the tourism that goes to another place instead of your town? How much does that cost compared to giving people welfare and real help to get them out of their hole? Probably far far cheaper to just give them welfare.
Not giving people welfare will certainly create a justification to remove these people at all costs since they do not contribute. The reality is, these people do not want the homeless to contribute, they want them to go away. This justification will likely lead to far worse consequences and extremely poor treatment of people. The sad thing is, anyone can end up in their position, just one bad accident away from being homeless.
[–] captainstrange ago (edited ago)
So basically make welfare a sort of loan backed up by the federal government.
I mean, people bitch and moan about income tax, but many of them wouldn't be able to save at all without it.
I guess I should use something like "unwilling to fairly exchange labor" or "unwilling to give service in exchange for something"
What part of being onready at all times to be ordered to your death, in service of your nation's interests (though they've been hijacked for a while now) does not constitute 'services rendered'?
The navy at the least, though military in general, is basically "courage on demand" or "violence as a service", thats why we call it the service.
And while they are in they give up their freedom to perform that service.
If you sip a fucking latte tomorrow be thankful it's not $10 instead of $5, on account of the fact someone (a lot of someones) stand ready to send some foreigners to whatever gods they choose so that you can afford the gas, the sugar, and the oil and plastic that comes from those countries--products involved in the manufacture and delivery of the things you buy, the things that make up your 'lifestyle.'
They don't just fight for "freedom" or something like that, they also fight for "economic freedom" at the expense of strangers who don't look like us, who don't think like us, who in all likelihood hate us, and would do the same to us given half the chance.
This is the way of the world, be thankful you don't have to dirty your hands.
[–] logos_ethos 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
I am all for locally provided welfare.
People are better at helping people, as opposed to impersonal government services. Impersonal government services (think state agencies that registers motor vehicles / DMVs) do not provide the same level of personal care. Modern welfare makes it easy to put distance between us and the homeless. "Why give money to charities when the government provides services" is the question that people ask themselves. Unfortunately, free money, goods, and services does not solve the mental side of things, which is why some stay on welfare.
Ideally, social charity will be within the community's Dunbar's number. This keeps the interaction going in both directions. The dialog between the homeless and community keeps the community apprised of social, economic, and other failures. Social structures keep both sides publicly accountable. But all of this goes away when you substitute this interaction with a distant government service office. Once you exceed the Dunbar's number, real help is replaced with the rhetoric of a politician seeking power. The politician has an incentive to keep a portion of the population dependent on government services.
If we were not under attack from foreign ideologies, then we would be able to talk about social cohesion. Social cohesion is important for a number of reasons, including charity. Because the USA is too strong to fight within a conventional military battle, the only viable method of attack is subversion from within. So any ideology that gives us strength is under attack. Because of how effective subversion works, just talking about these attacks, or anything that might benefit social cohesion causes ostracism due to moral rhetoric that protects the subversive process. Our inability to provide enough prosperity and welfare is an indirect casualty of subversion.