Building more affordable and social housing and improving access to free or affordable healthcare are the main ones.Do they provide specifics on how they would need to use that money to end homelessness?
Building more affordable and social housing and improving access to free or affordable healthcare are the main ones.Do they provide specifics on how they would need to use that money to end homelessness?
Really depends on which judge ruled on it and trump did get to put in a lot of judges. Plus, since the supreme court already said they thought any further extension would have to go through congress, even a friendly judge might rule against an EO.Unless the EO were permitted to remain active until it exhausted appeals: if the executive just wanted a few more months and it would take that long to exhaust appeals, it's a valid (if slightly dirty) tactic.
*sigh* So the same thing that's been said and done before and failed. Unsurprising.Building more affordable and social housing and improving access to free or affordable healthcare are the main ones.
Yes, I agree. I think even a left-friendly judge would shut that EO down pronto.Really depends on which judge ruled on it and trump did get to put in a lot of judges. Plus, since the supreme court already said they thought any further extension would have to go through congress, even a friendly judge might rule against an EO.
And your better solution is what exactly?*sigh* So the same thing that's been said and done before and failed. Unsurprising.
ARE THERE NO WORKHOUSES!And your better solution is what exactly?
Devil is in the details. Also the quantities.*sigh* So the same thing that's been said and done before and failed. Unsurprising.
One does not need a better solution to identify when a claimed solution is a lie.And your better solution is what exactly?
but if you just give them houses, they'll sleep outside anywayI wonder why gay and trans people really love dying of exposure so much and just hate houses.
The actual suggestion was "improving access to free or affordable healthcare". This is not the same as throwing money at it: it might as easily be reforms to reduce the grotesquely inflated costs of US healthcare, thus allowing the same or less money to go a great deal further.by throwing money at housing and healthcare.
I love that you are so full of hope that you think this is a direct address to what he meant. No, the talking point is that some people just wanna be homeless and our society already does as much as is necessary to help them out, too much in fact. That’s why we need to bring back vagrancy laws.The actual suggestion was "improving access to free or affordable healthcare". This is not the same as throwing money at it: it might as easily be reforms to reduce the grotesquely inflated costs of US healthcare, thus allowing the same or less money to go a great deal further.
Due credit, you're a lot closer to understanding me than Agema. I would not say society does as much as is necessary or too much in fact, but rather that there is nothing more you can do with more money. If someone says they could solve homelessness with X dollars, they're just ignorant. The vast, vast majority of the homeless are people with debilitating mental illness, people with crippling addictions, or runaway youth. The care and shelter that these people need exists, and they've chosen to reject them. The things society needs to do to address their choices are not things that can be done with more money. You can make all the care in the world free and abundant for a schizophrenic, if their disease causes them to reject help, it doesn't matter.I love that you are so full of hope that you think this is a direct address to what he meant. No, the talking point is that some people just wanna be homeless and our society already does as much as is necessary to help them out, too much in fact. That’s why we need to bring back vagrancy laws.
And God do I wish that wasn’t true.Due credit, you're a lot closer to understanding me than Agema.
The vast, vast majority of the homeless are people with debilitating mental illness, people with crippling addictions, or runaway youth
I mean you’re right but you’re quoting a part where he makes an accurate (enough) statement with an absurd conclusion (the mental illness one is misleading, but the rest is accurate enough). The issue is assuming you can’t help addicts or “troubled teens” with resources and systemic solutions, which is empirically false. You can, our solutions just tend to be putting those people in worse situations because we refuse to trust them.
I love how you try to come across as some learned expert on things with which you very obviously have zero practical experience and even less actual interest.
I too remember the parable of the good samaritan where Jesus taught us that the injured man should be left to die on the roadside because there was an inn a few miles away he should have crawled himself towards instead of being lazy and choosing to lie there.Due credit, you're a lot closer to understanding me than Agema. I would not say society does as much as is necessary or too much in fact, but rather that there is nothing more you can do with more money. If someone says they could solve homelessness with X dollars, they're just ignorant. The vast, vast majority of the homeless are people with debilitating mental illness, people with crippling addictions, or runaway youth. The care and shelter that these people need exists, and they've chosen to reject them. The things society needs to do to address their choices are not things that can be done with more money. You can make all the care in the world free and abundant for a schizophrenic, if their disease causes them to reject help, it doesn't matter.