The argument against it is that that kind of housing attracts "undesirable" people to the neighborhood (as though they would just disappear without it).
That's wonderful that it's working for you.We have something called Apple health here for mentally ill low income. It's in Washington state.
Yes I have schizophrenia and only recently have meds become available that don't have too many terrible side effects. They have me on Rexulti (it's the new Abilify, which causes mild weight gain), which is a super med compared to the other 5 meds I've tried. Mostly just slept all day on those meds. Completely disabled compared to Rexulti and Abilify. But not everyone's chemistry can handly Rexulti and Abilify. Luckily I could
Bah! Taxes is the way to pay to make society tolerable. Dog eat dog is not the way to go, imo.Sanders has a valid idea but as @Albion pointed out, demanding money from people is against the american way. But I also think the american population has a responsibility to care for the disabled, and as you indicated, a lot of them are homeless, so it can be moral to institute housing for them
Well I don't know what that kind of "morality" is based on, but it's certainly 100% opposite of Biblical morality.
Well, it's because most of the homeless don't want these facilities, to be moved there, required to do anything for the benefits they receive, to be supervised, to stop using drugs or not come and go as they wish, etc.
The prosperity gospel is very very dangerous and deceptive, yes.
Sure you do. If you want to live in a cardboard box down some alley, go for it.Well, it's because most of the homeless don't want these facilities, to be moved there, required to do anything for the benefits they receive, to be supervised, to stop using drugs or not come and go as they wish, etc.
All that is being suggested here with the best of intentions has been proposed before, and both the homeless and the benighted city governments have said it is oppressive to the homeless, that they have a right to live where and how they want, etc. etc.
You don't have those "rights" but they do.
Well, it's because most of the homeless don't want these facilities, to be moved there, required to do anything for the benefits they receive, to be supervised, to stop using drugs or not come and go as they wish, etc.
All that is being suggested here with the best of intentions has been proposed before, and both the homeless and the benighted city governments have said it is oppressive to the homeless, that they have a right to live where and how they want, etc. etc.
You don't have those "rights" but they do.
They've told that to social workers, city administrators, and the media.
Agreed. So that reason for the homeless not to want to accept such offers is not in dispute here.
No assumptions are involved...and I said nothing about "lazy," just unwilling.
Again, no disagreement.
And no disagreement here.
Homelessness is not a crime and it is not as a prisoner that anyone lives in such a facility as was suggested earlier in this thread. Even a hotel has some regulations about people coming and going in the middle of the night, whether all doors are unlocked twenty-four hours a day, if there are any employees on duty around the clock to handle emergencies, etc.
Prisons. Have them do slave work for a couple of years, then throw them out with a criminal record and a measly amount of money and reel them back in once they blow through it. Hold up the 1% that make it to demonstrate your success.
Not if taxes go up.With his other proposals, doesn't this take Sanders over the 100 Trillion dollar amount for increasing the national debt?
And against this, the Congressional Democrats had protested that President Trump permitted a 1 Trillion dollar increase in the national debt.
On the campaign trail, the main directive is "tell them what they want to hear and tell them it's free."
That will last for about a week before they turn it into a rat infested ghetto slum.
It looks like I was too cautious in my previous post when estimating the cost. From what I have gleaned since then, the tab will be more like 140 Trillion. The national debt is currently around 22 Trillion. This means that there is not enough money available in the form of taxes unless the Middle Class is crushed. I am against doing that.
