Sorry if this post sounds radical or talking out my ass, mostly I’m just thinking outloud and rambling about things I’m no expert on…
The reality is that most things in life given like that are conditional. The overall goal is to get people to act in a different way which would help solve the problem. If you are rewarded for self destructive behavior, what motivates anyone to change? Yes some who get sick of their situation might change, others just stumble though life in the gutter, or kill themselves.
But this brings up a bigger spectrum about society itself, things like level playing fields, and equal opportunity, which is mostly a myth. This might make for an interesting discussion about socialist societies where room and board are provided for free and to get beyond that you have to do something with your life if you want something more.
It’s not that easy. In the 60s during the Big Society period (if I got the name right) hundreds of millions, a billions (?) or more was spent on public housing and what was built was tenements where people did not take care of their homes. At least this is my impression. I’m happy to hear contrary if I’m in correct about this.
This is incorrect. Or at least incorrect in the sense that just like with “welfare queens”, events that did happen were often exaggerated or made to seem the norm when they were not. Some of great society programs succeeded and are still around today though in constant danger of cutting and many of the others were curtailed and abandoned partly due to lack of funding as the Vietnam war ramped up and partly due to reactionary measures to deliberately curtail them.
@Yoused is right. Study after study after study show that simply giving people help without qualifications is far more effective and efficient. As is
@Chew Toy McCoy about simply building more housing.
Personally I also think temporary sterilization might be a good thing too, while recognizing this type solution is taking away freedoms and depends on Govt oversight. I’m thinking about people who act on their instincts and end up producing millions of offspring without a proper environment to raise them. What to do about that? Not easy especially in the incessant cut taxes atmosphere Republucans have been pushing for decades.
Given that you just posted about how racism is alive and well in America it should only take a second to figure out why this is an absolutely awful idea. This is very similar to the often well meaning, liberal, eugenicists of the 19th-20th century. Eugenics was a bad idea rooted in misconception and was not just about Nazis. Let’s not go there.
It's fair to question these funds IMO, California cities are doing a terrible job of dealing with the homeless and they're overrunning the streets. One of the biggest problems is that current shelters require them to be clean and sober so they say only 15% are using them, they would rather live on the street and get high and drunk.
Until they decide to clean it up and prosecute people for these crimes it will only continue to increase. I'm not for blanket jailing either but there needs to be some middle ground where city leaders take a stand and do something about it.
I get your and
@Huntn ’s argument. It feels correct that we should apply the hard end of the law - going in and busting heads feels like the right solution. But it doesn’t really work in the long run. I’m not saying 0 policing or anything, quite the opposite, but policing is not the solution to this problem and trying to make it so makes the problem worse not better. More on this in a bit.
Similarly as
@Yoused said the “warm fuzzies” of conditional help are very seductive as a solution. It just isn’t one. Yes on the other hand, if you don’t apply conditions you will end up helping people who will abuse it, which critics always go after, but overall the help is worth it and it solves the problem more efficiently and effectively.
Was listening to a discussion on how Republicans had 50 years to figure out how to respond if Roe v Wade got overturned and clearly they didn’t have a plan because nobody thought it would ever happen. Now it’s just a lot of flailing around while the extreme right is going all in and losing voters. It’s the equivalent to Democrats going "What crime? I don’t know what you’re talking about. Nothing to see here."
Back to crime and policing. Not really the same thing as the Democrats’ point is correct and backed up data: while crime did pick up in the last couple of years it is still historically low and it increased by as much in fact more I believe in “law and order” type areas than “maybe police reform is a good idea” type areas. Again this falling for the seductive lie: there’s a kernel of truth to it, crime is up and certain polities are being hit worse than others, but it’s been warped, exaggerated, and context removed to make the convenient, simple solution, tough-on-crime policing, seem correct.
======
If I remember right someone posted that on such Californian program was spending money not on building housing but on trying to buy homes, which because there isn’t enough housing means the prices are sky high. It helped several thousand people (which btw is good for them!) but at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars (not efficient).
calmatters.org
