It literally costs LESS to house & even FEED them than what we're doing now. Why are we even HAVING this conversation?
It literally costs LESS to house & even FEED them than what we're doing now. Why are we even HAVING this conversation?
Because it's just like you said, too many people think emotionally (what they should be doing) and not factually (what they are doing). Your mathematical assessment of the $$ is accurate, but the problem is that can't happen instantaneously, and some people get pissed when it doesn't.
I have a lot of NATO envy. I mean, just LOOK at Europe. What they HAVE. What they are able to DO for their people. Because THEY'RE not spending as much on their military as the next 20 countries combined, as we do. Literally HALF of the world's military spending is by US. It's a CHOICE we make.
Sometimes I think it's our biggest export.
Oh yes. We are absolutely the world's biggest arms dealer. 🫤
I know. People need a better, faster way. The last thing they need is a police charge for being a vagrant. We need more section 8 housing and better job search techniques.
We need to go all in & just HELP. It really is a lot simpler than we make it. It would be far more cost effective but we START from the premise that "people SHOULDN'T be homeless" so it's on THEM & besides, we're already PAYING for police. It's a blind spot in our thinking.
Because we start from the idea that "people SHOULDN'T need a handout." Instead of simply NOTICING that people ARE homeless & DO. It's like student loans. Free college would literally cost LESS than we spend administering the student loan program. Because we think they SHOULDN'T get a handout.
I completely agree
At some point, as a society, we need to be our brother's keeper. It would cost less. And, as Kamala often points out, "good" neighborhoods don't have more POLICE. They have more SERVICES. It costs us a LOT to divide society into the "worthy & unworthy" like that.