Sujet : Re: Trump's latest lunacy
De : blockedofcourse (at) *nospam* foo.invalid (Don Y)
Groupes : sci.electronics.designDate : 25. Mar 2025, 16:24:01
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vruhqn$3jbt5$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2
On 3/25/2025 7:48 AM, bitrex wrote:
So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be homeless anymore,
No. There will *still* be homeless people, regardless of the level of
support that you provide.
Unless you resort to "institutionalizing" people "for their own good".
Housing needs to be *affordable* and sited in locations that folks
will be comfortable living (and MAKING a living). No one wants to
"invest" in places where the only folks who will want to habitate
can't afford to provide sufficient profit for the investor -- esp
if there are other places where they can make a bigger, quicker buck!
A lot of "charity" produces little "result". We've canvased lots
of them with an eye towards our estate planning. If you hold
their feet to the fire and ask for documented results of their
past efforts, most will timidly admit that they haven't met
their own stated goals!
["How many of these battered women have you managed to give new
lives through your efforts?" "None, really. They all end up
back in the same sorts of situations that led them to coming here"
"Then, why would I want to gift you anything if your 'results' are
only temporary? What is the 'lifetime maintenance cost' for these
people that you CLAIM to be serving? Aren't you obviously doing
something WRONG??"]
depriving said "gigabuck industry" of their revenue. Of course, conservatives aren't a fan of that idea, either.
No actual ideas, just complaints, lists of enemies, and conspiracy theories.