Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread
- Thread starter thethe
- Start date
Gonna level with you, I am simply willing to accept the economic consequences of ending homelessness. I’m not looking for people to live in luxury or even really necessarily comfort, but I’m in favor of subsidizing basic consistent shelter.
Well, to be fair he’s suggesting that subsidizing housing will create more demand for such housing, which is a real and not insignificant problem. Like the deficit isn’t imaginary and higher taxes aren’t actually good. I just think there are some concessions I’m willing to make with respect to all this in exchange for basic housing to be available for all who need it.
sturg33
I
Since we began subsidizing food via programs like SNAP and EBT, have the need for those programs increased or decreased?
Would you say an increase in need of SNAP is a good thing?
The programs we’re discussing here have lifted many, many people out of homelessness. This isn’t creating incentives to be homeless, it’s helping to curtail it and I’m willing to pay tax dollars to maintain that.
sturg33
I
But you're not willing to restrict it to something as generous as 2 years.
If an able bodied person can't get their life together within 2 years, that is a choice they are making.
What you are essentially saying is "I want more of a program that I understand increases the need for that program" in this instance the need for section 8 housing. You are essentially saying you are in favor or needing more, which is crazy to me
57Brave
Well-known member
in the immortal words of Bryce Harper, " that is a clown question, Bro "
Both questions, never the less, congrats on punctuation
I’d be willing to reduce other spending *a lot* and/or raise taxes in exchange for guarantees of food and shelter from the government, even if it was not in the more convenient form it takes today.
And I just don’t see how some people in our society are ever going to achieve at even a level where they can afford more in rent than they currently do with help from the government. There are some *extremely* limited folks in this country that are working and trying their best, and I don’t honestly believe the market will naturally be able to meet the demand at the prices these people can afford to pay.
57Brave
Well-known member
need is a key word/ and defined case by case
sturg33
I
If faced with a question that highlights the absurd failure of my preferred ideology, I would probably respond this way too (if im not wise enough to reassess my preferred ideology)
sturg33
I
Reducing spending elsewhere doesnt solve the problem that throwing more money at a problem doesnt solve it
I saw Mr. Beast bragging the other day that he raised $12 m for water in Africa.
What a novel concept! If only we would give them more money, then they will build the infrastructure needed to be prosperous!
Instead, the reality is we continue to give them an out... they continue to survive in their misery, breed more, and require MORE aid next year to continue to survive.
Throwing money at a problem makes us feel good but doesnt solve the problem. Worse, it makes the problem harder to solve
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
The problem is that law enforcement officials in the cities either will not, or are not allowed to, do their jobs. Same with the statues. If someone wanted to vandalize the statues that were up in Richmond a few years ago, there was no penalty for it. I think we all know what the reaction would be today if I went there and vandalized the new ones. And if 10 years is too harsh of a penalty, we surely won’t see anyone commit the crime.
BTW, I agree completely about annexing DC residents into Maryland or Virginia. It won’t happen because Pubs are cool with those people being disenfranchised and Dems want them to get two senators, but it placing them in one of those states should happen.