4 ms·

The US seems to be coming to the realization that social welfare is not an altruistic indulgence, but a necessity for an economically wealthy society. These li

The US seems to be coming to the realization that social welfare is not an altruistic indulgence, but a necessity for an economically wealthy society. These library "residents" force the state - and its workers - to help them by confronting them with their sheer humanity. It is easy to refuse services to people you don't know, it's harder to send them out into the cold face to face. Most Human beings can't stand seeing another Human suffering. It just hurts us. Hurting them, by removing them forcibly, also hurts us.

robertAngst 8y ago
Whats the solution? Throw another billion at the problem? Have 80% of it get sucked up by the bureaucracy? And the other 20% is used on surface issues. >social welfare is not an altruistic indulgence Both sides want to help people, the great question is, what is the best way? Should we spend 1B on bandaids? Or should we start earlier in life, giving people opportunities that keep them off the streets?
- baby 8y ago
  Both. Some people will always need help and we need to man up and provide that help.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  That's exactly the kind of "self-reliancy" and "small government" BS that hasn't worked for the US the past 100 years. Well, it has worked for a small minority which has increasingly enriched itself. If you promote "giving people opportunities that keep them off the streets" as a solution, you profess to a total ignorance of how homelessness in the US (and most developed countries) works. It's not poverty or lack of employment. It's more about mental health and substance abuse. You can offer those people all the jobs you want, without medical and psychological/social help, they don't stand a chance. So yes, "1B on bandaids", like better mental health care for the poor, more social workers, more social housing would be a very good start.
closeparen 8y ago
But we won’t. We’ll sit here talking about how important it is to feel the full scale of the problem and how egregious it would be to deny these people any public space, and then we’ll go build maybe 12 supportive housing units.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  Actually there are signs of progress. Universal access to health care has become the majority opinion. As has the idea that locking up the mentally ill in prisons isn't really Ok. And that the current way the justice system works isn't really working.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Opinions are not progress. Policy, spending, facilities, and service delivery would be, if we had any.
    - bayesian_horse 8y ago
      There won't be improvement in spending and services until and unless the majority opinion is behind that. Believe it or not, but the majority opinion in the US, especially among those who vote and given the unfair voting weights, was against even Obamacare at some point, much less to spend billions more on social welfare issues. And part of that is the idea that taxing the rich and the companies will hurt the lower income workers. Many people don't want to tax millionaires because they fancy becoming one soon. Good luck... Those attitudes seem to have changed, and that sounds like progress to me. Now get rid of the Cheater in Chief and vote for people who actually want to help the lower classes...
      - closeparen 8y ago
        The big cities with substantial homeless populations are already dominated by left-leaning politics. It is not a question of getting more people to profess the correct beliefs, it is a question of converting those beliefs to specific actions despite their specific consequences. Like grandma losing her now-$2m house because its property tax bill reflects its value, or a shelter going in on your kid’s route to school. It’s a consensus opinion in SF that we ought to tax millionaires. But we’re unwilling to touch the asset class where the millions are actually stored. It’s a consensus opinion in SF that tax revenues should be used to help vulnerable populations stay in their communities. But “this is a community” is an ironclad argument that it’s an inappropriate location for any services or supportive housing.

robertAngst 8y ago

Whats the solution? Throw another billion at the problem? Have 80% of it get sucked up by the bureaucracy? And the other 20% is used on surface issues. >social welfare is not an altruistic indulgence Both sides want to help people, the great question is, what is the best way? Should we spend 1B on bandaids? Or should we start earlier in life, giving people opportunities that keep them off the streets?

baby 8y ago
Both. Some people will always need help and we need to man up and provide that help.
bayesian_horse 8y ago
That's exactly the kind of "self-reliancy" and "small government" BS that hasn't worked for the US the past 100 years. Well, it has worked for a small minority which has increasingly enriched itself. If you promote "giving people opportunities that keep them off the streets" as a solution, you profess to a total ignorance of how homelessness in the US (and most developed countries) works. It's not poverty or lack of employment. It's more about mental health and substance abuse. You can offer those people all the jobs you want, without medical and psychological/social help, they don't stand a chance. So yes, "1B on bandaids", like better mental health care for the poor, more social workers, more social housing would be a very good start.

closeparen 8y ago

But we won’t. We’ll sit here talking about how important it is to feel the full scale of the problem and how egregious it would be to deny these people any public space, and then we’ll go build maybe 12 supportive housing units.

bayesian_horse 8y ago
Actually there are signs of progress. Universal access to health care has become the majority opinion. As has the idea that locking up the mentally ill in prisons isn't really Ok. And that the current way the justice system works isn't really working.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Opinions are not progress. Policy, spending, facilities, and service delivery would be, if we had any.
  - bayesian_horse 8y ago
    There won't be improvement in spending and services until and unless the majority opinion is behind that. Believe it or not, but the majority opinion in the US, especially among those who vote and given the unfair voting weights, was against even Obamacare at some point, much less to spend billions more on social welfare issues. And part of that is the idea that taxing the rich and the companies will hurt the lower income workers. Many people don't want to tax millionaires because they fancy becoming one soon. Good luck... Those attitudes seem to have changed, and that sounds like progress to me. Now get rid of the Cheater in Chief and vote for people who actually want to help the lower classes...
    - closeparen 8y ago
      The big cities with substantial homeless populations are already dominated by left-leaning politics. It is not a question of getting more people to profess the correct beliefs, it is a question of converting those beliefs to specific actions despite their specific consequences. Like grandma losing her now-$2m house because its property tax bill reflects its value, or a shelter going in on your kid’s route to school. It’s a consensus opinion in SF that we ought to tax millionaires. But we’re unwilling to touch the asset class where the millions are actually stored. It’s a consensus opinion in SF that tax revenues should be used to help vulnerable populations stay in their communities. But “this is a community” is an ironclad argument that it’s an inappropriate location for any services or supportive housing.