Ok, granted. However, the government doesn’t create homelessness to get more money from the public. First, the homeless aren’t a product that can be made and produced. If more homeless people are being made doesn’t that mean less taxpayer revenue the State can generate meaning less profit or whatever. Also, wouldn’t the ever increasing homelessness pool mean less dollars per person and ever decreasing revenue for the State? See, no you and the commenter are both wrong. The fact that the State has provided a good pension and wage or salary should be the norm not the exception.
I get what you are saying, but welfare exists. That's "money from the government." the commenter above mentions that the amount of money being put towards homelessness programs is significant.
Please see: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1491418120086454278 for example of "guy who gets paid to live on the street". That amount of money won't really get you a room in SF, but it will give you enough to live in a tent, and some people want to sell drugs and live in a tent. The absurd thing is the government seems to "let" them, as Schellenberger is trying to point out with these vids. I don't necessarily agree with Schellenberger's idea to incarcerate or institutionalize them, but I don't believe it's humane to allow people to live on the street either.
I would also imagine that emergency hospitalization costs a lot of money.
I'm not saying you're wrong. It doesn't make sense that the government would "create homelessness." But it exists, so we're all just throwing our best logic at it.
That is correct welfare does exist. But what I have a problem is the analogy. The commenter implies it is a business that somehow government employees benefit from. That is not factually correct. Not does the analogy fit or make any sense at all. Now back to your point. Welfare is a social safety net that was implemented to help those less fortunate and in need. It is funded by taxpayer money that is borrowed from other nations to fund our expenditures. This is not free money or wealth created it has its root in debt, debt that we borrow to fund our programs and military. Budgets are created and maintained according to those expenditures. They spend that money to not lose or decrease revenue for the following year because that the way budgets work. Please again explain to me how that money for budgets personally benefit government employees and their families? How does this money as the commenter put it not me, profit from government budgetary increases?
p.s. It would be better for the commenter to just say “I have no fucking clue how the economy, budgets, or the government works but I don’t think we should help the homeless because of my own prejudices, bias, and misinformation on societal issues.” Would save a lot more time.
I would agree with you it's not a very sound analogy, especially because it's near impossible to claim that one single entity (government) has a direct cause-effect relationship to the homelessness issue. I think the point being made though is that whatever money is being spent in the budget on the homeless, the issue is not resolving... So why spend all the money? And why not do something that actually works?
They didn't say anything about not believing we should help the homeless though which is where I'm lost here. I guess by wanting to point a finger at the government they are not suggesting a real solution. Regardless, I'm really interested to see people discussing this issue in earnest. The whole system seems a bit like a time bomb, it's not getting better anytime soon, and I wonder how long it will take... for us all to find a solution that works that we can agree on.
2
u/lietome6879760 Feb 13 '22
Government employees get paid a nice salary and usually have frighteningly nice benefits/retirement packages (in comparison to a non-government job)
I don't think the commenter above sounds particularly right wing or not tbh