Flora: you got MY vote! 
Take corporate welfare [takes 20 minutes of work per day to pay for that] & give it to social welfare [25 seconds!].
Take the money from the rich, give to those in need.
Sorry, Phaedrus–like Libby Dole, I have dropped from the race. I discovered the unpleasant way that to EVER comment on thoughtful or serious issues is to ask for a raging mob to jump down your throat and whack away at your internal organs with baseball bats.
So from now on, look for me in MPSIMS and nowhere else . . .
. . . the former candidate
Aw, c’mon Flora. I liked your first and second proposals. Give me free housing and I’ll quit my job tomorrow ;).
Threads about homelessness and/or mental illness and policy recommendations should not be pruned.
::bump::
I would think a relevant question is how he got access to that paper. Figure that out, and tell poor person A to do the same thing. Problem solved.
You become deserving of something by earning it.
Regards,
Shodan
Which doesn’t necessarily result in you obtaining it, however much you have earned it; nor does possession of something necessarily indicate that such is the means by which it came to be in your possession.
No, of course not, but not earning something does mean you don’t deserve it, and earning it means that you do.
Or something like that. What I am struggling to say is that people have a right to keep what belongs to them. I don’t think this is quite a tautology.
Robin Hood makes a great story, but if he operated in my city I would do what I could to assist the authorities in hunting him down and breaking up his merry band of adventurers. And I would certainly never vote for him.
Regards,
Shodan
If everyone had the opportunity to work if they were willing, I’d be entirely happy with “Ya don’t work, ya don’t eat”.
Such is unequivocally not the case. Although there are, among the homeless, many people who have the ability to work but no inclination, there are others who might have the inclination but don’t have the ability (lacking useful skills and/or experience), and there are others who have both inclination and ability but don’t have the opportunity, and when I was homeless myself I was primarily in the lattermost category.
You could claim with logical consistency that people have a right to the money that belongs to them, and that that right supercedes any obligation to help others. In doing so, you choose not to help the homeless, and to allow it, as a phenomenon, to continue unsolved.
The homeless folks could claim with logical consistency that people have a need to eat, and that addressing that need supercedes any obligation to obey the law. So they mug you and take your money, which addresses their immediate need.
You might find their position immoral. They might find yours immoral.