Well, I feel the same about sports and sports stars. But I don’t really see sports stars on TV bragging about how liberal they are, or being held up as examples of liberalism. It’s usually “Look how awesome I am, I bought all my teammates $30,000 watches!” :rolleyes:
And the elephant in the room, you can’t solve homelessness just by throwing money at it. A large proportion of homeless people are homeless not because they can’t afford a home, but because of various sorts of mental illnesses. Some of those mental illnesses, we can’t treat, or can only barely treat. Some of them, we can, but only with the consent and cooperation of the patient, and one manifestation of the mental illness is that they refuse treatment. And even in those relatively rare cases where the problem is as simple as lack of money, the people who need the help might not even know that it’s available, and then there are significant logistic issues in getting the help to those who need it while preventing abuse of the system.
And the recalcitrant three-toed sloth in the room…oh yes there i-i-is.
I don’t speak French, but shouldn’t the title be LES Homeless?
I was making a joke about the redundancy in your OP.
So this is liberal bashing and you don’t really give a fuck about the homeless. You have absolutely no idea how they feel, what charity work they do, what charities they donate to, or even what political views they have. (Hint, some are actually Republicans)
But never let facts get in the way of a good story. Or stupid rant.
Go soak your head.
You know who holds up movie stars as “examples of liberalism”? Conservatives.
The left does not idolize Hollywood for being a bastion of liberal good examples. Your premise here is flawed in the extreme.
Tracy Morgan grew up in the projects. If he can afford a few million dollar car today, more power to him! I’d like to see a fuckwad like Trump start there, then, and be where Mr. Morgan is today.
Tracy Morgan is worth way more than $12 Million after the Walmart Settlement, supposedly court documents state him and a fellow comedian got as much as $90 million, not sure if that’s for the both of them together or what. I still wouldn’t buy a car that expensive if I was that rich.
This thread also makes me think about the threatened Hollywood boycotts over abortion legislation in states like Georgia. I thought about starting a thread about it. I have a friend that works on movies and tv shows in the Atlanta film industry. Georgia has been turning slowly purple especially with the recent rise of the film industry. All these lower people in the tier of movie production like set dressers, prop masters, graphic designers are for the most part hardcore liberals, they are not the ones in favor of restricting abortions but if the film industry pulls out at the behest of director, famous actors, producers and higher ups in the business, sure the state suffers but they’re probably actually hurting the people that agree with them the most. It sounds counter-productive, burning bridges with the people that agree with you, those are the ones you are putting out of work who can’t afford to relocate to California most likely.
I don’t think Hollywood Actors really understand or at least care about the little people in their industry even though they are on the same side.
Robin Williams had it in his contract that any production he was involved in must hire a certain number of homeless people in the filming area to do non technical jobs.
Jodie Foster is rather well known to help out with homeless charities as well as having made several documentaries raising awareness of the issue.
Susan Sarandon has testified before Congress to raise funds to fight violence against homelessness.
That’s just off the top of my head.
How much is enough though? That’s a question for which I have never seen a good answer.
I mean, would we be cheering Morgan had he paid a million toward the homeless, and bought a car that only cost 1 million? What about 1.5 million and a 500k car? Or if he’d just not given any money and bought a 75k car?
“Enough” is when there are no longer homeless and/or suffering people out there.
My point is that the wealthy should always and forever be obligated (morally speaking) with a burden to use their wealth to help others. That never goes away, IMO. If I ever became wealthy, I should be continually obligated and reminded of that obligation to help those less fortunate then I am.
I’ll add that I’m pretty damn fortunate (if not wealthy, at least IMO). And if someone challenged me and said I wasn’t doing enough to help the homeless and suffering people, they’d probably be correct.
Since I don’t speak Spanish either, maybe it should be LOS Homeless.
Celebrities Who Secretly Do A Ton Of Charity Work
So, manson1972…what have you done for the underprivileged?
While that is true, you’re talking about the eradication of homelessness. The issue now is that there are more homeless than ever, an increase that outpaces the general population increase. That suggests that there IS a solvable problem in the mix, along with the unsolvable base issue, because the situation has changed. And in the last 30 years, the entire employment sector has changed, from what jobs there are to how one acquires them; housing and education costs have risen enormously, as have individual debt burdens; many people live far away from close relatives, and in general have fewer close relatives than we did before birth control became widely available; L.A. in particular has tons of people whose roots (and thus deep social safety nets) are elsewhere.
Millions of people spend money on cigarettes instead of helping the homeless.
Just teasing ya there, Manson. I don’t see how blaming actors helps anything. And, “liberal” far more often seems like an accusation than something people self-identity as, so appealing to “liberal values” might not be too effective.
All decent people should have values. Dragging “liberalism” into it just confuses things IMHO.
Not true, while some issues like inadequate mental health facilities may be partially a function of society, if someone gets hooked on crack and looses everything it sure as hell not my fault.
Not to hijack, but what’s “wealthy” in this context? I mean, anyone who’s got their needs met (meaning themselves and their family) could probably afford to give something, but nobody’s expecting anyone to buy Busch Light instead of craft beer because there are homeless people out there, and the $3 difference per six-pack could add up over time.
And what does suffering mean? That’s awfully indistinct as well.
That’s the problem- it’s always vague, and something of an implied guilt trip to anyone who’s not breaking even.
It’s about denying massive tax revenue to governments attempting to oppress others. Costume designers and set dressers in LA lose out when movies are filmed in Georgia and elsewhere, too. Which group is larger, the 5,000 movie workers, or the 30,000 women who would be denied the right to control their own body?
This is all subjective and just my opinion; I don’t have an exact cutoff. IMO, most wealthy people should feel some guilt – that kind of guilt might motivate them to do more. Most of them aren’t bad people – they’re just people. But people with the incredible privilege of US-style (or Western-style) wealth have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate, and in my experience few of them (including my wealthy relatives who are very nice people!) feel much of this guilt or obligation, and I think they ought to.