California is On Fire, where is your god now Atheists?

[DrYouth]

It would be cheaper to help them this way than it would find them on the street ODing or with some other illness where an emergency room is their only life support.

You'll get no counter argument from me.
That's a good argument to win Conservatives over to what has generally been an idea sold in Liberal terms.
Liberals don't need a financial argument, "save to poor homeless people" works for them.
They are happy to fund financially weak plans that often to do little to help the people they are set on helping.

[The Conservative]

It would be cheaper to help them this way than it would find them on the street ODing or with some other illness where an emergency room is their only life support.

You'll get no counter argument from me.
That's a good argument to win Conservatives over to what has generally been an idea sold in Liberal terms.
Liberals don't need a financial argument, "save to poor homeless people" works for them.
They are happy to fund financially weak plans that often to do little to help the people they are set on helping.

I honestly think that my plan isn't financially weak...if that is what you are saying. If we get the people off the streets and back into civilization, cleaned up and making an income, where a percentage of it goes to housing costs, we see a return in the investment. If anything we give people the help I keep saying the state doesn't give traditionally, and in turn, we not only rehabilitate people but also help make neighborhoods alive again...

Instead of putting section 8 housing into apartments, and high rise buildings where crime is rampant, we give people the chance of living like humans... I think that would be a win-win overall.

[DrYouth]

I honestly think that my plan isn't financially weak... if that is what you are saying.

That's not what I'm saying.

I think housing people is the financially responsible thing to do as a society.

What you made was a conservative argument for a positive social action.

I'm on your side TC.

I think there is such a thing as non-partisan social planning that everyone can agree on.

But I'm not in the majority with that belief.

[The Conservative]

I honestly think that my plan isn't financially weak... if that is what you are saying.

That's not what I'm saying.

I think housing people is the financially responsible thing to do as a society.

What you made was a conservative argument for a positive social action.

I'm on your side TC.

I think there is such a thing as non-partisan social planning that everyone can agree on.

But I'm not in the majority with that belief.

I thought so, but I didn't want to assume. And I agree, too many people would rather spend the money on programs because they didn't think of it, or because it would counter their hold on a specific constiuency.

[Speaker to Animals]

Okay. Who's neighborhood are we volunteering for the first round of homeless neighbors?

[Speaker to Animals]

Here's the thing: most of the visible homeless out there have severe mental health problems or drug addictions. The housing they need is a mental health facility, but Ronald Reagan closed those down like a giant cunt and flooded our streets with the mentally disabled.

The vast majority of homeless people out there are totally invisible. They work jobs. They stay clean. They look like everybody else. Those people typically could have used financial assistance to get through whatever economic crisis led to their temporary homelessness in the first place.

Chronic homelessness is usually caused by some other problem that you can't really solve by simply moving them into a house. Those people generally need a lot of help.

[The Conservative]

Here's the thing: most of the visible homeless out there have severe mental health problems or drug addictions. The housing they need is a mental health facility, but Ronald Reagan closed those down like a giant cunt and flooded our streets with the mentally disabled.

The vast majority of homeless people out there are totally invisible. They work jobs. They stay clean. They look like everybody else. Those people typically could have used financial assistance to get through whatever economic crisis led to their temporary homelessness in the first place.

Chronic homelessness is usually caused by some other problem that you can't really solve by simply moving them into a house. Those people generally need a lot of help.

Would you rather they have a home and can be taken care of in that home if need be for rehabilitation or help overall, in where they can be picked up and dropped back off after, or on the streets where you have no idea where they are at any given time?

[Speaker to Animals]

Here's the thing: most of the visible homeless out there have severe mental health problems or drug addictions. The housing they need is a mental health facility, but Ronald Reagan closed those down like a giant cunt and flooded our streets with the mentally disabled.

The vast majority of homeless people out there are totally invisible. They work jobs. They stay clean. They look like everybody else. Those people typically could have used financial assistance to get through whatever economic crisis led to their temporary homelessness in the first place.

Chronic homelessness is usually caused by some other problem that you can't really solve by simply moving them into a house. Those people generally need a lot of help.

Would you rather they have a home and can be taken care of in that home if need be for rehabilitation or help overall, in where they can be picked up and dropped back off after, or on the streets where you have no idea where they are at any given time?

I would rather they get the mental health services they need. The DrY's of the world can sort them out and figure out how best to trread them and get them living as independent lives as possible. Start with mental health.

[The Conservative]

Here's the thing: most of the visible homeless out there have severe mental health problems or drug addictions. The housing they need is a mental health facility, but Ronald Reagan closed those down like a giant cunt and flooded our streets with the mentally disabled.

The vast majority of homeless people out there are totally invisible. They work jobs. They stay clean. They look like everybody else. Those people typically could have used financial assistance to get through whatever economic crisis led to their temporary homelessness in the first place.

Chronic homelessness is usually caused by some other problem that you can't really solve by simply moving them into a house. Those people generally need a lot of help.

Would you rather they have a home and can be taken care of in that home if need be for rehabilitation or help overall, in where they can be picked up and dropped back off after, or on the streets where you have no idea where they are at any given time?

I would rather they get the mental health services they need. The DrY's of the world can sort them out and figure out how best to trread them and get them living as independent lives as possible. Start with mental health.

So do I, but I would rather do it at or come back to with a place they can call home than back on the streets or in a shelter. I can tell you personally, a shelter is not good for anyone who is unstable to begin with.

[DrYouth]

If you want to improve someone's mental health...
You have to start with basic safety and security.

So yes... no housing... no mental health improvements. (score point to TC)

Institutions are renowned for being best reserved for the very last resort.
Ending the practice of warehousing the mentally ill in state run institutions was probably necessary.
I wouldn't really want to return to that.

But housing alone without other rehab type supports is also insufficient (score point to STA).