Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Nemesis_Ghost t1_ix5i0q3 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Open Discrimination within the Agency of Human Services -- State Funded Abuse of a Vulnerable Population by lindrios

The difference is that we can't save everybody, especially those who do not want to be saved. Tax dollars have to be prioritized, and while we should try to do as much as we can, if someone wants to live a deplorable life they should be let to & not at the expense of those who do not. The people who abuse these programs are the ones who give them a bad name so that the programs become the target for funding cuts. You are naïve if you think otherwise.

−1

[deleted] t1_ix5iium wrote

Oh, for fuck's sake. The scarcity is artificial. We are the richest country in the history of the world. We can afford to house people. The scarcity is artificial. We need to start deprioritizing capitalism instead of human rights. The problem is systemic.

No, what makes the programs a target for funding cuts is this neoliberal brainrot, that makes people think human rights are negotiable to the whims of the market. Print more money. Money isn't even real FFS.

Society has made a conscious choice, to allow a couple rich assholes to spend $44 billion on fucking Twitter by not outlawing billionaires, instead of guaranteeing human rights.

The most amazing part to me is, Housing First policies were pioneered by freaking Utah. You're unironically further right wing on housing policy than the goddamn Mormons. This isn't radical stuff. The status quo of unrestricted capitalism is what is radical.

I am really not looking forward to what liberals like you do when the scarcity isn't just make-believe numbers on a computer screen. You're gonna turn to eco-fascism so goddamn fast, I guarantee it.

7

IrrigatedPancake t1_ix7p68b wrote

The issue is not a lack of tax dollars. It's that politicians who are seen to be helping people voters don't want to associate with get voted out of office.

1