• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

BillBrasky Memorial Political Chat Thread

Shooshmoo said:
I'm not being a dick, no idea why you're being a dick and shitting on my job. And I was very clear I was playing devil's advocate. That's just you, I guess.
Click to expand...

Yea but be clear about what it is you’re trying to play devils advocate about

When given $750 with no strings, most homeless ppl find housing

What is so hard for you to understand?

It’s a bummer there’s no pop demography of the homeless bc who these folks are would blow y’all’s fuckin minds
 
Strickland33 said:
Yea but be clear about what it is you’re trying to play devils advocate about

When given $750 with no strings, most homeless ppl find housing

What is so hard for you to understand?

It’s a bummer there’s no pop demography of the homeless bc who these folks are would blow y’all’s fuckin minds
Click to expand...

My brother in sociology, partner up with a demographer and write it.
 
Strickland33 said:
When given $750 with no strings, most homeless ppl find housing

What is so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...
I was very, very clearly contrasting the study with the rise in homelessness that was contemporaneous with the end of COVID payments. I'm not sure why that was so hard for you to understand, but the point I was devil's advocating for was a conservative argument that these benefits/payments would have to be permanent to be effective, given the rise in homelessness attributable to the temporary COVID benefits stopping. Since you know the study, maybe you can share if the conclusion is that such payments need to be permanent to be permanently effective.

I never said anything about homeless people not having jobs.
 
Shooshmoo said:
I was very, very clearly contrasting the study with the rise in homelessness that was contemporaneous with the end of COVID payments. I'm not sure why that was so hard for you to understand, but the point I was devil's advocating for was a conservative argument that these benefits/payments would have to be permanent to be effective, given the rise in homelessness attributable to the temporary COVID benefits stopping. Since you know the study, maybe you can share if the conclusion is that such payments need to be permanent to be permanently effective.

I never said anything about homeless people not having jobs.
Click to expand...

Your argument wasn’t obvious at all.
 
Shooshmoo said:
I was very, very clearly contrasting the study with the rise in homelessness that was contemporaneous with the end of COVID payments. I'm not sure why that was so hard for you to understand, but the point I was devil's advocating for was a conservative argument that these benefits/payments would have to be permanent to be effective, given the rise in homelessness attributable to the temporary COVID benefits stopping. Since you know the study, maybe you can share if the conclusion is that such payments need to be permanent to be permanently effective.

I never said anything about homeless people not having jobs.
Click to expand...
Ooh fun playing Devil’s advocate to a study you’re not even willing to read yourself
 
TownieDeac said:
Ooh fun playing Devil’s advocate to a study you’re not even willing to read yourself
Click to expand...
Man, I was just posting a quick comment in a chat thread. Now I've got to pay for the LA times and read an entire study before I can post here, or someone will shit on my job. You guys are pricks.

Feel free to shed light on what I missed in the study. Or not, just keep being dicks.
 
Thanks. Didn't see the study (the link in "controlled study" went to a different article) the article didn't address what I was talking about.
 
It seems like an entire study was designed to dispel a conservative myth that was generated simply for the fact they didn’t want to spend any money. Like crazy hypothesis that if I have money then I have food or shelter. It’s that nobody wants to spend the money perpetually.
 
The point that no one wants to acknowledge is the cost of homeless to society is way more than the $750 a month.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
It's not even the combo plus dessert, it is that no teenager is getting full from just a combo meal. Gotta go combo meal plus additional sandwich or nuggets for either the active kid or a I would assume a fat kid. That additional filler is what the $.99 fast food menus used to be for. But gone are the days. Thanks Biden.
Click to expand...
I worked at Chick-fil-A in the Bush years. Only the fattest rednecks did this shit.
 
PhDeac said:
Tells you how pervasive ugly stereotypes are when people won’t believe the simple premise that people in need spend money on their most basic needs to improve their lives.
Click to expand...
I mean I guess, but in reality a way higher than 12% of homeless people are addicted to opiates. I find it almost impossible to believe that 750 dollars a month can get you clean from that kind of addiction. So the study probably focused on people without strong substance abuse issues, in which case I believe it was probably the most effective means of rehabilitation. I don’t expect it to work on scale tho.
 
That’s a pretty narrow view of homelessness = drugs. Plenty of homeless people don’t have a drug problem. They just have a cash flow or housing problem. There may be people in that study who got evicted because they had unexpected expenses and were short on rent. $750 plus not having anything crazy come up helped them get another place and get back on their feet.
 
Of the chronically homeless what percentage do you think are are sober without serious mental health issues? Not being argumentative, but actually curious because I feel like you would have a better understanding than me.
 
Do people with addictions or mental illness not deserve to be housed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top