| >No its not a "dumb argument". It's dumb because it judges private business on how it spends its resources on charity. It's also dumb because it suggests that some people are better then others and deserve the help more. >Homelessness is just as much of a humanitarian crisis. Homelessness is not an acute crisis, which happens and develops as quickly as execution of order of insane U.S. president. It's a problem that can and should be successfully addressed by the government by variety of means, because homelessness is fully under the control of the government (which can offer rehabilitation, medical treatment, shelters and assistance with finding jobs to homeless and social aid to people who may become homeless otherwise), while the causes forcing people to run from their homes in other countries are not. Here is offered not the permanent settlement of refugees (for 10-15 years): there's probably no host in the world willing to give their property to a family of strangers for that long. It's a relief: the measure signed by Trump is sudden, it has limited period of action and could possibly be repealed, but now many people are stuck in limbo and have to change their plans and make a lot of decisions about their life in next few months. Easing it for them by giving a place to stay is one of the ways to help, so why not? >Except that much like the refugee crisis the help from governments isn't fixing the problem.
Statistics show that governments can be pretty effective in solving these problems and U.S. government is quite good in that sense, as I can see. |
Homelessness is not acute? I think you not be using that word correctly. For people living paycheck to paycheck they are often one check away from being homeless. It can happen overnight!