[jstarfish]

You're proving his point.

$1k isn't enough to do anything with, so it's going to get wasted on vice.

Go give 1k to a homeless guy...he'll still be homeless, and probably dead thanks to what you enabled.

Qualify them for food stamps or something if you want to help. Cash always leads to trouble.

[RC_ITR]

>Go give 1k to a homeless guy...he'll still be homeless, and probably dead thanks to what you enabled.

I'm sorry for the double reply, but I really ma horrified.

It's amazing how we live in a country where shelter prices have increased by 50% since 2009 (vs. c.40% for all other items), and yet we still desperately hold onto this idea that homeless people are universally immoral drug addicts.

Beyond that point, we are talking about foster kids here. Everyone immediately jumped to homelessness for whatever reason (they seem to be the social scapegoat du jour).

I think it is completely reasonable for the government to fight inequality by giving people who we know are not receiving any support from their parents a boost in their critical career forming years.

Honestly, $1k/ month could be the difference between going to school part time vs. working full-time. Why does nobody's mind go to this? Why is the assumption that foster kids would never make that choice?

[RC_ITR]

>You're proving his point. $1k isn't enough to do anything with, so it's going to get wasted on vice.

Or, and hear me out here, it could supplement the $2,400/month someone makes working 160 hours at $15/hour.

Again, keep in mind, median rent in LA county is is >$3k/month.

IDK everyone in this thread thinks so poorly of former foster kids. Have they not had it hard enough?

[slg]

>Go give 1k to a homeless guy...he'll still be homeless, and probably dead thanks to what you enabled.

Why do people assume that every homeless person is both an idiot and an addict? Especially in cities in which real estate is as expensive as Los Angeles, the overwhelming majority of homeless people aren't there because of addiction issues. All the numbers I have seen suggest that only a quarter of LA's homeless population has addiction issues and even still the causal relationship isn't clear. When you live on the streets, the momentary escape of drugs is pretty alluring, but probably not as alluring as getting off the streets.

[overrun11]

You're using a very different definition of homeless than the person you're replying to.

Visibly homeless people– those who literally are living on the streets absolutely do have some sort of addiction or mental illness.

[slg]

Yes, the definitions are part of my point if you read between the lines of my comment.

The definition of homeless I am using is literally "a person without a home". The person I responded to is using an incorrect definition.

That leaves two options. They knew this and they don't actually care about the problem of people not having homes. Or they didn't know that the "visibly homeless" are only a minority of all "homeless" in which case they can learn from this conversation.

>those who literally are living on the streets absolutely do have some sort of addiction or mental illness.

I don't know how you can say this as definitively as you are.

[jstarfish]

> Why do people assume that every homeless person is both an idiot and an addict?

Look, you're not wrong, but you're also making a few assumptions yourself.

You know what else happens to poor people who come into large sums of money? They become a target.