I don't think it makes a difference in my hope they can iterate towards stronger arguments that lead to consensus solutions, cleaning up the streets and also improving their physical and mental health, and ideally financial position too.
Their weaker arguments don't factor in anything. It doesn't factor in why people go to those specific areas. It doesn't factor in how the people on the street are only the visible homeless population and just the tip of the iceberg of the larger unhoused population in the same circumstance. It doesn't factor in how much of that visible homeless population is not interested in going to a different living arrangement, and so much more. Its just a rudimentary compassion argument that assumes well off and influential people aren't doing anything and that massively funded programs don't already exist. The statement about "the cold" doesn't seem to be targeted to any specific place either, despite this conversation being about San Francisco where "the elements" are more important, since a sweater and blanket is good enough for the worst of San Francisco weather. If their sentiment is so strong, they can iterate towards stronger arguments.
I dont need to iterate towards stronger arguments. There isn't much else to debate or elaborate on the issue. Indeed you are taking the out in the cold statement too literarily, my comment is not weather related. We as a society, regardless of country or city, need to look after each other to a certain extent. Thats what makes a society. We are not beasts. Competing in boardrooms, politics, businesses, or careers is welcome and healthy, but simply allowing for people to struggle at that level is not. It’s not even about wealth or class, let alone rudimentary compassion. It’s just something i feel. An automated reaction to such societal issues, and a response i can give as a tax pair, voter and very very small donor. Somewhere somehow a circuit is broken and people end up in that situation. We need the mechanisms to prevent that from happening. Sure if some people see homelessness as a positive choice they themselves make then thats their choice and i totally respect that. I am not writing this comment to patronise people, i know nothing of their lives. But i do know that we must do all we can to develop mechanisms to prevent it from happening to those who dont want it. Food, shelter and health care are basic human needs and rights.
>Food, shelter and health care are basic human needs and rights.
Even if so, it's not your right to take these by force. So if someone has to pay for that via taxes, etc then you are infringing on the rights of others in extracting that value. I would argue the government does have the obligation to not infringe on those rights, as they currently do in onerous regulation that makes these things unaffordable (well crappy food is pretty affordable by world standards). Obviously health care regulations and licensing, medicare, medicaid, medi-Cal, are some of the biggest offenders in destroying our rights.
What's your standard on rights? The constitution has the 16th amendment in it which means any tax when called income tax is okay, and the original constitution's articles allows for excise taxes. So this is an area you have to remain vigilant on to prevent the political will from gaining consensus if it matters to you. Centrists are playing this role swimmingly, preventing any party from gaining any useful power, while the rest of the country actually believes the "wave" of their color is actually going to happen for like almost a decade now.
50-50 Senate since forever tells you all you need to know! No party is going to overcome the filibuster to pass anything.
Their weaker arguments don't factor in anything. It doesn't factor in why people go to those specific areas. It doesn't factor in how the people on the street are only the visible homeless population and just the tip of the iceberg of the larger unhoused population in the same circumstance. It doesn't factor in how much of that visible homeless population is not interested in going to a different living arrangement, and so much more. Its just a rudimentary compassion argument that assumes well off and influential people aren't doing anything and that massively funded programs don't already exist. The statement about "the cold" doesn't seem to be targeted to any specific place either, despite this conversation being about San Francisco where "the elements" are more important, since a sweater and blanket is good enough for the worst of San Francisco weather. If their sentiment is so strong, they can iterate towards stronger arguments.