Why shouldn' t my city help those who need help here first? The people come to our city and take everything they can get, free rent, food, debit cards (which they bought video games and jewely with , I know this because I work in retail and seen them) and most of them seem to have cars. Meanwhile there are homeless people in my city living in bus shelters. The only thing the city does in run them off to find another place to sleep. Of course most of them are white so I guess that has a lot to do with it. Why shouldn'lt a city help it's own before taking in everyone else? And sure these homeless people are not saints, but neither are the people from Louisiana as violent crime has went up in my city.
2006-11-01 06:30:03 · 4 answers · asked by reallyfedup 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
it's all about federal money. the feds are giving your city money for taking in victims of hurricane Katrina.
Although your city does get money from the federal government for the homeless, it isn't anywhere near the amount of funds for the Katrina victims.
2006-11-02 05:20:40 · answer #1 · answered by mesquitemachine 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Cities that take these people in, get a Federal Assistance from the Gov. It' called "politics".
People only help people when? When they get something back in return.
There are hundreds of thousands of people involved in Katrina. So...Bottomline is this:
The Gov, jump in and bail them out of what? The entire economy will collapse. Home and Business Foreclosures will go beyond repair. Meaning what? Another Civil War in the south. Those people are not going to sleep in the street. They are going to eat just like me and you. They will do this at ANY cost.
How is this different from the people in your town? One million+ people comes to mind.
Majority rules. When you have a major disruption, The Gov, has to do the will of the majority or it will be kayos.
When the "few" in your town, gets to be a problem of "majority", or a big enough problem it could cause a huge outbreak of violence, THEN, your town will do something.
All of this means what?
"Power by numbers". Thats why big action groups get their way. They will scream and stomp and maybe turn to violence. The GOV, does not want that. The Fed's can NOT take a chance on people overthrowing the "system".
Good Q*.
2006-11-01 06:46:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well it would be cheaper in the long run than a suite in a hotel but the last fema ones were toxic. Hey i know some of the people from New Orleans that stayed in a hotel for over two years out in dallas, till the government said enough was enough. Then again the way libs say all Conservatives live in a trailer, if the mayor is a democrat might be worried aobut losing votes. Just a thought.
2016-05-23 04:05:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a good question. There should not be ONE homeless person here in America. The difference here is that one was a natural disaster which requires govt aid, and the other is personal disaster which has nothing to do with the gov't. Regardless, the gov't should step in and provide aid for homeless to get them back on their feet, not support their problems. I believe that race did play a little role in the relief they get. Many do choose to abuse this and everyone knew they would. I think they went a little overboard and underboard in many areas.
2006-11-01 06:44:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋