Why is it that despite over a hundred years of the evolving welfare state and massive injections of money into feeding and housing the poor and practically pushing them through school and back to school, that hobos crowd the streets and the number of needy mouths yawning wide grow like amoeba?
2007-02-26 18:45:12 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Economics
Most social programs assign the majority of resources to fixing the end because there's immediate need (like feeding the hunger). We need to put resources (if more is available) to prevention, rehabilitation, and especially how to integrate the poor back into a productive member of society. We need to find perpetual sources (easier way to donate - something people normally do such as shopping for clothes, groceries) It could be something as easy as donation of groceries at a supermarket (rather than money), donating books at a bookstore, donating clothes at a clothing store, donating toys at toy store. What better if these books store, supermarkets, toy store have a matching program (either one to one or percentage). Many programs failed because it's a one-time donation without perpetual source of income.
2007-02-26 19:01:51 · answer #1 · answered by typical dude 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because of the attitude you just so blatantly expressed: There's "us" and the poor. Guess what--it's awful damn hard for society to make progress when those in powerful positions--very often Republicans--have your similar mindset. Does, "Like a house, a nation divided against itself will not stand?" ring a bell? People need to start realizing more that the rule of karmic retribution is very real. Only good can come of fully understanding and accepting that we are all each other's keepers. It will come back to you.
But the government and people like you just don't seem to consider any of that really relevant, which is why our progress has been very limited.
Another thing: Are you looking for a perfect world or are you looking at the world as it is? We will never reach a perfect utopia, man.
2007-02-26 19:13:37 · answer #2 · answered by ak47_girl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it really is honest that the wealthy provide the undesirable with the means to fulfill their own needs. The undesirable ought to then attempt to be able to assist others. no longer some thing extra and not at all some thing a lot less. What i in simple terms can not comprehend is why would absolutely everyone pick to stay depending on the authorities for his or her lifetime needs.
2016-12-05 00:30:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as the poor remain poor the condition will hardly change.
Perhaps the money spent for them is not enough. Rich politicians think less about them. They consider it enough to sanction some money for them. But the situation deserves more thoughtful consideration.
2007-02-26 18:57:27 · answer #4 · answered by ashisullah 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because we have republicans in office who only care about the rich.
2007-02-26 18:53:44 · answer #5 · answered by karenhar 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because people like you have contempt for them
2007-02-26 19:06:47 · answer #6 · answered by freshbliss 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah, until there all starved out
hobo's hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,
omg thats too funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-02-26 18:53:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋