We are constantly told that solutions to some of the greatest challenges facing poor and working class people in the U.S. do not exist. Meanwhile, billions taxpayer dollars are being used to fund the genocide of Palestinians.
That very money could have ended homelessness in the United States.
Money for our needs, not the U.S.-Israeli war machine!
For those with a skeptical nature, I hunted down these numbers.
HUD does not provide numbers to “end homelessness”, they report on the state of homelessness including an estimated census of the homeless.
Some annalists have taken these numbers and multiplied them by the cost to imprison someone, or the average cost of American housing. These estimates come out to $11-30B.
So the numbers check out. The only fault I could find with this meme’s claims is that they are slightly misleading in suggesting $20B could “end homelessness” without the caveat that that’s only for one year.
20 billion could go a long way to curbing homelessness.
20 billion invested in high density, low rent housing units could make housing more accessible to millions of people, including the homeless.
Remember, not all homeless people are completely jobless. Many are couch surfing or sleeping in their cars, have stables jobs, and just can’t afford rent where their job is. An apartment they can afford could do a lot for these people.
You are correct. I like to focus instead on those lacking shelter who’ve been completely alienated from society and cannot be ‘re-rehabilitated’. These are the people who are erased when we speak about how lifestyle or work ethic “redeem” those in extreme poverty.
By all means, vote independent in state and local elections. We need more choices than a two-party system offers. If the candidate seem qualified, then help new parties establish themselves. Once they build enough followers to make a difference, we can start electing senators. Then the presidency becomes a serious option.
Unfortunately, there aren’t currently any third party candidates with a realistic chance of winning. The only responsible thing we can do for now is choose the lesser of two evils.
Unfortunately, there aren’t currently any third party candidates with a realistic chance of winning. The only responsible thing we can do for now is choose the lesser of two evils.
I don’t know anyone who thinks this is about winning. Everyone knows their third party vote isn’t going to result in a win for their candidate, and their candidate also knows this, and they know their candidate knows. When you lecture someone on what they already know, all you do is annoy them. You’re not going to get far with them if you don’t understand what their reasons really are. I can’t tell you; you’ll have to ask them.
One reason for some, that I think you can easily understand, is that unless you live in a swing state, it costs nothing to vote left of genocide. There is no downside, and it may make the Democratic party sweat enough to move slightly left. The party isn’t going to move left if they know you’ll always vote blue no matter who: all that does is make you a reliable and politically irrelevant punching bag.
I wonder if Claudia should rebrand their logo (that they have in the bottom right hand corner of OP) to say something like “*swing state? Vote Harris”
There’s no way she wants 45 to become 47. So she must have some guilt about marketing herself and Karina where a swing state voter might accidentally help get a bad man elected.
(I don’t know anything about her but I’m trusting she has her heart in the right place and is alarmed at all the same things the average Lemming is)
PSL is a Marxist Party. They believe revolution is necessary, and despise the Democrats and Republicans alike. They want their voters to vote in swing states to advertise their party platform and delegitimize the failure of the electoral system in general. They aren’t pulling punches because, like all Marxists, they believe the Democrats are unacceptable as well as the Republicans.
There’s a part of my brain that totally gets the logic behind needing a revolution to shake up the system, but then the other part of me is like, ‘Violence? Nah, hard pass.’ So I end up with this funny little cognitive dissonance. I’m all, ‘Yeah, REVOLUTION!’ and at the same time, ‘But let’s make sure no one gets hurt, okay?’ It’s like being stuck between a revolution and a group hug, if that even makes sense!
‘Violence? Nah, hard pass.’
people are experience violence in this genocide to maintain the lifestyle that we’re accustomed to.
we’re still choosing violence when we support politicians who enable violence; it’s just that, that violence isn’t for us this time around.
our declining status gaurantees that the violence will eventually come back to bite us in the ass and the sooner we change things; the less violent it will be.
the sooner we change things; the less violent it will be.
this is the most succinct argument illustrating the issue that I’ve seen so far, kudos!
This is a good article on why pacifism has not helped us overturn injustice historically, and won’t in the future.
I do understand this to some degree, and unfortunately, only through the lens of privilege, I’m sure. I will have to read this in full later, but my quick glance take-away is that, by being a pacifist you essentially will be ruled by those who don’t care at all and will commit atrocities against you, and, the least anyone can do is to defend themselves? Please correct me, and as I said, still need to read the entire thing!
I’ll let you read the thing first.
This is not about winning. Putting votes on third parties is a long term investment. It directly shows both evil parties they are missing out on votes.
Votes they would have had if they changed their agenda.
Rewarding a “lesser evil” for not appealing to left wing voters will teach them they need to keep doing evil because that is what makes them win.
The responsible thing is to fully endorse genocide?
The responsible thing to do is to mitigate the damage.
Genocide is inevitable regardless of which candidate wins. I’m not happy about that, but that’s the situation we’re in. The less awful thing to do is pick the candidate who will protect women and immigrants. I am not willing to sacrifice their well being in order to make a political statement.
Genocide is never inevitable. It says a lot about the US’s supposed “democracy” that you think it is.
Cherry-picking statements to make a point is a bad habit to get into. Try to avoid it in the future.
Genocide is not inevitable if we respect one another, and politicians become more empathetic. Unfortunately, genocide is inevitable in the current US election, because both major candidates support Netanyahu.
Genocide is not inevitable if we respect one another, and politicians become more empathetic.
This is liberal idealist nonsense. Genocide isn’t happening because we’re insufficiently respectful of one another or because our politicians are insufficiently empathetic.
That does tend to be a “flaw” of mine. I expect better of people. I think that “matter” bit is garbage, but that’s not the point.
Are you saying that disrespect and a lack of empathy don’t play a significant role in genocide? That doesn’t seem right, either, though.
The tiny minority of sociopaths that sit at the top of the pyramid of US corporations and its state are the self-selected few who got to where they are because they lack empathy. They’re the ones who can’t be convinced out of it.
Take any large group of ppl and there will be a few assholes among them. What’s unique about the capitalist mode of production, is that it makes sure those people run the entire society, and control the nuke codes.
Why would you end homelessness though when you can simply criminalise it and send them to prison to work as slaves?
