Back in August, far-left moron Charles Smith posted a child's "letter to the Prime Minister" that he thought was cute and pushed the right buttons to enact the stupid policies he desires.
He's tried to delete it since realizing it's a stupid bad faith take, but the internet has our backs on this one.
If Jonah thinks "everyone should have a home" that's all fun and good. But how do they get it? If you guessed that the answer from Smith and Justin's evil cunt presstitute Paula Simons would turn out to be "steal more taxes from the people who made the smart choices that resulted in having a home", you would of course be correct.
The notion that "owning a home is good and therefore people should own homes" of course caused a global financial meltdown 15 years ago: the belief that just putting niggers into houses would cause a Shangri-La where they became productive members of a compassionate society turned out to not only be wrong but indeed 180 degrees of wrong.
It's a classic problem of cause and effect.
The Smith/Simons method of throwing tax money turns out not to have worked. Remember when the City of Edmonton had a plan to finally creatively and intelligently use government overreach to cure homelessness within the decade?
And, of course, a few hundred more people made a bit of coin administering, developing, and delivering the programs. Lord knows they all gave each other awards. Every agency, and every inter-agency co-ordinating agency, got a free chicken dinner out of it sometime.You will have perceived the problem. None of this ended homelessness. Right now we seem to have as much of it as ever; maybe more. Homelessness was not even reduced much, except temporarily. Edmonton’s last local homeless count, taken before the oil shock, showed a slight uptick after a couple of years of progress; provincial data on the use of emergency shelters showed the same bounce.
(There is now, I note, a fierce theoretical debate over whether moment-in-time “homeless counts” are a good thing and who ought to conduct them. This seems to somehow involve the “hidden homeless,” which is a social worker’s term for “disadvantaged people who do, in fact, have insecure or transitory homes.” One would imagine that if you set out to eliminate a thing you would agree upon a way of measuring it and defining it at the outset. Perhaps it is a coincidence that these theoretical difficulties arose just as “ending homelessness” began to reek like a dead haddock, all at once, in many Canadian cities.)
Meanwhile, we do have a solution staring us right in the face (though if you take my advice in the post title you won't have to worry about it blinking). Do the exact opposite of what you morons insist on.
It literally seems to work for everything else. Instead of constantly helping, try actively harming. Being homeless has a lot of downside and some upside, and even the most drug addled nutty injun sleeping on the sidewalk probably sees some advantage to not pumping himself full of meth and spasming in pain and hunger underneath a tree in -30. However, clearly this disparity isn't enough.
And the first thing a Prime Minister can do about it is stop providing them resources. As an added benefit, it means that the money stops being stolen from me.
Because rat poison is getting expensive, and Superstore has stopped selling those $7 (formerly $6) pizzas.
