|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.144.45.241
In Reply to: RE: I think he asked the right question. posted by Tre' on September 07, 2024 at 19:34:28
Tom asked a question about administrators who only know how to spend, and would never voluntarily reduce their budgets. Implying that they are grossly irresponsible in their actions with public money. But not a single word was said by Tom about homelessness. Which is the topic of this thread.Somehow you and Tom are trying to tie in the topic of administrative abuse onto the topic of homelessness. You feel there is a connection there, right? But just don't bother to say so. Okay, I'll try to guess my way through your thought process.
You think money spent on programs for the homeless is wasted. But where should we slash the budget? Should we cut back on policing? Court costs? Incarceration costs? Hospital costs? Or stop building homeless shelters? Or maybe shut down soup kitchens? And most important of all, we need to investigate, fire, or criminally prosecute the administrators who enable homeless programs? Right?
Is that what you are on about Tre? Evil administrators perpetuating a colossal waste of public funds on futile programs for the homeless?
Edits: 09/07/24 09/07/24 09/07/24 09/08/24Follow Ups:
I just said that we used to hold people more accountable for the choices they made. Period. And I thought that is what Tom said.
This is how I read what Tom said but I could be wrong.
"One could argue that there needs to be a way to separate those who are unable to share the burden [of taking care of themselves and providing their own housing] and those who are able [to] but don't [bother to take care of their own affairs]." and I agree with him.
Is there some reason why you didn't understand that?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Go back and read his post. Administrators and public money was the topic he launched into. Had nothing to do with homelessness that I could see. And I told him so. What we are disagreeing about now is the meaning of Tom's last sentence, so I'll quote it."One could argue that there needs to be a way to separate those who are unable to share the burden and those who are able but don't."
Who is Tom talking about? His aforementioned administrators? The public in general? Or the homeless? And sharing what burden? The public burden of taking care of the homeless, and maybe how our taxes are spent? Or the burden of the homeless being unable to take care of themselves? I find Tom's entire post to be exceptionally convoluted and lacking all specificity. Mostly because Tom never bothered to directly reference the homeless, which is after all, the proper topic of this thread.
I could not decipher what Tom wrote. You made a good guess at his meaning. But does Tom himself have any clarity about what he wrote? Maybe Tom will pile back into this thread to enlighten us, so that we no longer have to parse our way through his language.
Edits: 09/08/24
I took his last sentence to be about the homeless. My comment was about that last sentence.
"Administrators and public money..."
On that subject, my mother worked for, and later because the director of, the Ventura County Criminal Justice Planning Board. A federally funded agency who's primary task was to improve communication between law enforcement agencies within the county.
If she were still alive she would tell you straight up that they accomplished very little and spend most of their time each year developing the proposal to secure the next years funding.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: