First you say the guardian isn't reliable, but then you quote it and cherry pick data from it. So which is it? Not reliable or not reliable for facts you don't like?
Before you were talking about 'communist Portland', you also said that all initiatives to help the homeless are 'socialism'.
I honestly want to learn about this. You might have a point, but you seem to have an agenda, for example you made up up that all costs related to homeless programs are new costs (on top of existing programs) when the article clearly states otherwise.
It seems you want to play to win, not to learn and your mind is already made up. You have already made up facts multiple times in this thread and used words wrong without regard for the truth. This to me shows a lack of intelectual honesty and I don't really feel like engaging such behavior any further.
Before you were talking about 'communist Portland', you also said that all initiatives to help the homeless are 'socialism'.
I honestly want to learn about this. You might have a point, but you seem to have an agenda, for example you made up up that all costs related to homeless programs are new costs (on top of existing programs) when the article clearly states otherwise.
It seems you want to play to win, not to learn and your mind is already made up. You have already made up facts multiple times in this thread and used words wrong without regard for the truth. This to me shows a lack of intelectual honesty and I don't really feel like engaging such behavior any further.