Has Finland Anti-LDS Values?

[moksha]

I was just watching this YouTube video and I began to wonder if Finland has anti-LDS values (or at least anti-Utah Mormon values). What do you think?

Finland Solved Homelessness: Here's How
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jt_6PBnCJE

Utah simply bulldozes the homeless tent encampments.

[Dirty Bird]

In general, Utah has one of the lowest rates of homelessness in the United States, and the majority of the state's homeless population can be found in Salt Lake metropolis, which is considered to be a liberal metropolis. If you take a more comprehensive look at the issue of homelessness in the United States, you will discover that the vast majority of people who are without a place to live reside in progressive cities. This is likely due to the fact that mental illness is more prevalent among liberals.

A website that specializes in finance has published a list of the top 30 cities around the world that have the highest number of homeless people. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that a few of the cities on the list in the United States are ruled by progressive leadership. This may not come as a surprise to anyone who is willing to acknowledge that progressivism perpetuates and exacerbates mental illness. New York City was ranked fifth, Chicago was ranked seventh, Washington, District of Columbia was ranked eighth, Los Angeles was ranked thirteenth, and San Francisco was ranked fourteenth. Therefore, why are you attempting to draw a comparison between the homeless population in Utah and the homeless population in Finland, when you should be questioning why progressive communities in the United States are not providing care for the homeless in the same way that Finland does?


Aren't approximately seventy-five percent of Utah's homeless population located within the state's most liberal city?

People who are mentally unwell are more likely to be produced by the progressive ideology than by those who hold a compassionate conservative viewpoint.

[hmb]

In general, Utah has one of the lowest rates of homelessness in the United States, and the majority of the state's homeless population can be found in Salt Lake metropolis, which is considered to be a liberal metropolis. If you take a more comprehensive look at the issue of homelessness in the United States, you will discover that the vast majority of people who are without a place to live reside in progressive cities. This is likely due to the fact that mental illness is more prevalent among liberals.

A website that specializes in finance has published a list of the top 30 cities around the world that have the highest number of homeless people. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that a few of the cities on the list in the United States are ruled by progressive leadership. This may not come as a surprise to anyone who is willing to acknowledge that progressivism perpetuates and exacerbates mental illness. New York City was ranked fifth, Chicago was ranked seventh, Washington, District of Columbia was ranked eighth, Los Angeles was ranked thirteenth, and San Francisco was ranked fourteenth. Therefore, why are you attempting to draw a comparison between the homeless population in Utah and the homeless population in Finland, when you should be questioning why progressive communities in the United States are not providing care for the homeless in the same way that Finland does?


Aren't approximately seventy-five percent of Utah's homeless population located within the state's most liberal city?

People who are mentally unwell are more likely to be produced by the progressive ideology than by those who hold a compassionate conservative viewpoint.

I do not agree. I find it sad to politicize mental illness. Big cities do tend toward a more liberal population, but that's also where the homeless will find services. I live in corn country. I don't see any homeless out here. Being liberal or conservative does not create more or less mental illness. People with a need for services are going to go where they can get some assistance. I suspect that if there were a homeless person in, or near, my little town, they would be transported to a shelter, which would be in a city. But these are my thoughts. I'm no expert on the situation.

[moksha]

People who are mentally unwell are more likely to be produced by the progressive ideology than by those who hold a compassionate conservative viewpoint.

I think that Soylent Green snack food production is the ultimate in conservative compassion for the homeless.

[alas]

In general, Utah has one of the lowest rates of homelessness in the United States, and the majority of the state's homeless population can be found in Salt Lake metropolis, which is considered to be a liberal metropolis. If you take a more comprehensive look at the issue of homelessness in the United States, you will discover that the vast majority of people who are without a place to live reside in progressive cities. This is likely due to the fact that mental illness is more prevalent among liberals.

A website that specializes in finance has published a list of the top 30 cities around the world that have the highest number of homeless people. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that a few of the cities on the list in the United States are ruled by progressive leadership. This may not come as a surprise to anyone who is willing to acknowledge that progressivism perpetuates and exacerbates mental illness. New York City was ranked fifth, Chicago was ranked seventh, Washington, District of Columbia was ranked eighth, Los Angeles was ranked thirteenth, and San Francisco was ranked fourteenth. Therefore, why are you attempting to draw a comparison between the homeless population in Utah and the homeless population in Finland, when you should be questioning why progressive communities in the United States are not providing care for the homeless in the same way that Finland does?


Aren't approximately seventy-five percent of Utah's homeless population located within the state's most liberal city?

People who are mentally unwell are more likely to be produced by the progressive ideology than by those who hold a compassionate conservative viewpoint.

In rural areas, there are homeless who live in tents, but nobody worries about them because they appear to be camping. See, a tent in a dispersed campground is much different than a tent on a city street. When we were younger, husband and I liked the kind of camping where you just find a nice spot on in a national forest or BLM land and camp. We don’t do it as much now because he can’t handle tent camping but we ATV, and we see people “camping” where they have obviously been parked there for months. If you stop to talk to these people, and can gain their trust, they are not camping by choice, but because they lost their home and are now living off grid. Some commute daily to a job, others have someone bringing them food. So, the problem isn’t that big Democrat run cities have the most homeless, it is that rural homeless are hard to count, and many homeless go to cities so when the weather gets cold, they can go to a shelter. Big cities tend to take better care of the homeless who are there, and big cities tend to lean more liberal than rural areas. It is not at all that Democrat areas cause homelessness.

So, your cause is confused with correlation. Yes, the big liberal cities do have more homeless, but they also have more homeless shelters, so the homeless GO there, no matter where or why they became homeless.

[Cnsl1]

What Alas said.

Also, what creates more homelessness is the LACK of good mental health services.

Also, what attracts the homeless are places that are a little more liberal about letting them camp out.

It's a problem that could probably be solved in a society with more humanity, less greed, more reliance on win-win division of labor, and less corporate focus on increasing profits.

Not to politicize it, DB, but since you started, wasn't it Trump who said in one of his books, that win- win deals were for losers? That you needed to crush the competition and come away with more than them? To his defense, he made his fortune in the dog eat dog world of real estate in a city that doesn't have a lot of it. Maybe that's how you gotta be to make it. Idk. But it seems like that's not a good ethos for running a whole country in a world of countries. Or taking care of the poor and homeless. Obviously you can't give away the ranch, but if all the ranches gave a wee bit, there would still be plenty. But we don't.. you never know.. we might need that money. Jesus might be coming soon. Let's invest it and make more. For Jesus. That's what he'd do.

F#$% those people in tents.

[hmb]

People who are mentally unwell are more likely to be produced by the progressive ideology than by those who hold a compassionate conservative viewpoint.

I think that Soylent Green snack food production is the ultimate in conservative compassion for the homeless.

"Compassionate" Jesse Watters, referring to the homeless, said, “You have to stigmatize it,” he (Jesse) said. “You can’t make them out to be some sort of cutting-edge heroes. You have to call them what they are. These are people that have failed in life and are on death’s door.” There's that compassionate, conservative viewpoint.

[Angel]

Am I my brother's keeper?
Good Samaritans tend to be surrounded by grateful hearts.

[alas]

I read an article about how some red state, forgot which one, but Utah qualifies, would rather split up a homeless family and put the kids in foster care and pay MORE for foster care, then provide housing for the family. I know I used to work for a private funded agency (like YWCA) that had a battered women’s shelter. And because Utah had such shitty homeless shelters for women, we took single homeless women or women with children for a few days. But if a battered woman or a homeless woman had teen boys they couldn’t stay at the shelter. Or if a whole family was homeless. So we set these families up in motels, but we housed them. But again, we were a privately funded agency. The state of Utah had nothing. Then we had a “housing person” who helped the family get on welfare and into low cost housing. But we paid for a motel until housing was found. Why can’t the state do that? Republicans.

But the problem is, there isn’t enough funding for private agencies. The idea that churches and privately funded agencies should do it all is just not workable.

So, many of the homeless go to a blue state where they can get better services or their family won’t be split into three or four places (men’s shelter, women’s shelter, 1 or 2 foster homes)

Then the Republicans point a finger at San Francisco and say the high homelessness problem is all the Democrats fault.

As a social worker, I have SEEN this. We had families who begged gas money on the street, and traveled to California.

[Cnsl1]

Again, what Alas said.

I know there has to be a balance, but it ceases to amaze me that the folks who spout their Christian values the loudest are often the ones who act the least like Jesus.