Utah: Solving homelessness? (1 Viewer)

[Hilts]

Interesting approach. Curious to see how it pans out over the coming years.

http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183

 

[DaVinci]

If they were really smart, they'd give the homeless houses in another state.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's a temporary fix, like a band aid.

It's a good idea though. As long as they realize this is nothing more than a short term good financial solution, and not exactly fixing anything long term.

Until you can figure out a better long term solution, you need to stop the bleeding, so nice work.

 

[Hilts]

It's a temporary fix, like a band aid.

It's a good idea though. As long as they realize this is nothing more than a short term good financial solution, and not exactly fixing anything long term.

Until you can figure out a better long term solution, you need to stop the bleeding, so nice work.

They do help them find work. But many homeless have severe mental problems, and unless that gets fixed, you're right it's just a short term solution.

 

[DiStefano]

It's a temporary fix, like a band aid.

It's a good idea though. As long as they realize this is nothing more than a short term good financial solution, and not exactly fixing anything long term.

Until you can figure out a better long term solution, you need to stop the bleeding, so nice work.

They do help them find work. But many homeless have severe mental problems, and unless that gets fixed, you're right it's just a short term solution.

Well, at least they have a warm place to stay, and the supervision of a social worker. If they need more help than that, then the social worker can recommend a mental health facility, or an asylum.

 

[beer 302]

There are 6 people that live in Utah, let me know when they get this to work in a major urban area

 

[SacramentoBob]

I like the sledgehammer solution better.

 

[Mad Cow]

There are 6 people that live in Utah, let me know when they get this to work in a major urban area

You would think I would run into Pick, mon and Chet more frequently, then.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

What percentage of homeless people in Utah are those young guys that were kicked out of the polygamist "compounds"?

 

[Mad Cow]

What percentage of homeless people in Utah are those young guys that were kicked out of the polygamist "compounds"?

Some but not as many as you think. There are a number of organizations around to help the Lost Boys, as it were. So many of those kids are just great kids, too. We had two live with a friend in our neighborhood, and they transitioned great with help and love from the neighbors.

 

[Politician Spock]

There are 6 people that live in Utah, let me know when they get this to work in a major urban area

You would think I would run into Pick, mon and Chet more frequently, then.

They have lots of aliases.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

What percentage of homeless people in Utah are those young guys that were kicked out of the polygamist "compounds"?

Some but not as many as you think. There are a number of organizations around to help the Lost Boys, as it were. So many of those kids are just great kids, too. We had two live with a friend in our neighborhood, and they transitioned great with help and love from the neighbors.

Don't let him near your wife though. Just to be safe.

 

[CurlyNight]

If I were homeless, I wouldn't mind getting arrested. At least I would be indoors especially this time of year in wintry states.

 

[roadkill1292]

One more baby step towards a BIG for all.

 

[DSP]

I saw a homeless guy in queens 2 months ago. He removed his pants and took a dump on a sidewalk adjacent to a busy commercial street. I noticed his skin had been growing over the top of his socks. He then wiped himself with the pants he was just wearing. He then stood around completely bottomless in the cold weather

I was rather surprised he had the sense to wipe

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The homeless problem in New Orleans has gotten nuts.

I don't understand why with a progressive president, and all the stimulus money we've spent, and being 16+ trillion $$$ in debt, plus with the War in Poverty why there is so much homelessness in NO. We have a liberal Democratic mayor. We have several excellent organizations that care.

The situation here is that when you are downtown, but also several other places, there are homeless on the neutral ground and the banquet, at almost every corner in some places, asking for money with signs. Take a look at the recent travel post in the New Orleans thread, it's discussed there.

It's funny because they must all somehow agree that there is only one to a corner, they never crowd each other.

The ridiculous thing is these people do have places top go and stay, they can get a bed, meals, clothes, blankets, counseling, you name it. The shelters recently came out and actually asked people locally not to hand out change from their cars because the homeless will just spend it on alcohol and drugs, which is counter productive. The shelters said if you want to help them donate to a shelter as they go out regularly to feed them and try to bring them in.

Maybe these folks will like having a free apartment but by the looks of it they want no part of it.

Also, where do these apartments come from?

 

[[icon]]

You can't help some people.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Police say a homeless couple that was given a free home earlier this year has since stripped the home and sold everything inside the home to buy crack cocaine. Patricia Douglas and Willie Banner were given the home back in February as part of a federal program to house 100,000 homeless people around the country.

The couple was initially overjoyed to receive the home. Now the couple is in jail accused of stripping the duplex. WREG reported their air conditioning unit was also allegedly sold to a neighbor.

“I am shocked, really” said Kelcey Johnson, director of the Hospitality Hubs that takes applications from homeless people who want housing. “I really feel bad for the landlord that put his property into this program.”

The program is called “100 homes Memphis.” Federal money is used to house homeless people. However, drug testing is not a part of the program.

“Drug use and abuse alcohol use and abuse does not disqualify people for this program,” said Johnson.

 

[[icon]]

Detroit has tens of thousands of abandoned homes. The nation has many many thousands of homeless people.

Ship all the homeless to Detroit and give them each a house.

Wala.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You can't help some people.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Police say a homeless couple that was given a free home earlier this year has since stripped the home and sold everything inside the home to buy crack cocaine. Patricia Douglas and Willie Banner were given the home back in February as part of a federal program to house 100,000 homeless people around the country.

The couple was initially overjoyed to receive the home. Now the couple is in jail accused of stripping the duplex. WREG reported their air conditioning unit was also allegedly sold to a neighbor.

“I am shocked, really” said Kelcey Johnson, director of the Hospitality Hubs that takes applications from homeless people who want housing. “I really feel bad for the landlord that put his property into this program.”

The program is called “100 homes Memphis.” Federal money is used to house homeless people. However, drug testing is not a part of the program.

“Drug use and abuse alcohol use and abuse does not disqualify people for this program,” said Johnson.

Like I said the homeless shelters here in NO recently issued a plea for people to not give the homeless money from their cars because they would spend it on alcohol and drugs.

We shouldn't give someone 50 cents but we should be giving someone a home or apartment with actual property that can be stripped down???

 

[DSP]

Detroit has tens of thousands of abandoned homes. The nation has many many thousands of homeless people.

Ship all the homeless to Detroit and give them each a house.

Wala.

If they do this they should just wall off the city and leave it be because this will accelerate the mad max situation

 

[[icon]]

I don't give anything to homeless... haven't in a long time. Too many scammers, too many addicts. My sympathy is watered down with disgust at this point.

...and I don't endorse any program that simply gives away a massive asset that the rest of the population has to work full time to be able to afford for themselves

 

[Hilts]

You can't help some people.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. Police say a homeless couple that was given a free home earlier this year has since stripped the home and sold everything inside the home to buy crack cocaine. Patricia Douglas and Willie Banner were given the home back in February as part of a federal program to house 100,000 homeless people around the country.



The couple was initially overjoyed to receive the home. Now the couple is in jail accused of stripping the duplex. WREG reported their air conditioning unit was also allegedly sold to a neighbor.



I am shocked, really said Kelcey Johnson, director of the Hospitality Hubs that takes applications from homeless people who want housing. I really feel bad for the landlord that put his property into this program.



The program is called 100 homes Memphis. Federal money is used to house homeless people. However, drug testing is not a part of the program.



Drug use and abuse alcohol use and abuse does not disqualify people for this program, said Johnson.

Definitely an issue. Do you propose another solution?

 

[[icon]]

You can't help some people.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. Police say a homeless couple that was given a free home earlier this year has since stripped the home and sold everything inside the home to buy crack cocaine. Patricia Douglas and Willie Banner were given the home back in February as part of a federal program to house 100,000 homeless people around the country.

The couple was initially overjoyed to receive the home. Now the couple is in jail accused of stripping the duplex. WREG reported their air conditioning unit was also allegedly sold to a neighbor.



I am shocked, really said Kelcey Johnson, director of the Hospitality Hubs that takes applications from homeless people who want housing. I really feel bad for the landlord that put his property into this program.



The program is called 100 homes Memphis. Federal money is used to house homeless people. However, drug testing is not a part of the program.



Drug use and abuse alcohol use and abuse does not disqualify people for this program, said Johnson.

Definitely an issue. Do you propose another solution?

Improve capacity of short-term shelters / soup-kitchens, then let natural selection take it's course.

 

[[icon]]

Detroit has tens of thousands of abandoned homes. The nation has many many thousands of homeless people.

Ship all the homeless to Detroit and give them each a house.

Wala.

If they do this they should just wall off the city and leave it be because this will accelerate the mad max situation

Not opposed to this option either.

 

[Hilts]

I don't give anything to homeless... haven't in a long time. Too many scammers, too many addicts. My sympathy is watered down with disgust at this point.

...and I don't endorse any program that simply gives away a massive asset that the rest of the population has to work full time to be able to afford for themselves

What is ut you do endorse? Do you believe current strategies are the best solution?

 

[sporthenry]

I don't give anything to homeless... haven't in a long time. Too many scammers, too many addicts. My sympathy is watered down with disgust at this point.

...and I don't endorse any program that simply gives away a massive asset that the rest of the population has to work full time to be able to afford for themselves

You realize it costs the state more to take care of a homeless person on the streets than to just give them a house, right?

 

[Hilts]

Icon - what do you mean by letting natural selection taking its course?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So if I move to Utah and don't buy a house, they'll give me one?

 

[[icon]]

I don't give anything to homeless... haven't in a long time. Too many scammers, too many addicts. My sympathy is watered down with disgust at this point.

...and I don't endorse any program that simply gives away a massive asset that the rest of the population has to work full time to be able to afford for themselves

What is ut you do endorse? Do you believe current strategies are the best solution?

I think it's absolutely foolish/naive to think we can "save" everyone... particularly those who time and again do nothing whatsoever to improve their situation.

Off the top of my head?

Divert 50% of the budget from the war on drugs to federally funded treatment centers. This could also assist with creation of halfway houses.

Offer addicts (homeless and convicted) diversion that includes treatment, followed placement into a halfway house and a pairing with a social worker / career counselor.

These individuals will also be subject to drug testing and will work part time for the municipality (road clearing, trash pickup, landscaping/maintenance, janitorial) to help subsidize their care.

One failed test is slap on the wrist and a temporary decrease in benefits... two failed tests is expulsion from the program and kicked out onto the street.

Once the graduate from the program, I have no problem with a graduated living assistance (pay X% of rent at section 8 housing for the first 6mo, Y% for the next 6mo, zero assistance after 12mo). In addition they receive job placement assistance and ongoing career counseling/support for the first year. Ongoing drug tests continue with the 2 strikes you're out still in place.

Individuals are only eligible for one trip through the system.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I don't give anything to homeless... haven't in a long time. Too many scammers, too many addicts. My sympathy is watered down with disgust at this point.

...and I don't endorse any program that simply gives away a massive asset that the rest of the population has to work full time to be able to afford for themselves

What is ut you do endorse? Do you believe current strategies are the best solution?

[icon] is in favor of hunting the poor for sport, IIRC.

 

[[icon]]

No.

I am AGAINST permanent ongoing support creating a subclass that is dependent on the state at the public's expense. I prefer a "teach a man to fish" approach. I am FOR using federal funding to help give these people the tools they need to better themselves and succeed.

I acknowledge the reality that you can't help those who don't want to be helped. Those with no desire to help themselves should not benefit from the benevolence of society and should be put at crossroads, become a productive member of society and work to better your situation, or be cut off from benefits and likely circle the drain and perish.

 

[Hilts]

Thanks for sharing. Let's say they get booted. Then what? Do they still get benefits living on the streets or are typical programs eliminated under your scenario?

What of those mentally ill? Do you force them to take medication?

 

[sporthenry]

I am AGAINST permanent ongoing support creating a subclass that is dependent on the state. I prefer a "teach a man to fish".

I acknowledge the reality that you can't help those who don't want to be helped. Those with no desire to help themselves should not benefit from the benevolence of society and should be put at crossroads, become a productive member of society and work to better your situation, or be cut off from benefits and likely circle the drain and perish.

So you want to get rid of homeless shelters? Have doctors stop treating homeless people when they come in sick? Literally let homeless people freeze to death?

 

[[icon]]

I am AGAINST permanent ongoing support creating a subclass that is dependent on the state. I prefer a "teach a man to fish".

I acknowledge the reality that you can't help those who don't want to be helped. Those with no desire to help themselves should not benefit from the benevolence of society and should be put at crossroads, become a productive member of society and work to better your situation, or be cut off from benefits and likely circle the drain and perish.

So you want to get rid of homeless shelters? Have doctors stop treating homeless people when they come in sick? Literally let homeless people freeze to death?

Nope... I said earlier to increase the capacity of homeless shelters as well (somewhere in this thread).

 

[DiStefano]

I don't give anything to homeless... haven't in a long time. Too many scammers, too many addicts. My sympathy is watered down with disgust at this point.

...and I don't endorse any program that simply gives away a massive asset that the rest of the population has to work full time to be able to afford for themselves

What is ut you do endorse? Do you believe current strategies are the best solution?

[icon] is in favor of hunting the poor for sport, IIRC.

The Most Dangerous Game.

 

[humpback]

One more baby step towards a BIG for all.

Wat?

 

[[icon]]

Bottom line:
I am against doing anything that allows those who have shown no desire or made no effort to improve their situation to live a lifestyle comparable in comfort to those who are forced to work hard for that lifestyle.

You want to pick yourself up off the ground? Great! We will provide you the tools to make yourself more employable, provided you keep your end of the bargain.

You want to break your addiction? Great! We will provide you excellent treatment, provided you keep your end of the bargain.

However, if you want to be lazy ### and exhibit no desire to improve your situation? Great! Have fun on the street and pack into the shelters, but don't expect it to be much more than 1500 calories and a bunk with a blanket.

 

[sporthenry]

I am AGAINST permanent ongoing support creating a subclass that is dependent on the state. I prefer a "teach a man to fish".

I acknowledge the reality that you can't help those who don't want to be helped. Those with no desire to help themselves should not benefit from the benevolence of society and should be put at crossroads, become a productive member of society and work to better your situation, or be cut off from benefits and likely circle the drain and perish.

So you want to get rid of homeless shelters? Have doctors stop treating homeless people when they come in sick? Literally let homeless people freeze to death?

Nope... I said earlier to increase the capacity of homeless shelters as well (somewhere in this thread).

A shelter is in all likelihood, "permanent ongoing support."

And the state has apparently done a cost/benefits analysis and determined this was cheaper. So you essentially want to cut off the nose to spite the face b/c they might get a $11,000 apartment out of this without working and instead pay $16,000 in taxpayers money just so they don't get that apartment.

 

[DSP]

Bottom line:

I am against doing anything that allows those who have shown no desire or made no effort to improve their situation to live a lifestyle comparable in comfort to those who are forced to work hard for that lifestyle.

You want to pick yourself up off the ground? Great! We will provide you the tools to make yourself more employable, provided you keep your end of the bargain.

You want to break your addiction? Great! We will provide you excellent treatment, provided you keep your end of the bargain.

However, if you want to be lazy ### and exhibit no desire to improve your situation? Great! Have fun on the street and pack into the shelters, but don't expect it to be much more than 1500 calories and a bunk with a blanket.

Why do you assume the homeless have made no effort and have no desire to improve their situation?

Capitalism is designed to have a certain % of the population unemployed to keep labor costs down

 

[RCon]

I am AGAINST permanent ongoing support creating a subclass that is dependent on the state. I prefer a "teach a man to fish".

I acknowledge the reality that you can't help those who don't want to be helped. Those with no desire to help themselves should not benefit from the benevolence of society and should be put at crossroads, become a productive member of society and work to better your situation, or be cut off from benefits and likely circle the drain and perish.

So you want to get rid of homeless shelters? Have doctors stop treating homeless people when they come in sick? Literally let homeless people freeze to death?

Nope... I said earlier to increase the capacity of homeless shelters as well (somewhere in this thread).

A shelter is in all likelihood, "permanent ongoing support."

And the state has apparently done a cost/benefits analysis and determined this was cheaper. So you essentially want to cut off the nose to spite the face b/c they might get a $11,000 apartment out of this without working and instead pay $16,000 in taxpayers money just so they don't get that apartment.

Has the state taken into consideration that there are some people currently working and paying for housing that isn't any nicer than the housing being given away? If so, what incentive do those people have to continue paying for housing versus claiming homelessness?

In short, if you give stuff away, won't some additional people line up to claim the free stuff, thus throwing off the original cost/benefit analysis?

Not saying the state is necessarily wrong that this solution is cheaper, but I find it difficult to believe they've fully counted all the long-term costs of this policy. I should also note that even if this policy turns out to be "more expensive", that doesn't make it a bad policy. It may still be a more effective solution, even if it costs more.

 

[DiStefano]

Bottom line:

I am against doing anything that allows those who have shown no desire or made no effort to improve their situation to live a lifestyle comparable in comfort to those who are forced to work hard for that lifestyle.

You want to pick yourself up off the ground? Great! We will provide you the tools to make yourself more employable, provided you keep your end of the bargain.

You want to break your addiction? Great! We will provide you excellent treatment, provided you keep your end of the bargain.

However, if you want to be lazy ### and exhibit no desire to improve your situation? Great! Have fun on the street and pack into the shelters, but don't expect it to be much more than 1500 calories and a bunk with a blanket.

Why do you assume the homeless have made no effort and have no desire to improve their situation?

Capitalism is designed to have a certain % of the population unemployed to keep labor costs down

 

[[icon]]

I am AGAINST permanent ongoing support creating a subclass that is dependent on the state. I prefer a "teach a man to fish".

I acknowledge the reality that you can't help those who don't want to be helped. Those with no desire to help themselves should not benefit from the benevolence of society and should be put at crossroads, become a productive member of society and work to better your situation, or be cut off from benefits and likely circle the drain and perish.

So you want to get rid of homeless shelters? Have doctors stop treating homeless people when they come in sick? Literally let homeless people freeze to death?

Nope... I said earlier to increase the capacity of homeless shelters as well (somewhere in this thread).

A shelter is in all likelihood, "permanent ongoing support."

And the state has apparently done a cost/benefits analysis and determined this was cheaper. So you essentially want to cut off the nose to spite the face b/c they might get a $11,000 apartment out of this without working and instead pay $16,000 in taxpayers money just so they don't get that apartment.

Wait so it's 13 to provide food/healthcare, and a roof over the head of homeless people via the current system, but giving 11k for an apartment is a better deal? Are these people going to suddenly no longer need to eat or need medical care?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I prefer a "teach a man to fish" approach.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime.

Give a man a house, and he'll have shelter for ... um, I think I just found where this metaphor breaks down.

 

[sporthenry]

I am AGAINST permanent ongoing support creating a subclass that is dependent on the state. I prefer a "teach a man to fish".

I acknowledge the reality that you can't help those who don't want to be helped. Those with no desire to help themselves should not benefit from the benevolence of society and should be put at crossroads, become a productive member of society and work to better your situation, or be cut off from benefits and likely circle the drain and perish.

So you want to get rid of homeless shelters? Have doctors stop treating homeless people when they come in sick? Literally let homeless people freeze to death?

Nope... I said earlier to increase the capacity of homeless shelters as well (somewhere in this thread).

A shelter is in all likelihood, "permanent ongoing support."

And the state has apparently done a cost/benefits analysis and determined this was cheaper. So you essentially want to cut off the nose to spite the face b/c they might get a $11,000 apartment out of this without working and instead pay $16,000 in taxpayers money just so they don't get that apartment.

Wait so it's 13 to provide food/healthcare, and a roof over the head of homeless people via the current system, but giving 11k for an apartment is a better deal? Are these people going to suddenly no longer need to eat or need medical care?

In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker.

Did you read the article?

 

[dhockster]

While it may be cheaper now to provide an apartment, my question is over time will this actually encourage more people to become homeless so that they get a free ride. Why work to have a meager living arrangement when you can be homeless and have the same thing. Over time this make create a bigger homeless population thus increasing the problem.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

While it may be cheaper now to provide an apartment, my question is over time will this actually encourage more people to become homeless so that they get a free ride. Why work to have a meager living arrangement when you can be homeless and have the same thing. Over time this make create a bigger homeless population thus increasing the problem.

Don't we already have housing projects for all this?

HUD costs how much every year?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I am AGAINST permanent ongoing support creating a subclass that is dependent on the state. I prefer a "teach a man to fish".

I acknowledge the reality that you can't help those who don't want to be helped. Those with no desire to help themselves should not benefit from the benevolence of society and should be put at crossroads, become a productive member of society and work to better your situation, or be cut off from benefits and likely circle the drain and perish.

So you want to get rid of homeless shelters? Have doctors stop treating homeless people when they come in sick? Literally let homeless people freeze to death?

Nope... I said earlier to increase the capacity of homeless shelters as well (somewhere in this thread).

A shelter is in all likelihood, "permanent ongoing support."

And the state has apparently done a cost/benefits analysis and determined this was cheaper. So you essentially want to cut off the nose to spite the face b/c they might get a $11,000 apartment out of this without working and instead pay $16,000 in taxpayers money just so they don't get that apartment.

Wait so it's 13 to provide food/healthcare, and a roof over the head of homeless people via the current system, but giving 11k for an apartment is a better deal? Are these people going to suddenly no longer need to eat or need medical care?

In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker.

Did you read the article?

But just because someone has an apartment doesn't mean that he'll never end up in E.R. or jail. If giving someone an apartment makes him 50% less likely to end up in E.R. or jail, then giving him an apartment is more expensive than not giving him an apartment. ($16,670 for ER & jail vs. $19,335 for an apartment, a social worker, ER & jail.)

 

[DSP]

Bottom line:

I am against doing anything that allows those who have shown no desire or made no effort to improve their situation to live a lifestyle comparable in comfort to those who are forced to work hard for that lifestyle.

You want to pick yourself up off the ground? Great! We will provide you the tools to make yourself more employable, provided you keep your end of the bargain.

You want to break your addiction? Great! We will provide you excellent treatment, provided you keep your end of the bargain.

However, if you want to be lazy ### and exhibit no desire to improve your situation? Great! Have fun on the street and pack into the shelters, but don't expect it to be much more than 1500 calories and a bunk with a blanket.

Why do you assume the homeless have made no effort and have no desire to improve their situation?Capitalism is designed to have a certain % of the population unemployed to keep labor costs down

What are you laughing about?

 

[[icon]]

I am AGAINST permanent ongoing support creating a subclass that is dependent on the state. I prefer a "teach a man to fish".

I acknowledge the reality that you can't help those who don't want to be helped. Those with no desire to help themselves should not benefit from the benevolence of society and should be put at crossroads, become a productive member of society and work to better your situation, or be cut off from benefits and likely circle the drain and perish.

So you want to get rid of homeless shelters? Have doctors stop treating homeless people when they come in sick? Literally let homeless people freeze to death?

Nope... I said earlier to increase the capacity of homeless shelters as well (somewhere in this thread).

A shelter is in all likelihood, "permanent ongoing support."

And the state has apparently done a cost/benefits analysis and determined this was cheaper. So you essentially want to cut off the nose to spite the face b/c they might get a $11,000 apartment out of this without working and instead pay $16,000 in taxpayers money just so they don't get that apartment.

Wait so it's 13 to provide food/healthcare, and a roof over the head of homeless people via the current system, but giving 11k for an apartment is a better deal? Are these people going to suddenly no longer need to eat or need medical care?

In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker.

Did you read the article?

So these people will no longer commit crimes or get sick/injured then?

 

[RCon]

I prefer a "teach a man to fish" approach.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime.

Give a man a house, and he'll have shelter for ... um, I think I just found where this metaphor breaks down.

It doesn't entirely break down, since the state would be paying for the apartment each month. It's more like: "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a man a fish every day, and he'll eat for a lifetime."