Both compelling arguments with many convincing points, yet the liberal's deterrent for the homeless would be more effective. Tending to the homeless with a mental illness would help them, yes obviously, but many others would not benefit. Thus it would be more logical to spend money on programs for all homeless people.
Joseph Perkins, the conservative, believes he has an accurate insight of what the entire homeless population's lifestyle is like. Although he bases this understanding on only a single night spent at New York's Grand Central Station. However this revokes his argument because it's impossible to spend only a night in one place and expect to understand each individual's case. In fact, it is impossible to understand every single homeless person's life and how or why they became homeless. This is why it's better to give them the benefit of the doubt; and try to help them out, any way possible.
Linda Weltner, who has a liberal view, wrote about a single mother named Adrienne, who has unluckily experienced being homeless. This single mother (Adrienne) is an excellent example of why the conservative's (Joseph Perkins) proposal wouldn't be beneficial for everyone. Clearly she isn't mentally ill; in fact she's described as "bright and ambitious" (B) as well as intelligent and well-spoken" (B). Not only does she seem to have good-quality characteristics, she once worked as a receptionist at a "prestigious Boston law firm" (B). Citizens like Adrienne depend on the homeless shelters and welfare to survive.
Even though the resources that are offered are very much appreciated, they're just not enough. Adrienne was reaching out