The real reason is that conservative ideology dictates that society will have winners and losers who end up in the correct spot in the heirarchy if society doesn't interfere with the natural sorting.

So it follows that homeless people don't deserve a "handout" or a leg-up just because they squandered their opportunities.

Leftists think that an ideology follows from a moral interrogation of the world as it should be, whereas reactionaries think the highest good is done by ensuring that people are in their correct spot in the heirarchy in relation to others; since some people are inevitably going to be homeless, there isn't much to be done about it and the leftists complaining about it are just virtue signaling to get votes.

Their justification is irrelevant once you realize the actual ideological reasoning.

Edit: I'm confused by the downvotes. Anyone want to tell me how I'm wrong? This isn't my ideology, but I think it's useful to understand your opposition on more than a cartoon-villain level, especially since they are so effective at selling their ideas to low-information voters.

Michael Flynn is an excellent counterexample though.

Ok, maybe if you're dying you can get the healthcare treatment that you need.

If you can find a doctor/hospital who will open themselves up to litigation and if you can get there. But you'd better be on the cusp of death!

Are we not merciful?!?

In a word: Conservativism.

[...] we can also trace a longer structural change in the imagination of the right: namely, the gradual acceptance of the entrance of the masses onto the political stage. From Hobbes to the slaveholders to the neoconservatives, the right has grown increasingly aware that any successful defense of the old regime must incorporate the lower orders in some capacity other than as underlings or starstruck fans. The masses must either be able to locate themselves symbolically in the ruling class or be provided with real opportunities to become faux aristocrats in the family, the factory, and the field. The former path makes for an upside-down populism, in which the lowest of the low see themselves projected in the highest of the high; the latter makes for a democratic feudalism, in which the husband or supervisor or white man plays the part of a lord.

-The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism From Edmund Burke to Donald Trump, by Corey Robin

I'm fine with him being on the $500 bill if it's a pic of his stroked out corpse holding the berder that finally got his cholesterol high enough.

I feel like you think you've made a point, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.

Trolls just aren't what they used to be these days.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

• Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederate States of America

This is the "heritage" that they value.

“For Republicans, the only hope is that when Trump is on the ballot in 2024 … he will turn out rural voters at a rate that overwhelms that phenomenon. It’s certainly possible,” the source said.

Isn't it funny that the only "hope" for Republicans is to re-install a vile, amoral, nepotistic, habitually-lying, tax-cheating, proudly-ignorant, racist, fascist, rapist con-man who tried to overthrow the government?

Wait, not "funny," the other one...

Stupid.

Oh, I was referring to the media and security as the ones being paid.

I don't think he has the cash on hand to pay for attendance.

Yes, in the quoted scene Juliet is asking why Romeo has to be a Montague with whom her family is feuding:

O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name.

Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy: Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What’s Montague? It is nor hand nor foot Nor arm nor face nor any other part Belonging to a man. O be some other name.

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, And for that name, which is no part of thee, Take all myself.

where·fore /ˈ(h)werˌfôr/

ARCHAIC

adverb

for what reason. "she took an ill turn, but wherefore I cannot say"