What will it take to end homelessness once and for all? (enemies, ethic)

[artwomyn]

Originally Posted by Minethatbird

You didn't answer the question. Implementing more programs isn't going to get someone to stop drinking, or any other behaviors that are the root causes of homelessness.

As I've mentioned in an earlier posts, the housing first program, could be utilized on a widespread, nationwide level. Here's a link below to an article, that explaind that program: National Alliance to End Homelessness: Solutions: Housing First

[artwomyn]

Originally Posted by vilmer laktow

Look, you are obviously a Democrat, that is why you blame everything on some Republican scapegoat. The truth is, as we place more and more trust in central government, we hold less faith in ourselves, so we live on the street and wait for somebody to bail us out.

Being poor should involve a certain amount of discomfort. Liberals seek to take that away. That encourages sloth and eliminates the incentive to take care of ourselves. The answer is not to do more but to do less. And hear this, I am not saying to do nothing, just reverse the trends that have led to the increasing problems, such as thinking that Obama was going to pay our mortgage or fill our tank with gas. Lets stop depending on Washington DC for everything and instead do as much as we can for ourselves. We cannot build aircraft carriers or negotiate treaties with Russia, but we must entirely stop looking to Washington DC for food and shelter.

There is a difference between state powers and federal powers.

Well there's no question, that the Bush administration aided and abetted our current economic crisis. You say that people should depend less and less on the Federal governtment. That means that if they are unable to do everything for themselves, then what do you propose, to take up the slack, if the Feds shouldn't help those in need??

[artwomyn]

Originally Posted by Pretzelogik

The 80's and Reagen....There You Go Again. Suppose there was no homelessness during the great depression?
What's all those hobos I keep hearing about?

As I've posted time and time and time again, I referenced the 80s, because that's when the media, began to focus on widespead homelessness. This is NOT a post about 'Hobo Jungles', etc., during the great depression!!

[Minethatbird]

Originally Posted by artwomyn

As I've mentioned in an earlier posts, the housing first program, could be utilized on a widespread, nationwide level. Here's a link below to an article, that explaind that program: National Alliance to End Homelessness: Solutions: Housing First

So the solution is to provide on an indefinite basis housing so people can continue to abuse alcohol and drugs?

[artwomyn]

Originally Posted by Minethatbird

So the solution is to provide on an indefinite basis housing so people can continue to abuse alcohol and drugs?

NO! The solution is to provide housing first, THEN work on any addiction problems, etc. that a person may have. That's why the program is called 'housing first!'

[jghorton]

Originally Posted by artwomyn

The homeless problem started up in the 80s, after Reagan became President. And it's been going on now, for over 30 years. Homelessness has continued to increase, since the great recession began over two years ago.

In a wealthy country like America, the homeless problem is a national disgrace. Shouldn't we use our considerable economic resources, to eliminate homelessness once and for all? And what do you think would be the best way, to go about doing so?

I've actively ministered directly to the homeless over the past 20+ years. There are both primary and secondary contributors to homelessness --My estimated percentages might not stand-up in some statistical surveys, but they come close to representing my past and continuing observations:

1). 30% - Dysfunctional (mentally ill, socially isolated, emotionally damaged/abused) -- Unable to effectively integrate into a self-sustaining lifestyle over an extended period of time. (ie; Probably 85% of the 'street girls' were sexually/emotionally abused as children and never recovered).

2). 30% - Educationally handicapped (10th grade education or less; most are early dropouts who because of their lack of education were unable to find anything but, minimum wage (first to get laid-off) jobs with no future or advancement opportunities. Many of these, particularly young blacks with no fathers at home, got lucratively involved in the gang and drug culture at an early age -- and a large percentage wound-up in jail. These produce secondary causes of homelessness: a) Lack of competitive, age-relevant employment experience or a 'doorway' in; b). Legal and drug problems that stand as huge obstacles to mainstream integration. c). among women, a lack education coupled with drugs and giving birth to children they are unable to support - (fathers and families are invariably absent)... thus, state support is often the only available option.

3). 15% - Hard core drifters and 'street people' who choose the homeless lifestyle ... or at least choose to avoid the 'square John' lifestyle. They typically lack family support and often simply drift between homeless shelters, missions ... and the bushes. They often resort to crime and scams to provide a nominal source of ongoing funds.

4). 15% - Circumstantially homeless who lose jobs and homes, and start living out of cars... which are soon lost as derilict vehicles. These usually drift between family members, shelters and temporary jobs and ministries. They also often have (or soon develop) drug/alcohol problems and chronic depression, which leaves them virtually unemployable.

5). 10% - Other (Runaways, abused women who cannot find places in shelters, prison releasees with no place to go, hard core drug/alcohol addicts -- whose families have abandonded them and a host of other problems and issues).

These 'notional' percentages are educated estimates with a direct awareness of personal situations. Generally speaking, I believe that 'homelessness' is largely a 'symptom' of the above and deeper issues. Therefore, simply "curing" homelessness with temporary living arrangements and some form of 'income' only temporarily overcomes/conceals the symptom, but does not address the underlying problem.

Over the years, I've seen many people returned or elevated from homelessness to productive, fringe-mainstream lifestyles where they are able to sustain themselves on an ongoing basis. Probably 80% of these 'successes' are directly tied to a Spiritual foundation - which produces lasting change... from the inside-out.

Unfortunately, the majority of the homeless have been involved in several 'social programs' which simply do not work ... (including prison). That is because these 'bandaid' programs typically only address (and reward) short-term 'symptom modification'... and lack the resources, motive or expertise to really deal with the underlying issues.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

We could round up the homeless and force them to knife fight trained assassin monkeys on pay-per-view. The winner would naturally be allowed to sell the harvested organs of the loser, and unlike that stupid college bowl championship series, we would create a logical play-off system that would allow the homeless champion to keep a reasonable portion of the proceeds while at the same time giving the fans what they want to see.

That wouldn't work. Because the overwhelming vast majority of so-called "homeless" are alcoholics and/or drug users, they typically have HIV or some form of hepatitis or other communicable diseases, or their livers are damaged or kidneys atrophied from alcohol/drug use.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

The federal government, could provide more funding to state and local governments, to implement programs to help the homeless more.

You just don't get. Money does not "help" the "homeless." It does provide jobs for those who have MSWs but other than that, throwing away money hand-over-fist has done absolutely nothing.

And as I said, the so-called "homeless" cannot be helped because you have done everything in your power to prevent any form of help, other than throwing money at the problem.

Originally Posted by Pretzelogik

The 80's and Reagen....There You Go Again. Suppose there was no homelessness during the great depression?
What's all those hobos I keep hearing about?

"Hobos" are the "homeless."

They were simply repackaged and re-branded and turned into a $60 Billion a year industry in which a select few profit, but not the "homeless."

Originally Posted by artwomyn

Oh REALLY?? If everyone is able to provide for themselves, tell that to the people who have lost their jobs, and then everything else, as a result of that!

It's called "foresight."

If you rent, then you need to have not less than 6 months worth of expenses saved up in the bank.

That means before you even rent your first apartment, you need to have 6 months rent in the bank, plus enough to cover security deposit and first months rent, plus enough to cover 6 months worth of gas, electric, water, telephone, cable/satellite, cell-phone, internet, food, car payments, car insurance, renter's insurance and credit card payments.

If you're buying a home, then you need 1 year's worth of expenses saved up in you savings account (do you even know what a savings account is?) before you purchase the home.

If you are too stupid or too lazy or too incompetent or too undisciplined to do that, then I'm real sorry about your luck, but I have no legal, ethical or moral obligation to bail you out.

Originally Posted by Chuckity

I didn't say everyone - there's a small segment of the population that will always be dependent on someone else due to physical and/or mental disabilities.

We don't count those people, because they're excused. However, that doesn't mean we throw money at them. We educate and/or train them to the highest level possible, and then assist them to become productive members of society (and many are) where they can lead somewhat normal lives and live independently if possible (and many do).

That is a win-win situation for all involved.

Originally Posted by Minethatbird

How would you propose the government make people stop drinking? Stop using drugs? Stop doing many things that are the root causes of homelessness?

CTAG Cards.

Cable/Wireless-Tobacco-Alcohol-Gambling = CTAG.

You pay an annual fee to have a CTAG Card.

It is a photo-ID card issued by your state.

When you purchase alcoholic beverages, you must present your CTAG Card in order to be served or to purchase alcoholic beverages. If a person is convicted of DUI; or any criminal incident involving alcohol; or you are receiving any form of public welfare benefits (other than Social Security Retirement Benefits) or you are an admitted alcoholic or declared an alcoholic by a competent authority, you get a big "A" stamped on your CTAG card which bars you from legally purchasing or consuming alcoholic beverages.

Persons on public assistance can also have their cards stamped with a big "C" and a "T" and a "G" which bars them from purchasing Tobacco, or Gambling or having any Cable/Wireless services.

If you need $400 worth of Food Stamps to buy food for you family fine, I'll pony up the damn money, but I'm not going to subsidize your Cable TV viewing habits and your Tobacco habit and your lotto addiction by giving you $400 (especially when I don't have cable and can't afford it -- not to mention I don't even have a TV).

Originally Posted by artwomyn

I don't have the start-up capital, to open a business if I wanted to.

You have it, and I could find it. You just aren't willing to make short term sacrifices to have a long term financial gain, because you have no foresight.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

And that's nearly impossible to come by, if a person doesn't have assets, great credit, collateral, or a huge amount of money saved up. I have none of those things, and can't get them, because I'm out of work myself.

Qualcomm, a Fortune 500 Company was started in a garage by two unemployed engineers with no money.

If they had sat around whining and sniveling and making hundreds of really poor excuses why they couldn't start a business, which exactly what you're doing, there would never be a Qualcomm today.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

Or at least do something positive, to help the poor??

I'll give them $10, a brown-bag lunch, a parachute and kick their ass out of a rented C-130 flying over the Sudan.

How's that?

They can find their way down to Dinka Territory and learn how to be cattle farmers. That's a valuable skill/trade in the Sudan.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

Then their should be an expansion of affordable housing, for low-income people.

Give $1 Million to a spouse abuser and what you have is a wealthy spouse abuser.

Give $1 Million to child abuser and what you have is a well-defended child abuser.

Give $1 Million to a poor person who doesn't understand the value of money and doesn't know or refuses to practice sound personal financial management and what you'll have is a poor person.

[quote=artwomyn;16796591] For those who are out in the street due to addictions or mental illness, more effective treatment options, should be available.

They aren't because those options have been cut off by legal actions in court or by laws.

A 28-day program is not going to help someone who has been addicted for years. They need long term ie 7-12 years of behavior modification in a controlled environment with a regimented routine that provides structure.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

People that are victims of disasters such as floods, storms, fires, etc., should have access to immediate housing, provided by local agencies.

They already do.

You think I'm going to pay to maintain "stand-by housing" just so you feel better? Think again.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

Eviction and forclosure prevention programs, need to be available to those who are in danger of losing their homes, or apartments.

And why are they in danger?

Because they made bad decisions.

The only way those people will learn something, anything, is if they are forced to take responsibility for their actions and suffer the consequences fully.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

The most important thing that we need right now, with regards to joblessness, is for the government to implement a jobs program.

That is not the responsibility of government, and government cannot do that in any way that is cost-effective, efficient or productive.

You, and only you, are responsible for your own employment. You do not have a god given unalienable right to a job.

In 1975, only 11% or so of households had two wage earners.

In 2008, more than 65% of households had two wager earners.

I don't know what the figures are now, but given the recent spate of unemployment, I think one can reasonably conclude that the number has dropped.

You need to accept that as reality. When all is said and done, and it won't be all said and done for another 15-20 years while the transformation that is occurring takes place, less than 20% of households will have two wage earners.

You have no right or entitlement to your own private independent residence. In fact, you don't even have a god given unalienable right to housing at all.

So, if you need to share living space with one or two or even three other families in order to make ends meet, or even just to have a place to live, then that is exactly what you need to be doing.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

Private employers can't be forced to hire people. And they have had tax breaks, to encourage them to do more hiring. Which, by in large, they haven't done.

That is because of the climate of fear and uncertainty concerning the Bush Tax Cuts and the true cost of Obamacare.

It is also due in part to the rising cost of certain commodities (and that is Cost Inflation, not Monetary or Currency Inflation).

No business can hire any employees until the first know with absolute certainty that the Bush Tax Cuts will or will not be extended, and to what part portions might be extended.

Likewise, without knowing and understanding the true cost of Obamacare, business can do no hiring.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

So a government jobs program could put people back to work, that have exhausted their unemployment benefits, and still haven't found private sector jobs.

Why is it people like you always spew nonsense?

Did you bother to read the BLS Job Projections for the period 2008-2018?

If not, then why would you even think you can comment on jobs and employment?

For your information, there are only 50.9 Million projected job openings over that 10 year period.

That averages out to 5,090,000 per year.

That averages out to 424,166 jobs per month.

However, there is a caveat. The BLS believes that 67% of all the job openings that will exist over that 10 year period will be "created" by Baby Boomers retiring from the work force.

If the BLS is wrong and 67% of Baby Boomers do not retire from the work-force, then there were be less than 424,166 jobs per month, not more.

Assuming the BLS is correct, then only 139,974 brand spanking new never before worked jobs will be created per month.

And it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar or a rocket scientist to figure out that with the current unemployment rate, it will be 2015-2016 before the unemployment rate drops to 8% based on BLS projections.

So get used to it.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

Speaking of jobs, we need a higher minimum wage. Eight dollars an hour, is just not enough to support yourself, or especially a family on.

Then I guess you'll have to move in with another family and share living accommodations so you can have enough money to support yourself or a family, right?

Common Sense just makes sense.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

The 10th grader serving Big Macs, doesn't concern me. What concerns me, are adults who have to support themselves and their families, on the current minimum wage. They're just one paycheck, away from the streets.

Then I guess they'd better re-evaluate their living situation before they end up in the streets.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

If you don't think that government is the answer, then might you explain what is??

Common Sense. Look into it.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

I defy you to prove that there are only 100,000 homeless.

You might want to look at videos and news reports of the "homeless" being bussed from shelter to shelter in order to inflate the number of so-called "homeless" people during the Census.

Originally Posted by artwomyn

I dismiss both you, and Mircea 'out of hand', because you don't provide proof, regarding what you claim to know.

And your proof is what? Inane comments?

Even if there were 'only 100,000 chronically homeless,' that' still way too many.

The number of families in homeless shelters increased 7% to 170,129 from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2009, a report released today by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found. At the same time, the overall number of homeless people in shelters fell 2% to 1.56 million.

The chronically homeless dropped 10% from 2008 to 111,000.

There are 300 Million people in the US. USELESS TODAY claims there are 1.56 Million "homeless" people.

That means the percentage of "homeless" people is 0.52%

For the stupid, that is 1/2 of 1%, yet we spend $Billions on want amounts to only a handful of people and you want to spend even more.

That fails a cost-benefit analysis.

That money would be better spent on the retarded or blind or deaf. At least they try to be productive members of society.

[Chuckity]

Originally Posted by Mircea

In 1975, only 11% or so of households had two wage earners.

In 2008, more than 65% of households had two wager earners.

I don't know what the figures are now, but given the recent spate of unemployment, I think one can reasonably conclude that the number has dropped.

I won't bother commenting on everything else you've written though I most definitely agree with EVERYTHING - and I don't think I can rep you again, but I'll certainly try after I click "submit" - but I have to say, I've never thought about the unemployment rate in the terms above.

It's very interesting to think of our unemployment today vs. the 70s with the twist of dual income households thrown into the mix.

[citizenkane2]

Originally Posted by artwomyn

There were people that were homeless before the 80s. But homelessness didn't become a widespread problem in America, until the 80s.

What are you smoking?? Can I have some?? You mean to tell me that during the stagflation and recession of Carter, we didn't have a homeless problem?? NY City even went broke dude!!! When were you born??? 1990???

Look....people are homeless for a lot of reasons....Some of it is because of bad decisions. Not handling their money the right way. Some because of bad breaks....(illness, loss of job).


We will always have homelessness....

Oh by the way...take a look at this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2CiDaUYr90


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyAZGqFtVjw

[stan4]

Originally Posted by artwomyn

The homeless problem started up in the 80s, after Reagan became President. And it's been going on now, for over 30 years. Homelessness has continued to increase, since the great recession began over two years ago.

In a wealthy country like America, the homeless problem is a national disgrace. Shouldn't we use our considerable economic resources, to eliminate homelessness once and for all? And what do you think would be the best way, to go about doing so?

I'm guessing that first you need to get a grasp of history. People have been 'homeless' since the beginning of time...acting like it's some new problem that has cropped up because of some political policy (instead of some perpetual human reality) is simply ignorant and perhaps a little manipulative.

A great percentage of the homeless in this country are mentally ill. Many of the homeless I meet every day choose to stay out of shelters/half-way houses because those places have rules (like curfews and no alcohol/drugs/sex) that they don't want to abide by. See...you can even try to GIVE people a home and they don't want it if it comes with strings attached. Some human beings are just inherently self-destructive.