I did not make a blanket statement that every homeless person should go into the military. I said 'not one bum which QUALIFIES for military service should receive a free handout.' That would eliminate anyone overage, handicapped, with mental problems, ect. It would eliminate many, but I definitely believe that a person who qualifies should enlist before receiving a government gratuity. I fail to see this as an enormous demand or 'reckless statement'.

I know I responded to this before, but it looks like my post was swallowed by the latest database SNAFU. Grrr.



So you agree that training is a valid use of government money...but why military training? Military training is expensive, and not all of it is applicable to the civilian world. Why do you prefer military training to a CCC-equivalent like I mentioned?



Don't assume you know what I think. I'm quite well aware that our modern military requires lots of intelligence and training, and that's why I brought it up. Putting people in the military isn't free. It's not just a dump where we can toss the people we don't want to look at or think about. There's a cost associated with drafting them, and it's not at all clear that cost is justified by a greater benefit than if they had been drafted into civil service. Again: why is military service the preferred option? Is there a practical reason, or just the appealing image of seeing those "lazy" homeless people being pushed around by drill instructors?

I mention military training because it is the only place I know that will take a completely unqualified, untrained person. Clothe, feed, pay, and train them, and doesn’t take jobs away from more qualified people.

Military training is necessary. No jobs are being created there… a void would simply be filled. Does the CCC have that equivalent? If it is more cost effective, and gets homeless people off the streets and into the job market great! I am not familiar with the CCC or any of their programs.




I don’t see it as presumptious on my part to interpret the above as a negative view of military training. I’m not really making a leap here. You didn’t say, ”How about when those expert marksmen and rescue rangers go back on the streets?” In fact, it wouldn’t make much sense in that context.

I read a book in college (sorry too long ago and too boring to keep) that essentially argued that the rise in American homelessness can in part be attributed to our affluence. As our wealth has increased our housing standards have increased with them. Under this argument the standards for new housing and requirements of basic standards for older apartments have priced many people out of the housing market. Essentially that there is a market for substandard housing that has been regulated away or bulldozed away in urban renewal projects.

Of course there are some good reasons for better housing standards and there are real problems with abusive slum lords, but . . . there is a point to keep an open mind about.

In many places around the world, housing exists for stable families that does not meet our codes.

That's because they went out of existence a few decades ago, but you've probably what they built. All sorts of CCC-constructed shelters, roads, and other facilities in national parks and elsewhere on public land are still in very active use. The idea was simple: give otherwise destitute people basic needs such as food and shelter in return for various kinds of construction that benefited the public. By all accounts it was a hard life, that none chose as an alternative to much besides starvation or crime, but it kept those people alive and gave them useful skills (that many of them used in WW2 or in construction-related businesses), and the public got something back. As near as I can tell, it and similar programs (e.g. WPA) achieved all of those goals more cost-effectively than conscription into the military would.

This must be an FDR program... Why was it abandoned?

According to a semi-official history it had a lot to do with the outbreak of WW2, the effective end of the Depression, and a general shift in public priorities:



Interestingly, the Army was heavily involved in providing logistics and training for the CCC. It was a great example of how military strengths can be applied to civilian problems, without the expense of full military training and equipment for the "volunteers" who are doing civil construction. I'd call it a best-of-both-worlds success.

I like this idea. Do you think people would support the CCC today?

That's a really good question. I think many would support it personally, but not politically. Many conservatives might like some aspects, but would not want to be seen as supporting something so like a New Deal program. Liberals might oppose it on the basis of racial discrimination or "stealing union jobs" or some such garbage. Maybe if a few high-profile conservative leaders took up the torch, focusing on the welfare-alternative and "clean up our country" aspects, it could happen...but I don't think I'd hold my breath.

You can call me mean and cruel if you want......... but except for in a few cases, I think we shouldn't help the homeless. They need motivation to work to earn money. What better motivation than a lack of governmental help?

What experience do you have on which to qualify these statements? If motivation was the problem I'd imagine starving and suffering in the elements would be the cure for homelessness, but it hasn't worked so far.

Here you are, homeless. No shower, no good clothes, no telephone. GET A JOB. Apply, where can you be contacted? Nowhere. Recent references? None. Can you show up in clean clothes? maybe. If you work for minimum wage can you eventually get an apt or a place to live? Maybe, after two months pay. Can you maintain a job while living on the street? a hard possibility.

I am an educated white female, I came back to the US from Europe after 10 years. I had been a photographer who worked with the Barcelona Olympics and a cook on private yachts in the Mediterranian. When I returned to the US I couldnt get a job flipping burgers because the folks here had never even heard of a Continent called Europe nor could imagine that anyone that was not US paper approved and referenced could be a viable option for their shallow minded concepts.
Living in a hostel and at wits end, it was a Lebanese restaurant owner, not one single American, who employed me as an assistant chef, believing me at my word that I was what I said I was. From there I moved to become Food and Bev. manager of a major yacht charter company in San Francisco, and onto my life since then. I accomplished this only because my employer was middle eastern and had gone through some ups and downs when imigrating, and he just took a chance on me. Something my white American 'bretheran' were unwilling to do.

Coming out from the cold is not as easy as it might seem, even for the reasonably accomplished. Its absolutely ignorant to believe the homeless can just, 'get a job'. This is touted by those who have no CLUE what it is to be homeless, jobless and hopeless; not to mention the mentally disabled or addicted.

I dont know if anyone has heard of Delancy Street. It is a program started in San Francisco for ex-prison inmates. It began as a small project of personal responsability and mentorship, an idea that grew to encompass several self supporting businesses and a restaurant with a good deal of employees input. Basically , it works. There is housing as long as you work, and no cow-poopie allowed, group counceling, a work ethic, free clothing and basic needs, which escalates slowly to independance and mentorship of others, all within a compound where you can work in any of several businesses that may suit your interest. Delancy Street is a program that needs to be studied and in my opinion, those ideas incorporated for the homeless, addicted o otherwise who wish to return to society. Delancy has had so many successes, some failures. But its a good start, one of the best Ive ever seen.

You pose an excellent point. I myself have never experienced poverty or hunger and starvation. Right now, I'm here typing on my computer, that isn't a result of poverty. However, I deserve this. I'm not going to be modest here: I work hard, am in a gifted program, can program computers and a bunch more stuff. ow did I get this all, from a public school education. Last time I checked, anyone can go to a public school.

Did you eve look at Artemise's post?

Anyone can go to a public school. Can ANYONE get into a gifted program? Can anyone program computers and do a "bunch more stuff?" Who paid for your computer, I wonder.

Regardless, none of those things are guarantees of sucess, nor is your hard work. Unless you are suggesting that every single homeless person is in that condition is in said position because of a lack of hard work, then I fail to see what value your post has. You're not actually saying that are you? Because if you are you should cite at least one source that proves this. YOUR experience cannot be used to justify your statements on another group.

This poses another question: Do people in a public school need to get into a gifted program to succeed in life and to earn an education needed for a decent job? Adn by the way, my parents bought the computer. However, neither of them came from even slightly rich families. My mothers parents came to America as potato farmers. My dad's came as simple pioneers looking for open land to set up a residence. Still, they earned their current positions in life and their successfulness with public educations.

AGiantBean - you are taking this off topic.

The thread is about those who are already homeless. How would you help them? What would you do you to address such issues that members like Artemise brought up (needing an address, a place to shower and shave, etc.)?

Sorry I got off topic, but it had started out on topic, so I jsut continued with it. In a sense it is relevant tough, because it's talking about how the poor can help themselves. I was simply giving examples.

That's ok.

I am a bit curious as to why you seem to be avoiding answering what Artemise, UltimateJoe and I have asked regarding your opinion on helping the current homeless (and anyone else who has something to add to this debate, jump in anytime! )

Sorry, thought I answered that. Anybody with a public education can still succeed in life. They can learn what they need to in order to later on get a good job that provides steady income and everything they need.

Let's try this again, AGB. Why are you still not addressing the points raised by Artemise? Let me jog your memory.



Education is critical, but education alone does not ensure that employers will trust you or even take you seriously. Homelessness is not only about poverty, though that's a large part of it. Being homeless also means having no friends you can count on, no reliable access to things like showers or beds, no transportation (food comes first, bus fare second), plenty of illness and fatigue, etc. I've been pretty low, and I've been able to pull myself by my own bootstraps, but homeless people don't even have bootstraps. How do you suggest that we deal with people who are that cut off from the benefits and protections that society supposedly provides? I suggest that the process might start by giving overprivileged high-school students who've never had a full-time job themselves a chance to meet and actually talk to some real homeless people, maybe develop some empathy and perspective. See what they think of your "everyone can get a job" theory.

You try talking to them too. I completely understand that many people won't give them jobs. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't people who will. And a lot of times, the homeless people don't even really try. One of the main reasons they became homeless a lot of times was because of a lack of motivation and good, solid, work ethic. Granted, there are some cases where the homeless person(s) didn't have a choice and were born into poverty. These people, if it's possible to, should be helped. Maybe I wasn't clear in my initial post. I don't think we should help any of the people who became homeless just because they were bums and didn't work hard at anything. Those people don't deserve the benefits of soup kitchens and food stamps and other such things along those lines.

You're not the first person to make the assertion that a "lot" of people who are homeless are there because they are lazy; yet you provide no foundation for these claims. Your answer pays lip-service to the questions we have asked you.

You've made several broad generalizations about homelessness, so I ask you again, what experience do you have that qualifies your opinions?

Before you question me, do you have the proof to back up your statements here? I doubt it considerably. You are making generalizations that homelessness isn't caused by laziness even to an extent.

Bean, I don't want to be redundant, so do this: go back through this thread to April 29th. scroll down to my post. You will see a number of links providing copious data about homelessness. Please do read the links, I believe you may find them interesting.

In addition, I highly recommend volunteering at a soup kitchen. You'll meet a lot of interesting people, and each of them has an interesting story.

Please do take the time to check that post, Bean.

Peace,
Quark

Um, what are you basing that on? Lets look at the posts I have made since you made your initial appearance in this discussion...

May 29th, 2:13am:

May 29th, 3:34pm

May 31st, 2:40am

So where exactly are the generalizations I have supposedly made? The purpose of a question (some of which you have yet to answer) is to acquire an answer. In this case, said answer is YOUR proof. Now if we're interrogating YOUR proof what proof do we need to supply? A question is a device to acquire knowledge, not advance your own.

Now if you're talking to Quarkhead, then he has cited several documents that could be considered proof. Platypus has employed reasoning and logical progression to see an argument through. Artimese (like myself) has employed critical evaluations of others (at present you) positions. These are all reasonable approaches to a debate.

As to the supposed generalization that homelessness isn't caused by laziness at all; that isn't true. Nobody has made that statement. There is a substantive difference between statements like:



... from Artemise (which later went on to cite an example) and statements like this:



Do you see the difference. One statement challenges a way of thinking. It doesn't offer anything as fact, it merely makes a suggestion that can be based on more general experiences. Your statement is one that must derive from a specific source of experience. The only way a statement like that can have any value to the reader is to identify this source. Please do so.

Look, I'm going to say this one more time. I'll listen to you, and you listen to me. I have proof that poor homeless people can get jobs. My family when it came over is the perfect example. They came over to New York in the late 1800's to early 1900's when there were plenty of problems with jobs and slums and the such. Do you think that anybody wants to hire moneyless potato farmers from Russia who can't even speak English? I don't really think so. And when you factor in the ethnic differences and racism going on at the time, it's even harder. Those members of my family wokred hard, looked all over, and found jobs. They managed to establish a household. They overcame the same things that homeless people today have to, if not even more than they do. I think that's proof enough.

Bean, your family's story is a good one, and I doubt that anyone here would care to make the argument that no homeless people can remedy their situation. But at the same time, anecdotal support of an argument is far from being "proof." Your story, as interesting and heartwarming as it is, simply cannot serve as proof that all homeless people have to do is develop a work ethic and get cracking.

Since you perhaps did not look at the post I directed you to, here are some highlights:



A Source to read, Bean

Think about it, Bean. If you have a mole on your chin, and you are male, do therefor all males have moles on their chins? Nope.

A can opener is about $2, cans of beans are 3 for a buck. Any adult who goes hungry is not real bright.

in or around astoria oregon you can see some nasty things. groups of ethnic people living in basic shelter, i.E no electricity or running water. i worked at a processing plant with some people from the enviroment. yes they are very hard workers.
i have been privy to see some more ugly parts of america with my own little eyes. such as other people getting raises, or permentent employment over the ethnic peoples, 13-15 hour days every day for 6$ an hour doing back breaking labor in cold damp enviroments. some of these people even have families to feed, also and you can find the wives working. but yet alot of the still end up nowhere in life, on the street, at a shelter. poverty in america is not a black and white issue. and as giantbean has stated i am sure some people are poor and stay poor simply because they are lazy. i also know that life today is more confuseing then back in the 1800 early 1900. alot of youth may have all kinds of issues. this is also present in todays society. and also in the town i live in the enemployment center is always busy. some of the blue collar companies have left the area, i live in a planned city, leaving alot of people without jobs. and no the people could not move with the companie because it did not exist anymore. then what i call the poverty rut sets in on the people. more or less to help poverty, like a said in an earlier thread would to be to understand why it happens. then try to help and not give up hope. that is if you want to help, alot of times i believe that it is only and enabler, that real issues are not being dealt with.

So, just because they're "not real bright" they should starve to death or die from exposure? Do we have to go through the whole "social darwinism" debate again?\

BTW, are you likely to be one of the people who gives them a buck? A quarter? A penny? Or a lecture? Five bucks is nothing to you, but it's quite a bit to someone living on the street.

I just hand 'em a beer. Saves them having to walk to the Stop N' Go.

Alright, here goes: Quark, you have pulled me somewhat toy our side, as you have displayed good evidence and proof. So how about this: We wait a little after the war until we're not in any sort of debt. Then we stop trying to cut taxes for a while, and use a larger chunk of the government's surplus money to fund soup kitchens and the like. We won't be able to completely remedy the hunger issue of course, but perhaps we coud increase the percentage of homeless eating at least once a day. Then, we leave it up to them. After they can eat, they need to prove that they can do some on their own and show some real work ethic. All we do is make sure that they won't starve and then leave the rest to them. I'd personally say that that's pretty fair and just.

For experience with causes, I only have to look at my own siblings. Half of the 6 of us are doing well, the other half had trouble early on with school work. They needed more help than the average student, and didn't get it. (Our parents didn't have the skills, or inclination, to help) So they eventually got discouraged, and gave up. They are not homeless, but close to it.

For those who are currently homeless, I would like to see old military bases converted to CCC type learning centers. Entering the program is voluntary, but if you refuse, you stand at the far end of the line for welfare, food stamps, etc. Retirees like myself would volunteer to train those capable of learning a trade. I would gladly give 20 hours a week to help. There should be some incentives for volunteers, some kind of benefits other than a salary.

For those who may become homeless, and that could be any of the kids now in school, here are my draconian, cruel, heartless suggestions.
1. No dropping out, you will do all 12 grades or at least try til you turn 19. For those who refuse to attend, early entrance to the CCC program, at a remote base, with no chance to escape!
2. Overhaul of the education system. K-10 grades are for the basics, pretty much the same as now. From there, you only get the college bound curriculum if you want it and can do it. Otherwise, you spend 2 years learning a skilled trade.
3. Make the military a more viable option for the young. Offer exit training in a useful skill for those who served in purely military skills (like infantry).

There is probably more along that line, but you get the idea.
There will always be some who are incapable of helping themselves, and they are the only ones who should be on welfare. The rest are parasites, using up the funds that should go to the truly needy.

I agree with you. We definitely need some better education programs for additional help, because while it can be sufficient, pubic education in some cases needs revamping.

ppl who live on the streets are Generally lazy.

Give some guy on the streets $10 he's just gonna go buy some whiskey or cigarettes.

And for those of you who really support education not semi-socialism, first thing I'm going to expect from you is to take out the meaningless classes, like Music class, Art class, things like that, schools are to prepare ppl for jobs and the real world, not to waste time on things like art and music, if someone wants to do art, they'll go buy what they need to paint, and if they can't afford it, thats tough.

i agree with bd123, lets get rid of education and get down to it, we could have buger flipping 101, and pump my gas 102, and when you start to get high up in things mayber they can teach you how to learn and spell. i mean in the land of the free, its never to young to start breaking spirits.

i am just joking, we should just round up the poor and put them in prison and or shoot them.

Don't get me wrong, I am not really against education, but I am against raising property tax's $200 just to pay for some paint brushes and music supplies. and I am against semi-socialism.

I agree with that part, read part 2 of my post. Baiscs at school, other stuff at home.
I would add sports, get rid of sports in public schools.

This is starting to get a bit off topic. If you want to discuss which subjects should be taught in public schools, please start a new topic in the Education forum with a clear question to debate.

Here is your core problem. 2/3 of homeless have drug or alcohol problems. The other third is "down on their luck" (temporary condition, in all likelihood)

Do we need better drug treatment programs? (I submit these people will not submit themselves to such things)
Do we need 24 hour soup kitchens where anyone can get a meal at any time? (I submit that many would still not show up).

No one in America should go hungry. There ARE organizations OTHER than the %$%$ing government to turn to. AND there is the (non-judgemental) government to turn to.

In most instances, I submit, these people don't want to be helped. They just want to be left alone.

Sources please. If you want to dispute quarkhead's claims, try meeting the same standard of proof.

I was not disputing his sources, far from it. I was drawing a CONCLUSION.

From quarkhead's link Homelessness:Programs and the People

First, you look at WHO is homeless:

That is, only 1 in 7 (15%) of homeless adults have kids with them. If they have kids, they have 2.2 kids (pretty close to the median of all families in America)

So let's focus on the adults without kids (since they form the bulk of the group):

Most likely, the single adult homeless person is a man. They are disproportionately black (12.8% of all Americans are black) or Native American (less than 1% of all Americans are Native American). Hispanics are slightly LESS likely to be homeless. White are much less likely to be homeless (figures are a little muddy, since the Census Bureau considers Hispanic an ethnicity, not a race). Non-hispanic whites, however, make up around 70% of the population.
Census Data

Problems: As I cited from Quark's stats earlier, 66% of the homeless have a problem with one or more of the following : alcohol abuse, drug use, or mental health problems. 66% That is huge, statistically.

So the profile becomes: single male, equally likely to be white or black, with one or more problems related to drugs, alcohol or mental illness.

What about other problems:


Interestingly, 45% of the "homeless" HAVE health insurance. That seems awefully high for the "down on their luck-trying to get back onto their feet crowd".

Now, let's check into the types of help that these people seek out...

We take it as a given that the homeless are also poor (income less than half of the poverty level). Since there is no "Sunset" on Food Stamps, why is it that only 37% of the homeless receive them? Granted, those on SSI are ineligible, but that still leaves over 1/2 the homeless ELIGIBLE for food stamps who choose not to get them.

Although the stereotype is a panhandling bum, only 8% of the homeless report of panhandling. This is probably slightly low, but it goes to show my pattern. 92% of the homeless do not ask people for handouts, 50% do not receive government food aid that they are eligible for.

What about other services?


66% used a shelter in the last week, the rest slept on the street or other accomodations (31%). Only 36% had eaten at a soup kitchen in the last week. 10% used other homeless assistance. Again, I see a pattern of not using available help.

As dismal as it sounds, the number of homeless reaching out for help is growing.

Finally, How long have these people been homeless?
30% of the homeless have been that way for 2 years or more. 51% of the homeless have been homeless multiple times, with 34% being homeless three or more times in their life.

I submit that being homeless is a pattern, not a one time occurance. The pattern starts with the 2/3 figure of drug use, alcohol abuse, and mental problems. The statistics point out that many homeless people do not seek out the full measures of help that are out there. Setting up more programs will not help. The root of the problem needs to be addressed. Of course, that would take me another couple pages to compose.

Here, here, we can't just keep thinking up more ways for the gov't to do our jobs. Welfare + Medicare = no incentive. While we're at it, why don't we give people free education and ensure equal status in society too, oh wait, that would be a Communist state.

CP

We do give people free education. It's called public school. Not communism. And going back a bit, here's what I think should be taught in schools:
1. English
2. Mathematics
3. Science
4. Foreign Language

Whereas things like history are nice, they aren't imperative to getting at least a basic job.

The homeless should be helped by having a system that gives them a minimum wage job and at first a place to sleep. They must pay for their own food and manage their accounts. This will provide them with a way to get back on their feet and then later possibly get a different or better job. This will also help in the long run by reducing taxes from people who pay for welfare. After building a facility the tax paying citizend will not have to pay again.

This is a good plan. What we need though, is a system of establishing this, a place, and the incentive to carry it out. Let me just point out now that this isn't communism either, although it is getting closer .

The debate over whether school should produce better workers or better citizens belongs elsewhere, but for purposes of this particular topic suffice it to say that not everyone agrees with your assumption that it should be the former.

And I'm sure ppl who own a decent business in the states speak korean or something ? and what does Science have to do with getting a job ?

And History dude, you've been influenced by your public school that it doesn't matter, it does matter, it matters to remember how this country was made into a great country, all kinds of things like that

And dude, free education ? you're not 18, meaning, you don't pay property tax, and property tax's in part, goto the schools , and in my parents case, 88% of it goes to the schools.

In all fairness, its very hard to remedy this problem in any way.

Alaska is right now going through legislation to outlaw panhandling. This has brought to the forefront articles and opinions on the matter. Amazingly considering really bad weather, we have a huge amount of homeless and street people. Many of these people have chosen this way of life and now would have no other. Amanda Coyne of the Anchorage Press went out to talk with the homeless and wrote an amazing article on it, yet I cannot get it online as reference yet. Basically , once there, theres little possibility of going back to real life. There is addiction and addiction sickness, another life altogether that has no relation to what we as society live.

So we come to what to do. We keep shelters open an take as many as can be taken in. We keep feeding them by soup kitchens.
This is truly a minimum that MUST be done. The alternative is to allow them to die. Then what? Do we have to have a new arrangement of trucks to clean up starved dead people? How would the country be with a bunch of starving people roaming the streets?
We are the USA, supposedly the richest and most developed nation on the planet. If we begin to let people die of hunger in our streets, what becomes of us? We must at least convince ourselves of our wealth by not having rotting corpses lying around. Its bad enough that our homeless rate has gotten so high and we cannot understand why.

Depends on the job. Probably not much if you want to flip burgers or work on an assembly line. On the other hand, if you want a high-tech job that pays well, science is critical. I'd say science is important anyway, not necessarily because of the specific formulae and so on but because of the scientific method - empiricism, logic, etc. Those can serve you well in any field. No matter what college major you choose, or what field you go into, even in general civic life or debate such as here, people who have that knowledge are at an advantage relative to those who do not.



I think we can all agree that they're paying too much for what they're getting.