I do think it would behoove us (us meaning society, all of us) to really learn who among those homeless are mentally ill (I'll bet a lot of them), how many are people down on their luck, and how many actually like being homeless--believe it or not, I've met people like that. One guy who likened himself to Jack Kerouac, just liked rambling from town to town and sleeping outside (in the summer, anyway) and smoking pot. Then he tried to buy some dope from me, but alas, I had none to sell. In any case, when we try to develop programs for "the homeless," or solve the plight of "the homeless," it would be to our advantage to know just whom we're talking about.

Since Madtown is incapable of reading between the lines let me make myself clear. Responsible people do not end up homeless.

Good post, cyclone. I agree.

Mentally ill:
When Reagan shut down many of the public mental health institutions, there was a huge increase in homelessness. Granted, everyone agreed that these institutions were pretty dismal, but many of the patients who had no family, or who were abandoned by family, ended up on the streets. Do we have a responsibility for the mentally ill, if they have no one in their lives to help them out, to see that they get medication and treatment? I personally feel that if, as a nation, we can afford to help them, we have a responsibility to help them. As it stands, private charities do not have enough resources to do it.

Those who want to be homeless:
Obviously, we can not and should not force people in this. For these people, if they choose it as a lifestyle, fine. If you choose to be homeless, when times get hard enough, you will simply UNchoose it. By the very nature of it being a choice, these people have the necessary families or resources to stop being homeless if they wish it.

Down on their luck:
Here is the heart of the issue, as far as the crossover to the welfare debate goes. There are several causes for homelessness due to purely financial reasons. One is the recent ruling, as part of the drug war, that enables directors of public housing to kick out tenants if anyone who lives there gets arrested for drug use, even if they are not on the property at the time of the arrest. Scary. Another would be being taken off the welfare rolls and not being able to find work, and not being able to make rent payments. Again, I believe that if we can, as a nation, afford to help them, we have a responsibility to do it. I agree that welfare reform is needed, but not something as simplistic as time limits. The money needs to be spent on quality childcare, raising the minimum wage to a real living wage, and adult education programs.
Quality childcare: have any of you seen inner city childcare facilities? I would be very afraid to leave my child to be looked after in these places. They pay their workers so little, the personnel are constantly changing, there is no real training.
Living wage: Raise the minimum wage to a point where someone can work one job and provide for their family without being completely destitute.
Adult education: I dream that programs could offer not just simple job training, but also a broader "liberal arts" type education, as well as economics and money management courses.

On Michael Moore's show "the Awful Truth," there was an episode about the homeless, and someone had the suggestion of using those self storage places for the homeless. Allow people to pay the 30 or 40 dollars per month, and then live in the storage units. It was humerous in some ways, but on the other hand, it was better than some ideas I've heard.

peace,
Dirk

75% tax reduction for donations for private charities would do a great deal toward transferring charity back into the hands of the private sector.

Scary? Like I said before responsible people do not end up homeless. Doing drugs, when you cannot even afford to pay your own rent, is irresponsible.

Hugo, you are failing to address the fact that not all people end up homeless because of drug use. Responsible people DO end up homeless, and not everyone has a support system to fall back on (ie. friends and relatives)

Some of these people have the ability to become functional members of society, but they need a helping hand, and the current system is not the kind of helping hand that they need. If we really want to analyze this in a constructive manner, we need to start finding ways to treat the disease and not just the symptom.

I can only base my thoughts on my own experiences, and as I mentioned before, my significant other was homeless because of severe bipolar disorder. He worked while he was homeless, but he just couldn't get off of the streets, and his family would not help him, because they didn't understand his disorder. All he needed was to get onto some medication and get some counciling to become a productive member of society. I paid for that medication and counciling out of my own pocket, and it was a huge strain for me at the time. A lot of friends and family aren't willing to take that on, because it is just too big, and they don't understand. I guarantee you, though, that the same program of medication and counciling would get a lot of people off of the streets and into society. Weigh the costs and the benefits.

Those who can't be treated via this means probably qualify for disability. They just need competant people to help get them into the program. Don't you think?

Other people who have fallen on hard times, just need temporary assistance to help them get back on their feet, and I agree with Quark in regards to welfare reform. Every situation resides in an area of gray, and these people need a wider range of solutions, not necessarily a handout with a time limit attached.

Hugo has a point, though. It's a fine line--yes, we do have a responsibility to help people who need it, but at some point, people have a primary responsibility to take care of themselves. Anyone who knows about 12-step programs knows an alcoholic (or drug addict, or whatever your sickness) isn't to blame for his problem, but he is responsible for it. So on the one hand, we should devote resources to helping people get back on their feet and become contributing members of society. We should not be in the business of subsidizing the lifestyles of people who are unwilling to take care of themselves. It has to be a case-by-case basis upon which we determine how to treat these people.

Consider, too, that it is the breakdown of the family (especially fatherless homes among blacks--probably the biggest problem facing black people in America, IMO) that leaves some of these people with no one to turn to. The government and we citizens have a vested interest in promoting stable families. I realize it's politically correct to say, "Hey, you don't need a dad to have a family, a single mom can do just as good a job," but really, that's b.s.

I think you haven't perhaps heard of this one. It allows public housing directors to evict tenants even in situations that the rentor has no control over. For example, a grandma who's grandson is charged with a drug violation while in another part of town. It doesn't have to be in the house itself. here's the link to the supreme court decision:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00...00-1770.ZS.html

Cyclone, I agree with you 100% on this. There is a huge difference between rehabilitation and enabling.

I remember this--it's a year old or so, I think--and I really don't have a problem with it. In the initial article, there was a sob story for this lady whose son was living with her, and he was busted for dealing drugs (I think) and she got booted out of the apartment. What the story only mentioned in passing was that this was the third instance of such activity, and he had been selling drugs around the building, and if she was oblivious, she shouldn't have been. I'm sure there are extreme cases, exceptions--there always are--but when it comes down to it, a landlord has a responsibility to his other tenants to get rid of the criminals, and if a tenant is providing food and shelter and a base of operations to a drug dealer or pimp or thief or whatever, that person should get the heave-ho as well. I don't think it's too much to ask that a tenant be responsible for his/her charges. And really, what incentive does a landlord have to kick out a paying tenant for no reason? The landlord just has to find another tenant. So it's fair to assume he won't kick out his tenants unless he feels he has to, in which case it's good that he have the power to do that.

Doesn't it take a village to raise a child? By that logic, shouldn't the village be responsible for when one of their own screws up

Jaime, the village doesn't take responsibility of raising a child, but it sure gets the blame..

We all know that people only commit crimes, are homeless, etc...because society has failed them. It's never the individuals fault, it's always that infamous 'somebody else's fault' for my troubles.

I'm sure homeless people NEVER made any personal choices that landed them in their present predicament.

I'm not trying to say there is no responsibility for one's own actions. But it seems to me that the arguments people are using to justify ending public assistance programs could also be extended to private charities. Why should even private charities help these people? Why should anyone? At it's base, the idea of helping the poor is NOT about the choices people made, or the cosmic level of responsibility we each have for ourselves. We are all responsible for ourselves. We are not, however, the CAUSE of everything in our lives. People who were abused as children have a good chance to be abusers when they in turn have children. Sure, the abuser is responsible and culpable for the abuse, but obviously there are also bigger factors in the equation.

There is a place in between, I think. The great debate is, I suppose, on finding and defining that grey area.

Sure, there are people that have made bad personal choices that have led to their demise, but there is such a thing as being a victim of circumstance. I don't think that anyone is advocating that people should not be responsible for their own actions, but we have all made mistakes at one time or another, and there are some situations that a person is presented with that are NOT brought on by themselves. Sometimes people need a little bit of help in order to help themselves.

I know, cyan, I was being sarcastic.
I just hate the 'it takes a village' line.

I actually agree with you. Some people do need a little bit of help from time to time.
The abusers of the system make me ill, but contrary to some peoples opinion, I don't want to 'take the food off of someone's table'. I just think our society has, over time, moved away from personal accountability to 'where's mine?!.

Oops, sorry. I guess I missed the sarcasm.

I'm sorry to keep coming back to this, and also sorry to stray slightly from the topic, but...

I think it would be safe to say that probably a similar percentage of people will abuse a system, regardless of their economic status. But even if 10% of welfare recipients are abusing the system and only 2% of corporate CEOs etc are abusing corporate welfare, the net effect on the economy is much greater when the people at the top are doing it. I still say, if anyone has a problem with the abuse of subsidies, doesn't it make more sense to start at the top? After all, the amounts are much greater.

Again, I agree with you, DTOM, personal accountability has been waning. I see even that as a bigger problem when it is happening in people who have real economic power, than in someone who at best can cheat the system out of what amounts to spare change (in comparison).

Let's just eliminate both.

I look at the homeless problem they way I look at problems at work. I have a bunch of 19-25 years old that work for me. I am in the military. I'd day 90% of them do the job, keep their nose clean, follow the rules. The other 10% takes up half my time. They pass bad checks, don't keep their haircur or maintain their uniforms. They want to be babied, but I refuse to encourage their pubescent behavior. Many homeless people just want a free ride, someone to take care of them. How easy to go collect a welfare check, food stamps instead of working.

Fair enough. There are some people that are immature and want a free ride, and some of those people end up homeless. There are a myriad of other reasons that people end up homeless as well. It is so easy, in our society, for people to accept the idea of a broken body. What is so difficult to accept about the idea of a broken brain?

Also, homeless people don't collect food stamps or welfare. If they did, they wouldn't be homeless.

eatherRob wrote:


OK. I do have some questions about your example. Are you using that as an analogy for poor people, or for society as a whole?

I've had a lot of different jobs in my life, and for most of them, I'd have to agree with you - there is a small minority who tend to be lazy, procrastinating, what have you. But this fact actually helps my argument, and here's why:

We are talking about people with jobs, people from various economic backgrounds. The small minority of slackers exists in any population demographic. Therefore, when it comes to the indigent, there will be a small minority of slackers as well - people who just seem to keep messing up, or who are just lazy.

The same logic means we can't take your example and use it to represent society, with the 10% representing the "lazy poor." As we have already seen, this minority of people who are "takers," if you will, who are lazy and/or incompitent, exist within groups of varying type. Sort of like the example I used earlier of my college friend who was the son of the Time Warner CEO. He represented part of that minority, and he was at the very highest financial level of society.

If the ratio appears everywhere in society, it would be illogical to then pick one group, say the homeless, and all of a sudden jump to the conclusion that 100% of them are lazy.

HeatherRob further wrote:


Cyan took care of that last sentence nicely, as for the other:
Homeless people don't get a free ride, and beyond emergency shelters or sometimes jail, no one is taking care of them.

I like this idea that came up in NYC - buying decomissioned cruise ships, and then using them as shelters. I think that is a great idea.

The lazy gravitate to the bottom of the economic ladder. The homeless are, by and large, lazy.

There is absolutely no proof of that. It's total conjecture. And it's untrue. IF you start out poor, then maybe, yeah. But if you are the son of Donald Trump, no. You will never gravitate to the bottom.

The thing is, the kind of jobs that are most available to people at the bottom of the ladder are often physically demanding and demand concentration. It could be plausibly argued that the laziest class of all is the middle class office worker, the middle-manager in the corporate cubicle.

But, you just saying that poor people are lazy has NO MORE MERIT OR EVIDENCE than if you had chimed in with a post reading: "Glarpees from Artivus IV are bilious and love disco music."

I was a manager for many years. Only once did I ever fire anyone who worked hard (he was a walking safety hazard). Basically hired unskilled people at 9-10 bucks an hour. The one's who worked made 12 or 13 within two years. If I quit my job and did nothing (if I was lazy) I would be divorced and homeless within 3 years. Only someone totally delusional can deny a positive correlation between work, which includes working in school, and financial well-being. Yes, those who are lazy and do not take advantage of educational opportunities may end up doing more physical labor. In many ways physical labor is easier than mental labor.

People if you do not believe laziness leads to homelessness, just try not working. sit home drink beer all day and refuse to do anything. Hope your 401K is bigger than mine.

Personally, I think that those people who are living on the streets who are obviously mentally incompetent should be placed in a shelter and cared for with adequate food, shelter and medical help. The truly ill should not be on the streets.

There was one elderly woman in particular who caught my eye, she was sitting in her own filth, talking to herself (actually ranting), she looked malnourished - she didn't belong on the street with the possibility of being a victim of some random crime. I see such a person as not lazy but very unfortunate. I think there is a public obligation to care for such a person.

However, as I understand it - there are legal obstacles in the way of putting such a person in some sort of shelter without their consent. But when a person is truly mentally deranged, are they capable of making such a decision?

It's a real problem.

No one is saying that laziness doesn't lead to homelessness. Laziness can, in fact, lead to homelessness. Some people who are lazy may not end up homeless, though, specifically if they are trust fund babies, which is what I believe that Quarkhead was trying to get at.

What is being said is that not all homeless people are in that situation because they are lazy. Every single scenario is different. Would you think that someone who suffered from mental retardation and ended up on the streets was lazy? What about a Vietnam vet with severe post traumatic stress disorder?

For a moment, let's take away the causes of homelessness. There is still a growing sector of homeless who are not to blame for their homelessness, and who deserve help. That is children. Homeless children did nothing to deserve their plight. What should we do about them?

And Hugo, I agree, there is a correlation between laziness and downward mobility. That much is obvious. What I am saying is that poverty (not welfare) tends to be inherited. The success stories are the exceptions. Most middle class people, even if they are lazy, will not end up on the streets. They may end up being pretty pathetic and living with their parents when they are 35, but they are not in danger of homelessness. Generally.

I think you meant to apply this to children, but I would like to address it to all homeless.

If the homeless person is helplessly disabled, sick - physically or mentally incompetent - a danger to themselves or in danger from others, I think they should be removed from the streets and placed in permanent shelters.

If the person is competent and wishes help, it should be offered and provided. And progress monitored to ensure that the person is responding and willing to help themselves too.

If the person is competent and doesn't wish to be helped - leave them alone.

If the person is a child alone then the child should be taken to a permanent shelter, housed, schooled, etc.

If the person is a child belonging to a parent on the street, the parent/child should be offered help, but if the help is refused then left alone. EXCEPT - if this puts the child in danger (like undernourished) then the child should be removed. We do that even when the parent isn't on the street. It's called child abuse/endangerment.

There is a place here run by Father (Catholic priest) Joe Carrol who offers homeless people a place to wash, eat, sleep, learn a trade, it gives them an address to put on a job application, and schooling for homeless children. He requires that the people contribute by helping out (serving food, cooking, cleaning up, etc.) He also has a strict code of behavior. It's a million dollar operation which I believe is totally funded by private donations. It's been around for years and years.

I have seen many homeless people wandering the streets of Houston. Black, white, hispanic, as... Wait, I cannot recall ever seeing a homeless asian.

I am curious if any of the posters concerned with the plight of the homeless have attempted to offer these people a job?
After the big hurricane hit Miami a decade ago, construction companies attempted to hire indigent people to work for them for around 10 an hour (no experience necessary, just an able body willing to work). They had almost no takers. It seems, back then you could make an average of 14 dollars an hour panhandling, which was a lot easier than working construction.

I used to offer food to the homeless when I was in college. It seems most were on some sort of 'special diet' and just wanted money. My now-husband, then boyfriend, gave one 'homeless' man the rest of our pizza (which was going to be our meal the next day) because he claimed he hadn't eaten in days....This is a true story....That evening, we saw him walking down the street with a couple of bags of groceries. WE ate spam and crackers later because that's all we could afford at the time.

Perhaps their is a genetic predisposition to sloth, like chemical dependency?

I read an amazing article in my local paper about a restaurant owner that is pulling homeless people from the street one at a time. Well, actually, he's just started with one but he's open to helping more people -- one at a time.

I hope that this homeless person truly manages to take advantage of the opportunity and succeeds. I've forwarded a donation to the restaurant owner even though he isn't fund raising. I was compelled to do so because I felt that any financial losses, if this homeless person doesn't succeed, might prevent him from helping more people.

Here's the link -- it's amazing actually.

People such as this one, Eva, and the one Basheva mentioned earlier are effective. Individuals helping people one on one will always out perform any government run program. Why? There is a human element involved. Reaching out is not a job. Judgement being used by individuals is better than government guidelines.

If the government permitted tax deductions for money spent by individuals helping homeless on a one to one basis, maybe more people would be encouraged to try. The man has already spent 2k since the beginning of January and it's a very risky undertaking. Obviously, it's a risk he feels worth taking; however, if this first homeless person doesn't succeed, the restaurant owner might not try again. If he was permitted to take it as a tax deduction, maybe he'd be willing to try again.

I've helped many people, one on one, in my lifetime. They weren't homeless but the help I've provided prevented some from becoming homeless. But it's very difficult to see money spent trying to help someone go to waste when they go back to their own destructive behavior. If I had been permitted to make tax deductions for money spent, I might not be as cautious as I am today.

Do I sound hardened? Yes. I'd be willing to take more risks with my money helping on a one to one basis if I was offered a way to partially cover my losses. In the meantime, I'd prefer to support people like the restaurant owner over a government program.

When I lived in Italy, the only homeless people you find are displaced Kosovars. You never, ever see an Italian give them money, but they find Americans when they can and ask. Those people were truly in a desparate situation, and it's difficult for me to sympathize with the 'poor' here after that.

The reason you never see a homeless Italian is their tremendous family support system. The government makes the family responsible for every 'child' under the age of 21. Up until that time, if the parents die, it is the responsibility of the next eldest members of the family to care for that person. No one can turn a family member out, even if it's their second-cousin-twice-removed, if they have no other family to turn to. Incidentally, you also see a lot of jobless thirty and fortysomething children who have never left their parents' house.

My mother runs a food pantry. They take notes on the people that come in. Most of her 9,000 clients don't WANT to work they chose go from food pantry to food pantry then get a job. Some try to work by picking up cans to sell or other small jobs. Most don't want to even pay their own RENT they think that other people will pay it for them. One lady had a 700 dollar heating bill and thought that others would pay it for her. My mother's co-worker said that she could pay the last 30 dollars of the bill but she would have to pay off the 670 before they could pay the 30 dollars. Sure enough the lady heat was cut off and blamed my mother's co-worker. She said that the heat was cut off because the co-worker would not pay the 700 dollars that needed to be paid off. the heating bill could have been set up to pay off 30 to 50 dollars off a month. The lady did not do this because she did not have that money. she could have if she had a job. In the waiting room to the food pantry is a list of 200 or so jobs that she could have taken to pay off that bill but chose not to and take the lazy way out and ask pantry after pantry for the money. The lady's heat was cut off just because she didn't want to work. She took the lazy way out.

The statement that you quoted said that many of the people that are homeless aren't living that lifestyle because they are lazy...not ALL. I'm sure that there are some lazy homeless people out there. It doesn't change the fact that there are some homeless people who don't want to be there, and they need help. Pulling yourself up from rock bottom is very difficult, especially if you have a disorder that requires medical attention.

Most of the homeless people in Knoxvile are homeless because they are lazy. The other portion is a group of people that do try to get jobs and find homes. many of the people succeed in this. Some do have a disorder that requires medical attention and they find a way to get help with that disorder. Through free clinics and state provided help. Not all homeless people are lazy.

Most homeless people are homeless because they are lazy. You know this because your mother takes notes. Interesting. Does she take notes on all 9,000 of her clients? What are her qualifications for note taking? Does she have a degree in social work, or perhaps she's a psychiatrist or a psycholgist?

People with physical or mental disibilites requiring medication can simply go to a state agency or a free clinic for help and their troubles are all over. Just like that! WRONG!!!

Even here where I live, which is one of the best places in the country to be if you need medical assistance, there are long waiting lists. Some people wait several years for the attention they need. It's just not a simple as you think to be correctly diagnosed and recieve proper medicine and counseling.

It seems to me that,rather than finding out the facts, you find it easier to just say homeless people are lazy. I've head it all before. It makes me sick.

Going from food pantry to food pantry and living on the streets. Oh yes! That's the good life alright.

Lazy people should not expect the good life.

well, why are they homelss, i guess it would help to know that, i am sure it would not apply to all the homelss peoples situations but it could not hurt.

when it comes down to it you are asking people to give away thier money and time, can we say tax cuts, bush wants to help the homelss with faith based methods, praise jesus for food?, racism, drugs, stock market, layoffs, so much or ways to get thier. i think that you are better off shooting them into the sun and letting it regenerate then trying to help. sadly. or unless you want to move towards a more socialist society, we can all live in houseing blocks and modules. we see that taxes are chaseing away companies, like or vice presidents companie, its not u.s based to escape taxes, these companies could do alot to help, but at the same time they have to fight amongst each other.

I think once you have lost your home and place in society, it is very hard to even want the problems and stress that it takes to resume a normal life. Why would you want it? I think maybe your will is broken.

I dont believe it is 'laziness' since it takes alot more endurance to be on the street. I mean, think about it, none of us have what it takes to be on the street, it would be the most horrible thing ever, but once you are there, what leaps do you have to make to get back? It would seem insurmountable and pointless. A life of mediocre struggle to pay for an apt, phone, electric and heat for a job you hate and a life that means nothing, what difference? These are people who have arrived to hopelessness. Hopelessness needs treatment. Its cruel to compare them to our philosophies on life, the mental state in these cases is extreme.

There is a point Id like to make which may be off topic slightly, but relevant:

I am asounded by the right wing who now talk, for example, of 'poor oppressed Iraqis', and several billion dollars to spend for war.. 'to liberate poor Iraqis' ( now that WMD have not been found, its all about nasty dictators). Since when did the Right ever care about 'poor' anyone? Certainely not. But, we, as US citizens have now adopted a country, and therefore must provide for it.

These people, Iraqis, will need health care, education, rebuilding as it is, things Americans cannot have for themselves. Yet, those who believed in the war, constantly complain about giving a spare dime of hard earned tax money to the poor in this country and accuse the poor of laziness. While they would not spend for vocational education, shelters, food or the betterment of the American poor, and advocate communities pay, they embrace the poor in foreign lands, and would make us believe that all of us are rich enough to support another country and its needs for many years.

I find it hugely hypocritical that so many, and it seems conservatives, constantly complain of taxes to support our people, but have no problem funding wars which cost in the billions more, to rebuild other nations in our form of democracy, a democracy which cannot even take care of its own.

Well, excuuuuuuuse me! Pardon me for living and for being on the Right.

I find that blanket generalization insulting in the extreme. You just might be surprised how many on the Right do some kind of charity work or make contributions, which isn't quite so easy as just advocating robbing one's neighbor to pay for it.

A and B get together and decide to help poor D. But do A and B help D themselves? No, they say let's make C help D, and implement it by voting a tax on C. Yes, that's very generous of them.

Most homeless are lazy. Period.

There is a percentage that truly has insurmountable problems that should get the help they need. The problem is, we give the bums the same blanket coverage. In my opinion, THAT is what causes more homelessness. It's like feeling sorry for the orphan that killed his parents.

I may have relayed this story before, so I apologize if this is redundant.

Our local TV station, WHIO-TV, did a full week investigation on the bums surrounding Dayton. And the results were hardly surprising.

They went to the corners of several "hot spots" where the bums ask for handouts. Next to those corners were small business (restaraunts, car washes, etc). WHIO went to these businesses and asked if they would provide a job for any of the bums they could send their way. A couple wouldn't, but most would.

So, the TV station interviewed the bums on TV and asked what go them there. They all had the same stories. World is unfair, health problems, blah blah blah. So the TV station asked if they could find work, would they work?

Of course they would! All they needed was a fair chance. So, the TV station sent them to these businesses and told them they had a job. The bums were grateful. What a community service.

Not one bum showed up to work. Not one. They were on the same corners getting handouts just like always. The TV station asked why they didn't go to work and they refused to be interviewed.

Every single one of them.

They are bums because they can get money without having to work for it. They prey on the people needing to feel sorry for someone. And they do it because it works.

Not one bum who qualifies for military service should receive a government funded handout.

How long should they be required to serve...possibly after they could have gotten a private-sector job? How is this different than indentured servitude, or debtors' prisons? Do you approve of those institutions? How many soldiers do we need, and for what? Can any idiot serve in our modern military, or should we factor in training costs and equipment? What about unit morale and readiness when the flood of "economic draftees" hits? How about when people trained in violence and harboring resentment against society get back out on the street?

"Stick 'em in the army" sounds tough and everything, but beyond the surface it's a pretty terrible idea. Something like the old CCC sounds like it would provide better answers to the questions above.

Why? It's an all volunteer armed services. I couldn't afford college, so I served my country to get an education. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for anybody.

I was a drugged out punk who was 3 days away from going to prison. I decided to make a change in my life and did it. I joined the Marines. I grew up poor in the projects of Baltimore and had every reason to be a loser.

But I decided to make a change and get my life on track by doing exactly what the poster had suggested. I made a difference in my life without the need of someone finding excuses for me.

Then, I moved from Baltimore to Dayton to get away from the ones who were dragging me down into their levels of dysfunction.

And it WORKED.

Maybe I should have just sponged off the backs of people who feel the need to feel sorry for someone and not did a thing? Maybe I should have done what many of my boyhood friends did? Either die at an early age or go to jail for many years.

Maybe I should have just taken the easy way and not cared, not changed, and look for people that would feel sorry for me to help take care of me. God knows there's enough of them.

SHARP INCREASE IN LAZINESS OF BUMS


Some of the conclusions from:
The New York/New York Agreement Cost Study: The Impact of Supportive Housing on Services Use for Homeless Mentally Ill Individuals
A Summary of:
The Impact of Supportive Housing for Homeless Persons with Severe Mental Illness on the Utilization of the Public Health, Corrections and Emergency Shelter Systems: The New York/New York Initiative




Those BUMS! Lazy, or crazy?

Giving Them Minimum Wage Jobs Won't Help Much Either

Here's some information taken from Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve - Highlights Report:

This landmark study was done in 1996, so while it is a bit outdated, it is a good source for information about the homeless population; from other sources, we can see that not much has changed since then.









read more of the report here

Those damn lazy bastards! Lazy children (23%)! Lazy Veterans (23%)! Lazy mentally ill people (39%)!

So, let's get real. Posters claiming that most or all homeless people are lazy need to come up with some data to back it up. I have a feeling that people have a few personal anecdotes about being panhandled, or conned, by a homeless person, and then extrapolate from that to a view that homeless people are all that way. This type of thinking does not work. It doesn't work in logic 101, where we find that just because Socrates was a man, and gay, all men are not, in fact, gay. And it doesn't work here.

that is a rather nice piece of work, i am glad to see some people look for logic in something rather then just speaking on it. have a nice day.

Yeah, I have a similar story, I was about three days away from joining USMC myself and I found another alternative that worked better for me. Could've gone either way, nothing wrong with either option, but here's the important part: YOU VOLUNTEERED. The whole thing takes on a very different complexion when enlisting is not voluntary.

The term of service for enlisted military personnel is usually around 3 years. This is sufficient time to learn a marketable trade, while being compensated.
If a person expects a HANDOUT, they should be required to provide a service for the gratuity. Often, arrested gang members are offered the choice between jail time and military service…so… apparently, they accept many ‘idiots’ although they probably don’t permit them to operate heavy machinery until they are trained and proven competent. I certainly don’t see any more negative impact on morale to obligatory military service than allowing convicts to serve.


Hm. It seems to me the streets themselves offer more violence training than the military (without the discipline). Offering/ expecting a service in return for money is what living in a society is usually about, isn’t it? (With the exception of the fortunate few who can live off of their inheritances)….In addition, military members are skilled in practical fields and have leadership experience beyond what would be offered in the civilian sector for an equivalent experience level.

It isn’t what you think. The military isn’t replete with idiots waving machine guns and chanting ‘We kill Commies!’ (well, not usually) It is a great place to gain job experience, education and training, and leadership skills while receiving monetary compensation at the same time.

BTW...There is still a choice. A person might elected to go without free handouts instead of serving in the military.

Izdaari, my apologies for the blanket statement, however, many responses in this thread prove my original point to the extreme, and to add, a complete and total misunderstanding of the situation, in which many blanket statements were made.

As in:

I wonder how many who have made this profound generalization have worked with or even know one homeless person. As to the homeless going into the military, few are of enlistment age or physical condition, reckless statements, trying to push the problem away from anyones view or responsability.

Brutal capitalism is brutal, and we must deal with that fact, since it is our chosen economic/societal form.

I have known many homeless people, who got there by one or another circumnstance. As with cyan, my current partner was homeless when I met him. Having served in the military, to become hopeless and with addiction problems, he needed a helping hand. He is now in therapy and working a full time job, pays his taxes and is a viable member of my family and society.

A woman I know was living without heat or any normal ammenities with two children, gave them to her parents for care, and went on the street with a big written book in her bag. She was finally published and her life resumed as normal, not without a few terrifying stories. Not your average deadbeat.

Another Native woman I know, had two books written, and a movie to her name. ( Lakota Woman) The IRS took everything she ever made, which was absolutely cruel, but they had a cause, she was involved in the Wounded Knee situation in the 70's and gave birth to her son there. Her problem was alchohol. I dont know if she is still alive. Last I saw her was in a shack on Rosebud.

Its not as clear cut as many here would like to make the issue, laziness. Native reservations have huge inherant problems, but in fact, many people of all races in this grand USA, are only one paycheck away from homelessness.