I think america should take all the homeless people in ( MORE SHELTERS ) and have social security people educate them. then at least they could have a chance

That sounds nice. But the problem is, if there's a source of free housing (homeless sheltors), what's the incentive to not be homeless?

I have another suggestion. Make them pay for the homeless sheltor out of their pocket.

I saw an example of this one time. I was organizing a large picnic and had a bunch of food left over. I decided to give the frozen leftovers to a homeless sheltor. I called one in the phone book at random. I visited the director and she gave me a tour of her sheltors. Actually, it was apartment units that she was stuffing a dozen "homeless" people each into. Of course she was doing it undercover. But, she was able to provide cheap housing for people. The apartments were also out in the suburbs away from the temptations of the inner city. Also it was closer to where the jobs were. While visiting, she asked if I could join her board of directors. I told her she didn't even know me. She said as long as I thought about helping that was good enough. At the time, I was too busy to help out even more, but she has made a lasting impression in my mind.

The incentive to stop not be homeless is already there. It's a horribly unpleasant way to live, and many of the people that are homeless aren't living that lifestyle because they are lazy. My significant other, as I mentioned in another thread, has severe bi-polar disorder. He was living on the streets when I met him, and what he truly needed to help him get off of the streets is medical care. He is a productive member of society now, and his greatest fear in life is to end up on the streets again, because it was an absolutely awful experience.

There are, of course, other situations such as drug addiction, but to brand these people as lazy is not quite accurate. Some of these people can be rehabilitated, and some of them not, but the majority of them didn't wake up one morning and say, "Hmmm...I think I'll be homeless today." It's a gradual descent, and once you get to the bottom, it's difficult to get out.

Additionally, when my significant other was living on the streets, he preferred sleeping in the freezing cold over sleeping at a shelter, because the people in shelters can be violent, especially if they have something that you want. It's a tough environment to survive in, and you aren't afforded the same rights as other people, because nobody respects you if you're homeless, regardless of how you ended up there.

It is my feeling that the solution lies in rehabilitation programs both medical & drug related. Also, I have a friend who volunteers for "Stand up for Kids," and they have a program that has shown positive results in regards to homeless youth. I will try to dig up some detailed info from their website.

For those who have become homeless through dire poverty, training by "social security people" or those doing community service may not be a bad idea for some - though many homeless people are not unskilled; they lack opportunity, not training.

I agree with Cyan, though, that what is most needed for a majority of homeless people is medical/psychiatric treatment and/or rehab. One of my foster sons was living rough when we met him - a heroin addict working as a prostitute to support his habit. He was thirteen. He was not on the street by choice - and certainly not due to laziness. He needed rehab (and a home) more than training (or mere shelter). After he was in recovery and off the street, he was able for training - but to imagine that he would've responded to any kind of education when he was totally homeless is ludicrous.

I am in complete agreement with Cyan, Wertz, and Otseng on this one...

Where we likely disagree is on who should pay for this.

Go private sector! Go churches! Clean up the streets of your own city!

Mike

Actually, I don't entirely disagree with you. As I said, Stand up for Kids is one of the best programs that I've seen, and it is a private, non-profit corporation that accepts donations. They are more efficient with their funds, because they have to be.

I do think that the government should allot a certain amount of funds for these types of programs, though.

Here's the info on Stand Up for Kids.

http://www.standupforkids.org/standupforkids/

Homelessness for the most part is a matter of choice. It's a lifestyle they chose to accept. The only reason I would accept for being homeless is mental illness. Most of the homeless in my town are panhandlers who probably make more money than me. I say do nothing with them. If they don't want to work for a living them we should let them be.

This is a website that provides statistical data on the homeless. In was published in 1999.

http://nch.ari.net/who.html

I dont know if you have something like this in America but in WA we have a Government controlled body called State Housing.

They buy parcels of land and build houses, or flats on them.
These they let out to the homeless for a very small rent depending on their financial situation.

As always there are never enough State houses.
In order to surmount this problem Government assistance is given towards normal rental property prices.

However we do have a problem with street kids.
Those kids who have had homelife problems or druggies and live rough on the streets.
It is a sad monument to our society to admit that there are not enough hostels or social workers to deal adequately with this growing problem.
Perhaps IT IS our society causing the problem?.

My wife and I applied to the State Government because we wanted to help look after one of these kids in our house and living with us at no cost to the Government.
It was refused unless we went through adoption legalities and we are both on the cusp of being too old.
We cant just do it because our local shire rules dissalowe taking in anyone other than family and our rates will skyrocket.
We both felt helpless.

Regards........Alan

Interesting article, unfortunately their link to the cause of homelessness is broken.

But, it does confirm that one major reason people are homeless is simply they can't afford it. Hence I like the idea of making cheap housing available. Of course, this will only help people whose only issue is the financial ability for housing.

Of course, there are many other reasons for homelessness, like Cyan and Wertz pointed out.

As for laziness, I wouldn't say that it's a major reason, but I do believe it plays a part. However, even more important is teaching people how to be responsible with their time, money and body.

As for funding of these programs, private funding is best. But, the problem is that there aren't enough people who will freely give to such programs. So, forced giving (taxation) has to come into the picture.

My thought Part2

1. Send some of these work! allow them to get an education, and get a job. Collect all the Bumbs and make a school for them!

I've been perusing the website for the Denver Rescue Mission, and they have some interesting statistics posted. There are roughly 10,000 people homeless in Denver at any given time.

3,500 are children
65% are families with children
30% are veterans
40% are employed

They site the top causes of homelessness as:

Unable to pay rent/mortgage
Lack of affordable housing
Unemployment
Substance abuse and lack of needed services
Mental illness and lack of needed services
Domestic violence

I don't know where you live Neil, but I think you overestimate the number of homeless people who panhandle. Believe it or not, there are many homeless people who have far too much dignity to ask for a handout. Certainly, there are some homeless people who panhandle, but there are also some panhandlers who live in nice houses and drive nice cars. Those people have chosen panhandling as a lifestyle, but they are few and far between. Should those people who are truly struggling be punished because of the actions of a few who just happen to present themselves more publicly?



Many of these people do work for a living. They just don't make enough money to make ends meet. My significant other did day labor and worked at Taco Bell when he was homeless. He used his mother's address on his application (because she was kind enough to allow it), and he cleaned himself up in public rest rooms (when he didn't get thrown out) or at peoples' homes when the opportunity presented itself. Luckily, street kids stick together, and young people, particularly those involved in the counter-culture, tend to be much less judgemental. They lend a helping hand when they can. Older homeless people may not have the same networking abilities.

There are others who would work if they had an opportunity. There are certain obstacles that you need to take into consideration.

As a business owner, would you hire someone who presented themselves to you without proper hygiene in shabby clothing without a proper address? If you say yes, I commend you, but the fact is that most business owners would not. Additionally, these people have no means of transportation as even a bus ride costs money, so they are limited to locations that are close enough to walk to at least until they can gather enough money to pay for public transportation.

In my city, they do have the opportunity to do day labor, but another problem presents itself. Many shelters, in an effort to control problems related to drugs and alcohol, close their doors and keep them closed between certain hours. Often times, this creates a difficulty for those who are staying in shelters to reach their destination early enough to get an available job, so they have to make a choice...stay out of the cold and hope there are jobs left when they get there or sleep out in the elements and arrive at the day labor office early.

As I said before, many homeless people choose not to stay at the shelters anyhow, because they are not necessarily the safest places to be. It just proves how the system isn't working effectively. We need to work on treating the cause in addition to the effect.

Has anyone ever considered colonizing the poor in other countries?

Is your answer to everything to segregrate and exploit people's difference? Instead of trying to pawn our problem off on a different country, why not try and solve it ourselves, and integrate them into society (of course, I know how you dislike integrating people)

I have to agree with you. Their are sooo many gov. programs to help people; the will to work is not with them. A lot of the homeless people have mental problems. They can have a house, or shelter, or money, but they, to a subconscience level, don't want it. When people give them money to buy food or water, they go out and buy tabacco or alcohol. They want people to feel sorry for them. I say give them money and shelter for about a yr. or two, and force them to learn. They can goto places, gov. funded of course, and learn skills required for a job. That way they get benefits temperarily and get a job that will fund them.

Legend has it Vlad Tepes Dracula (1431-1476) solved the problem of homelessness and vagrancy by inviting these poor souls for a feast. After the vagrants had eaten and drunk themselves into a stupor Vlad had the feasting hall boarded up and set on fire. Solved the homeless problem. Bleeding heart liberals would probably complain if the Count's tactics were used today.

I think MORE than bleeding heart liberals would complain about that, hugo. This conservative libertarian sure would.

How about service a CCC or AmeriCorps type program.

-or-

I've always thought that barring mental illness, or addiction problems, a stint the military would get them education, job training, self respect, and off the streets.

After all, if we are subsidizing programs to help the homeless, shouldn't we expect a little contribution back to society?

In a libertarian society you neither subsidize the homeless or force them into rehab programs.

Nor do you stick them in large rooms and burn them.

No you do not. You let their families and private charity take care of them.

Agreed.

The Count was a conservative, not a libertarian.

Interesting--I seem to fall somewhere in between the two extremes of this conversation. On the one hand, I sympathize with the homeless who are so for no fault of their own, namely the children and the mentally ill--but on the other, I am somewhat a socialist, and it is my belief that as the society serves the citizen, the citizen must serve the society. I think perhaps legislation should be passed requiring work of all able to do it--after all, if society is going to provide and secure your natural rights and freedoms, shouldn't you attempt to provide for and secure it? Looking at that statistics page mentioned earlier, I think action like this could very well take a majority of the homeless off the streets. Perhaps even just some reform in the welfare system--maybe to make it more of a government loan instead of a donation, something that the recipients would have to pay back over a set period of time, so as not to face criminal charges. These together should give the necessary incentive for most people to work, no?

The reason public assistance programs were developed was that private charity was insufficient in solving the problems of unemployment and poverty.

The Independent Sector, a coalition of more than 800 voluntary groups, commisioned a study that showed charitable giving by US households declined by 24% between 1989 and 1993.

In 1992, $124 billion was spent on private charity. BUT, less than 10% was in the area of human service (Statistical Abstract of the US, 1994). Many private donations support churches, schools and other nonprofit entities that primarily serve the affluent.

It's easy to say, private charities and family. But charities are already doing all they can, and not all families have resources (and not all poor people even have families to fall back on). They can't meet the needs of everyone who doesn't have their basic needs met. Why are some people so against these programs, I just don't understand it.

As a percentage of GDP, the amount we spend on means tested aid is quite small. In fact it is far far outweighed by the amount of corporate welfare. If we want to reform government handing out money, it is more logical to focus our efforts where the bigger problems lie - after all, the amount of subsidies and tax breaks given to large corporations really dwarfs the amount we spend on the poor.

So even if you are against welfare and public aid, it still makes sense to start the battle at the top, because more money is given there than is spent on AFDC and food stamps. And chances are, when you solve the problem at the top, there will be less need for programs at the bottom!

Donations to places like Good Will and St. Vincent De Paul are declining because people are selling their used goods at garage sales.

Madtown

You know, letting people or corporations keep money they EARN is NOT the same as giving a hand out. It burns me when people try and use this ploy. Without business and small business this country would have no money. If you keep being anti-business eventually people who have jobs won't. And, then the country will be right where the Democrats want it. All poor with a few very rich so that the government will control our lives. GWB using public monies through existing charities is a long time overdue. With the right amount oversight it should work 100 times better than government.

Back to lurking,
Darcaine

PS It's also well documented that as corporations that keep more money generally donate more to charatable org.

Darcaine wrote:


1. We have to separate small business from the corporate giants, as they are certainly very different entities.

2. That said, there are massive hand outs being given to huge corporations. Think of the bail-outs, particularly the S&L bailout, where most of the loss was through malfeasance. Corporations are also allowed more and more ways to avoid taxes. This isn't at ALL about "keeping money you earn." Small businesses don't benefit from these breaks or subsidies. Even in agricultural subsidies, which are upwards of $30 billion annually, go mostly to extremely large corporate agri-businesses.

3. In 1960, corporate taxes constituted 23% of all federal tax revenue. In 1995, the percentage was 10%. And it should be said that obviously in those 35 years, the size and profits of the world's huge corporations have increased by huge amounts.

4. I don't see corporate welfare as a partisan issue. It has nothing to do with small businesses, which are so important to our real, human economy. If conservatives are against pork, against the government intruding into private life, why would they NOT be concerned about the government giving massive subsidies to corporations? There is even a government agency that provides corporations direct subsidies for advertising their products overseas, in order to "promote American trade." In my vision, whether you are conservative or liberal, this issue is threatening.

5. The Democrats wanted that? I thought it was the Republicans! Seriously, you may be a conservative, I may be a liberal, but it's difficult to have intelligent debate in the presence of this kind of myopic thinking.

Back to the topic: How to help the homeless:

I don't know the best answer, but I can say with certainty that cuts in social spending are not going to fix the problem. They are only going to make it worse. For even though homeless people are not receiving any of that money, their ranks will inevitably swell when the safety net is dropped out from under people.

I feel like people who think charities are going to suddenly take care of everyone who needs help are living in a dream world. Welfare isn't perfect, but damn, it is not in any way in danger of being something that makes our country go broke. When dealing with people who are in danger of going without food, clothing, or shelter, isn't it best to err on the side of generosity rather than miserliness?

But the main thing, on the topic, is that it does no good in this debate to criticize welfare or the democrats, or the republicans. The homeless are not on welfare. Where they stay in shelters, it is very temporary. Some are state run, some are private. But one thing is sure: there are not enough of them. Solving the question of the homeless - can it even be done? I think the best we can do is provide (admittedly less than perfect) a broad enough social safety net to prevent the ranks of the homeless from growing. Re-institutionalizing people who were dropped during the cutbacks during the Reagan years. We will never solve the problem of the homeless entirely. We can only try to provide a humane and empathetic way to keep their population from growing.

Studies indicate that welfare produces illegitimate children and a higher crime rate. In fact when rates of illegitimacy is factored out the arrest rate disparity between blacks and whites disappears. Welfare is not the answer to homelessness

1. First, I specifically said that welfare could not solve homelessness. What it can do is keep its ranks from swelling outrageously.

2. From 1970 to the present, births by teenage mothers have declined. In 1970, there were 68 births per 1000 teenage women. In 1990 there were 60 and it has continued to decline. Out of wedlock births have increased, mostly because marriage is less common. Out of wedlock births have increased among all age and income groups.

3. In June 1994, 76 researchers in labour market, poverty, and family structure signed a statement saying that research does not support suggestions that welfare is a main cause of out of wedlock births. These researchers were from various disciplines and political persuasions.

4. New Jersey's benefit packages (welfare) is 58% higher than Mississippi's. Rates of single-parenthood are the same in both states. Mississippi and Alabama have the lowest AFDC benefits in the nation, and yet their illegitimate birth rates are the highest.

5. The value of Food Stamps and welfare has declined, while the out of wedlock birthrate has risen.

6. Do you think people are less likely to commit crimes if they are given no assistance from the state? Do you really think that?

I haven't really thought of the crime rates or illegitimate birth rates in relation to welfare programs, but I really don't care either way. I think that if we give those who are able to work no other option than starvation or prison (which should be a lot tougher anyway), perhaps we can accomplish something. I can understand the plight of those not able to work--we have institutions for people such as those. As for the children, legitimate or not, of those dependent upon welfare, I would say that they are better off in orphanages. A parent who is unwilling to get out and work to support their children is in way a parent by my definition, and does not deserve any help from me. It may seem a bit puritanical of me to say this, but I have very little sympathy for those who would rather let the state provide for themselves and their children than going out to get a job themselves.

2. I never argued teenage births had declined, just out-of-wedlock births. Welfare has harmed the concept of marriage. Children are suffering and crime victims are suffering as a result.

3) Sounds like 76 liberal activists.

4) A comparison of two states as distinctively different as New Jersey and Mississippi is comparing apples and oranges.
Per Capita Income NJ 38,509 Mississippi 21,750

5) Once the welfare culture gets entrenched and children are taught that they can live without working even reductions in welfare will not immediately stem the tide of illegitimacy, crime, poverty and homelessness. It may take a generation after the abolishment of welfare for all the positive effects to take root.

6) Yes,I do. They will find jobs. Once again it will take a generation for the full benefits to take root.

Want to increase homelessness? Just subsidize out-of-wedlock births. It seems natural to assume that a child of a single parent would be closer to living on the streets than a child of a two parent household.

Reagan closed the institutions after he kicked the patients out. Remember?

Puting the parents in jail and the kids in orphanages will still cost you money. Probably more than welfare. You will still be supporting them.

BTW, the homeless do not collect welfare.

Madtown

90+% of them parents will be working and setting an example for their children that you must work for a living.

But here's what I actually said:
"Out of wedlock births have increased among all age and income groups." And this is true. You'd like to make this somehow a product of or problem limited to the welfare recipients, but it isn't so. The birth rate among single women has remained relatively constant, but because single women constitute a much higher percentage of the female population, births to single women are a larger percentage of all births. Women are not getting married as often, nor staying married for as long. This is across the board, not just for the poor.




Why is it apples and oranges? I'd say it is fair to compare them, because they show an example of how wrong it is to assume that welfare=out-of-wedlock births. But if you want, here you go: In the 1980s, Canada's assistance programs for poor single mothers provided twice as much in benefits as the US. Their out-of-wedlock birthrate was far lower.




What? Live without working? Oh yeah, the old welfare queen MYTH. Do you know how much money people get on welfare? I have laid these figures out elsewher on this forum, but perhaps we need them again. You think poor people need some incentive to get out of poverty besides being poor? I'll tell you, poverty is it's own incentive. People do not like being on welfare. They are stigmatized when they pull out their food stamps at the grocery store. They have trouble finding adequate child care. They have trouble finding permanent jobs with benefits.

On average, a welfare-receiving family of 3 (mom, 2 kids) gets a total of about $8000 per annum. When you add in what is spent on them in medicaid, the total approaches a bit over $10,000. Yeah, sure does teach those kids to live in the lap of luxury. Who needs to work with fat cash like that rolling in?

Why is welfare a disincentive? Perhaps it is, sometimes and in some cases. But so is car insurance, health insurance, social security, unemployment insurance. The cost of disincentives in these programs is small compared to the benefits they provide.

Working for miminum wage is no great shakes. You can't even rise above the poverty line on it, not with a family.

It's poverty, not welfare, that gets inherited. Children of poor parents, are likely to be poor and remain so. Just as children of the rich tend to be rich and stay rich.

Doesn't the Fed work to keep unemployment from dropping too low? Yes, it does. So get rid of welfare, what happens to the 4%, or the 6%, that can't even find a crappy job? They're not gonna be turning to crime? None of them?

The truth is you have no evidence to back up your claim that welfare is anything but beneficial. Saying something is so does not make it a truth. There are SOME people who will abuse ANY program, and they are found from the bottom to the top of our society.

Once again, I say, if you are going to attack fat government spending on subsidies to Americans, start with the ones who don't need an extra couple of billion, not the ones barely getting enough to feed their children.

I can trade statistics with you. We all know the "lies, damn lies and statistics" quote. Comparing Canada with the US is once again comparing apples and oranges. The subsidation of illegitimate births leads to more illegitimate births. It is pretty much an ironclad law in economics if you want more of something you subsidize it, if you want less of it you tax it. We tax working citizens and give their money to welfare bums. Illegitimate children have a higher rate of crime, homelessness and poverty. I never said that welfare bums lived in the lap of luxury, of course they can and do supplement their income through black market activities such as prostitution and drug dealing. We have spent trillions of dollars to produce greater poverty, higher crime, increased homelessness and untold human misery. The full positive effects of destroying the welfare culture will take a generation to bloom. Corporate welfare is bad, individual welfare is evil because it attacks the basic social unit, the family.

It certainly would be wonderful if 90 percent of those parents become employed. That is a situation that would make us all happy. You know this for a fact I gather? The welfare system is being overhauled right now. Why do you keep harping on it?

Corporate welfare is not being overhauled, but that doesn't bother you it seems.

Madtown

There are plenty of minimum wage jobs. people want to work they can find a job. Corporate welfare has little to do with homelessness. I am against all transfer payments.

Homeless people are not on welfare.

This thread is suppose to be about how to help the homeless.

Madtown.

If you read the previous replies you see welfare brought up as part of the solution to homelessness. I am arguing that welfare actually, in the long run, puts more people in danger of being homeless. Try reading all the replies next time. The best way to help the homeless is to instill a work ethic in them when they are young, so they will not end up homeless.

I've been fortunate to know a lot of people at a lot of different levels of society, from welfare recipients to a college friend who's dad was the CEO of Time Warner. Not only are almost all people interesting to discover, but the range of laziness, work ethic, and every other trait has no hold over any one group. The CEO's son was one of the laziest people I've ever known. He had been kicked out of or flunked out of too many schools to count. He is, of course, an individual, and not representative of all super-rich people. The same is true of all people. Sure, there are lazy poor people, but I have met many, many more lazy wealthy people.

It's so easy to talk about work ethic. We can speak as if these people are just concepts, but they are not. They are people just as complex and varied as you and me. What is work ethic? Welfare sucks. While my wife was in nursing school, and we had a young son, we were on AFDC, WIC, Food Stamps, Medicaid. You know what? It sucked. It wasn't fun, and it was in no way a financial system that allowed laziness. I was working at minimum wage eventually, and after all we were never in danger of homelessness or anything; we both came from middle class backgrounds. But I did get to know an awful lot of people at the lower end of the economic ladder.

Why do you think welfare encourages laziness? Sure, we can trade statistics. But the truth is that the jobs available to many of these people are very hard, labor intensive jobs. I know far more "poor" people who work damn hard than rich people.

Getting rid of welfare would absolutely increase homelessness. And what sort of work ethic is instilled in kids when their mother or parents work three jobs to make ends meet? Are they going to learn a work ethic? No, because their parents don't have time to do anything with their kids, let alone instill values about work. All the kids know is that they hardly get to see mommy. Isn't there something to be said for allowing a parent to be home a reasonable amount of the time, in order to really teach their children values?

I don't have a job. I've been a stay at home father for four years now. So are my kids learning laziness from me because of it? Hell no. Parenting is hard work for no money. I am constantly busy, laundering, cleaning, cooking, helping with school projects, etc. If anything, the immediacy of my work is probably MORE likely to instill a work ethic than my simply being absent.

Your kids are not learning to let Uncle Sam pay your bills. Nothing wrong with one parent in a two parent household staying home. You are correct, there is enough laziness without it being subsidized.

I did read the entire thread Hugo, There is no need to be snoty.

I also realize that Quarkhead introduced welfare into the debate as a way to help homelessness. His posts have been full of information and insights into homelessness that could be discussed, if you were really interested in doing that.

It seems to me that you are not interested in any discussion on how to help homelessness. This is because you have already decided that homeless people are just a bunch of lazy bums, who like to live on the street or in shelters and are not deserving of any sort of welfare programs which may help them. I was tired of your repetitious posts and wanted to move on.

Studies show that homelessness was recognized as a big social problem in the early 1080’s. It was thought that the cause was the recession of 1981-82 and would go away when the economy recovered.

Studies also leave no question that extreme poverty is the reason people are homeless, although many very poor people never become homeless. Other vulnerabilities enter into the picture, such as low levels of education, few job skills, exhaustion of social supports or COMPLETE LACK OF FAMILY, problems with alcohol or drug use, severe mental illness, childhood experiences of violence and victimization, and experiences of out-of –home placement. (as in orphanages?)

So, Hugo, I don’t agree with your simplistic, uninformed, mean spirited posts on how to help the homeless.

Madtown

MT - isn't calling hugo "meanspirited" and "uninformed" also "snotty"?

Anyway...

In theory, I tend to agree with hugo. I think some forms of welfare tend to breed more homelessness than encourage it (*ducks as the tomatoes fly*).

I would love to be able to help the homeless but many homeless people refuse to want to help themselves. Have you ever tried to give a homeless person food (the type that actually lives on the streets)? Some will take it but many will just throw it back at you and yell at you because you won't give them money.

I think it is important to differentiate between different types of homeless people. There are the temporary homeless (such as abused spouses who finally make the break and folks who hit hard times and don't have a support network) and then there are the chronically homeless. Those people tend to either have substance abuse problems or have mental illnesses (sometimes caused by their substance abuse).

I fully advocate helping people who need temporary help. I also think we could do more to address the mental illnesses of some of these people (although I don't support the government doing it. I would prefer private organizations).

I have a REAL problem with helping people who abuse substances and refuse to help themselves. Sure they're sad saps now and some may argue they need help "getting off the drugs." I say too bad for those people. There was a day in each of their lives where they took that first drink, that first snort or injection. They made that decision to do that. I did not force them into their lifestyles and I get very angry when I have to pay for them.

And yes, I'm am fully aware of the tired argument that I will pay to jail them if I don't feed them. Good. Jail them then. Make them work in prison and give something back

I'd like to steer this back to the topic: homelessness. I only brought up welfare to demonstrate that 1) homeless people are not ON welfare, and 2) that welfare reductions WILL increase the homeless population. Of course I went for the bait with hugo's unsupported ideas, sorry for getting into a welfare debate.

The question is, what do we do about homeless people? Hugo, I'd love to hear a constructive answer. If it is "let them starve," just come out and say it. Is it private charities? Without government subsidies (and massive ones at that) charities won't have enough beds and resources to care for the homeless. Which still puts you back to government subsidies.

It is compassion which drives us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the unhomed. And compassion can NOT be abstracted to allow for your generation of starvation. It is immediate and personal, and to turn it into a political expediency is to render it meaningless.

When I fed the poor they called me a saint. When I asked why the poor were hungry, they called me a socialist.

Snotty? If he can dish it out, he can take it.

My point is, there are many reasons why people are homeless and it isn't because they are ALL lazy good-for-nothings. I agree with you on the short term help. I don't think people are all that crazy about staying on welfare.

I have never offered food to a homeless person, but I am a regular contributor to food pantries.

Concerning substance abuse: It's usually not the alcohol that causes mental illness, but the other way around. A great many mentally ill people use alcohol to self-medicate.

There are some private organizations that work with the mentally ill, but not enough and they are overworked and under funded. Even insurance companies don't give them a fair deal.

What is wrong with government programs that help people acquire work skills, find jobs and housing? Programs that can turn people around into contributing citizens? I'd rather my money go in that direction than to build more prisons.

Madtown

I cannot imagine any condition where I would end up homeless. I have friends and relatives that would help me out in a pinch. Furthermore, none of my friends or relatives would end up homeless either if they simply gave me a call. Now if after I let them live with me they stole from me and abused my hospitality and showed no inclination to help themselves they would be out the door.

Well Quark, there's your "constructive answer" from Hugo.

It's not going to happen to him, so we might as well close the thread. It's all about him.

He has nothing to say about those without family or friends.

Nothing to say about the mentally ill.

Nothing to say about those who are physically ill.

Nothing to say about those who are mentally retarded.

Nothing to say about the CHILDREN.

Nothing to say.

Madtown