NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think should be done about the homeless people?

A lot of people believe that those people are there because they want to be and that they are all on drugs and alcohol. I disagree with that.

My six-point plan to deal with it is:

1. Life skills training--Some of these people may not have the skills to go out and get a job. Train them to live life off the streets.
2. More public-sector jobs--Get these people a job once they have gone through life skills training.
3. Increase in welfare--Some people really can't work.
4. Government-sponsored housing programs for low-income people--So they don't have to freeze at night.
5. Assistance for the mentally ill--Government money put aside to look after these people so they don't end up on the streets.
6. Drug/alcohol rehab--Even if not all homeless people are addicts, there are some addicts out there. We need government-funded rehab.

Any thoughts?

This looks like a good plan!! It has my backing

Sounds good to me :D

Abolish capitalism and replace it with worker self management and free distribution.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Abolish capitalism and replace it with worker self management and free distribution.


Even better!

Abolish capitalism and replace it with worker self management and free distribution.


Even better!

i really hope thats sarcasm :roll:

Well, I don't agree with free enterprise either, but I don't think that would be practical to eliminate in most of the world.

Big Government ----> Bigger Government

I don't see why we should essentially subsidize this lifestyle. Welfare is already given out. As is low-cost housing. Drugs and alcohol play a big part in homelessness.

I agree that people should be given a chance, but if someone that has an education decides not to work or do drugs, then thats their choice.

Your sounds good dude.

I think we should find more public jobs for them. Like the ones the prisoners do for community service.

The prisoners are being punished by taking the jobs of those who may deserve them. The homeless shelters should have them work around the city.

It's a good plan, unfortunately I think it would fall apart in the implementation.


A lot of people believe that those people are there because they want to be and that they are all on drugs and alcohol. I disagree with that.

Do people still think this? I thought this idea left town with the Regan administration and, considering the recent slump in global economics, I would have thought that would be the last nail in the coffin of this concept. Oh well, live and learn.


My six-point plan to deal with it is:

1. Life skills training--Some of these people may not have the skills to go out and get a job. Train them to live life off the streets.

Programs like this already exist. The problem lies in that they are underfunded, understaffed and underutilized. How can you expect people to learn a new trade which can take months when they don't have any place to live that night or money to buy food and, even if they learn the trade, there's no guarantee of gainful employement afterwards?


2. More public-sector jobs--Get these people a job once they have gone through life skills training.

An excellent idea, but again, where? I assume you're referring to goernmental jobs. Perhaps it could be a self feeding system where the first couple of generations of those going through the life skills training could be taught how to teach other homeless/unemployed members of society the skills they were taught and employed like that. However, eventually you'll run into the problem of government bloat and a huge public sector that's living off of taxes. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, because I think it is, just that it's not a fiat.


3. Increase in welfare--Some people really can't work.

Amen. Along with this, though, there must be stricter controls on welfare benefits. It does seem kind of pointless to say a mother who has five children and continues to have babies she can't support is in the same situation as someone who was born with a mental handicap and has no familial support network to rely on. Both of them are in a completely different class, though, from people who can work but simply don't. There are those out there like that and welfare dispersal must find a way to weed them out.


4. Government-sponsored housing programs for low-income people--So they don't have to freeze at night.

Tenements? I'm not saying it couldn't work, it just hasn't given the past models. A new model must be developed. Also, there are programs like this in place and, again, you are running into the problems of underfunding, understaffing and underutilization by people who truly need the benefits.


5. Assistance for the mentally ill--Government money put aside to look after these people so they don't end up on the streets.

Absolutely. No question.


6. Drug/alcohol rehab--Even if not all homeless people are addicts, there are some addicts out there. We need government-funded rehab.

Well, there is government funded rehab, at least in the US. Sure, it's constantly being raided and it's funds appropriated for other sources, but it's there. The problem with both drug and alcohol abuse is that, unless the abuser admits there's a problem and sincerely commits themselves to change, all the rehab in the world won't keep them off their addiction.

Any thoughts?[/quote]

. . .I agree that people should be given a chance,. . .

Statistics show that more rich people than poor people go to university. The poor simply cannot afford it.

Thats what student loans and scolarships are for.

Perhaps the biggest reason more poor people don't go to universities is the fact that inner city schools are rather bad, and teachers unions like to paralyze many things. School Vouchers try to help this, although they haven't been implemented too much as of now.

Gerecht kaufen Sie sie einen Kasten und thats alle, die sie mir vertrauen müssen :lol:

Thats what student loans and scolarships are for.

Perhaps the biggest reason more poor people don't go to universities is the fact that inner city schools are rather bad, and teachers unions like to paralyze many things.

Inner city schools are bad because they don't have access to the same funding as suburban schools. As for teachers unions "paralyzing" things, that's just insane. Unions hold no power for teachers, as can be see by the starting salary for a first year teacher averaging just a little over $20,000 annually. Many first year teachers are then fired after their first year so never have a chance to establish a rapor with thier school or ever improve their salary over this point. Additionally, many teachers hands are tied in what they can and can't teach children because parents refuse to be supportive. There are many things wrong with our system of public education, but do not blame the teachers for the majority of them. That's like blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.

Good ideas everyone.

A teacher with tenure can easily cost over $100,000 to remove even in blatant cases - such as one, in San Fransisco, who put 6 year olds in a trash can, closed the lid, and kicked the can repeatedly. Only was this teacher suspended when another teacher spoke out against her, after the whistleblower heard the bad teacher threatening to cut a 6-year olds genetalia off. It took over $100,000 to get this teacher out of the school system. The fact of the matter is, a great many public school teachers are incompetent. Even in Massachusettes, one of (if not the) heaviest taxed states in the Union, had over 1/2 of its teachers qualified as incompetent a few years ago. Nothing can be done to fire them, without great cost, or even reduce their pay - as the pay schedule is set in stone. This also leads to the more qualified, better teachers moving to private schools in order to both make more money as a first-year teacher and be rewarded for producing results via tests, which can't be done in public school systems (and bad teachers can't be punished with less pay).

Teachers unions also fund efforts to block School Voucher programs, which would probably increase inner city education levels. And school privatization programs, which have been expiramented with in certain cities. These have worked to varying degrees, some being good, while others being nothing more than another name for the public school system.

In Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis, spending per-pupil outweighed that of suburban pupils in the metropolitan area. In New York and Ft. Worth, it was vice versa. In Oakland and Denver there was no pattern of spending that favored the inner city or suburban schools. (GAO : http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03234.pdf