NationStates Jolt Archive

What can we do about homelessness? It depends on your fundamental outlook on the issue. I for one, do not believe that people are homeless because they are lazy or stupid. No one in their right mind would want to live on the street! From working with homeless people, I can say in a fairly informed manner that the majority of people living on the streets are: mentally ill, or there as the result of a cataclysmic change in their lives (unemployment due to disability, escaping abuse at home, the death of the family's breadwinner etc). Yet somehow, there is still the wider perception that these people CHOOSE to be there. In fact, the Premier of Alberta (that's in Canada), Ralph Klein, got drunk one night, burst into a homeless shelter and tossed bills at the startled sleepers while yelling at them to get jobs. Not only did he NOT lose major face for this...many of my fellow rednecks APPLAUDED him for saying, "what was on everyone's mind". Sick.

I think that we like to hide our homeless and our very poor in the West. They majority aren't dressed in rags, or stumbling around drunk and stoned, so we don't notice when that little old lady walks by, checking each trash can for something to eat as she goes. She doesn't LOOK homeless...because she has donated second-hand clothes on...and she is relatively clean because she can access public washrooms. So it can't be that bad, right? Those kids sitting on the corner? They probably have huge houses and rich parents to go back to, but they think it's cool to hang out on the street, right? They couldn't be there because of abuse, or because they're orphans, because the government makes sure kids like that are taken care of. Always. That crazy old guy who refuses to go into a shelter obviously wants to stay on the street! Who cares that his judgment is impaired by severe mental illness. It's a free country, and he can live in an alley if he wants!

This seems to be the opinion of too many, and so homelessness and poverty remain unimportant issues to our politicians. It's a real, "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, just like I did, and my old man before me," attitude that denies people their basic humanity. People don't choose to be homeless, and they need help to get out of that situation. I only hope that if it happens to any of those who agreed with my Premier, someone will be there to catch them when they fall. I wouldn't wish homelessness on anyone.

I dont know about the states buddy, but in the UK a shitload of homeless people are mentally ill folks that have been abandoned by our "welfare state"
edit- it does suck ass that this isnt more of an issue at election time don t it?

It really amazes me how many people will say "they just need to get a job like everyone else". How many job applications have you filled out where you weren't required to put an address?! And even if it was possible for them to use a shelter address, there would be all kinds of discrimination against them from almost every employer out there! I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible for the homeless to have any kind of a job, but it's much harder than most people think, and I think more should be done to help the process along.

I dont know about the states buddy, but in the UK a shitload of homeless people are mentally ill folks that have been abandoned by our "welfare state"
edit- it does suck ass that this isnt more of an issue at election time don t it?

I don't know about the states either:). I'm Canadian, and sorry for living up to the stereotype, but we just don't want to be labelled in with the Yanks!

The same thing has happened in Canada. There used to be a lot more funding for the mentally ill or mentally handicapped, and that has been steadily eroded until they are pretty much left on their own. If they have family members able to care for them, great, if not, they're up the creek in a leaky canoe. My husband is from Chile, and he was shocked by all the "crazies" walking around when he first got here 10 years ago...he started thinking that people in Canada were really nuts, because in his country, they mentally ill were cared for. Now that is changing in Chile too, so it seems to be a growing trend: get rich by ditching the excess baggage.

Yet how often is this a serious campaign issue? It's always pushed to the back, because frankly, homeless people and the truly poor rarely vote.

Homelessness is your tax cut in action,

soak it up.

I dont know about the states buddy, but in the UK a shitload of homeless people are mentally ill folks that have been abandoned by our "welfare state"
edit- it does suck ass that this isnt more of an issue at election time don t it?

Homeless can't vote.
Western democracy is about winning votes.
Only Athenian democracy really cared about the polis; democracy now is about the individual and everyone being unhappy because there's no community spirit.

I don't know about the states either:). I'm Canadian, and sorry for living up to the stereotype, but we just don't want to be labelled in with the Yanks!

The same thing has happened in Canada. There used to be a lot more funding for the mentally ill or mentally handicapped, and that has been steadily eroded until they are pretty much left on their own. If they have family members able to care for them, great, if not, they're up the creek in a leaky canoe. My husband is from Chile, and he was shocked by all the "crazies" walking around when he first got here 10 years ago...he started thinking that people in Canada were really nuts, because in his country, they mentally ill were cared for. Now that is changing in Chile too, so it seems to be a growing trend: get rich by ditching the excess baggage.

Yet how often is this a serious campaign issue? It's always pushed to the back, because frankly, homeless people and the truly poor rarely vote.

And so the capitalist machine lurches on occasionally throttling those in its path.
Much like Bardiel really.

It's interesting that the people who are voting: Laziness, get a job!: aren't providing any reasons for their choice. Are you people just being facetious? Or are you serious? I'm interested in hearing your take on homelessness.

None of the above. As you say yourself:

No one in their right mind would want to live on the street! From working with homeless people, I can say in a fairly informed manner that the majority of people living on the streets are: mentally ill, or there as the result of a cataclysmic change in their lives (unemployment due to disability, escaping abuse at home, the death of the family's breadwinner etc).

Those who have had an economic crisis are temporary, the so called "hardcore" homeless are the mentally ill who have chosen to live on the street.

The "explosion" in homelessness in North America is two fold in reasons: 1) the excessive "compasion" of the left that deinstitutionalized many patients, and 2) the lack of spending by the right (not necessarily government spending - charitable spending needs to be there even more so....)

Many experts pointed to the "deinstitutionalizing" of patients in mental hospitals that occurred in the Sixties and Seventies as part of the problem. In the early 1960s, days of heady and high-minded social reform, the decision was made to begin closing the "snake pits" -- mental hospitals -- and to create a new system of local mental health centers. To that end, President John F. Kennedy signed the Community Mental Health Centers Act in 1963. It was hoped that new wonder drugs would enable many patients to function once they were reintroduced into society. The result: the number of patients in state mental hospitals declined from over 500,000 in 1960 to 150,000 twenty years later. But community-based services were not adequate to take up the slack; by 1988 it was estimated that most of the nation's largest cities had no more than 10% of the institutional placements necessary for the mentally ill.

source (http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id343.htm)



So what's to be done?
1) Strengthen the laws allowing people to be commited against their will.
2) Spend more (preferably private funds - more efficient) on institutions.
3) Strengthen (or simply enforce) vagrancy laws.

This may seem harsh, but it is probably the most workable solution..

There are actually some really big questions here:
1) How do we reconcile personal freedom with incapacity (mental illness)? In otherwords, is it right to lock up those who are a danger to themselves. (I assume we will agree that it is ok to lock up those who are dangerous to others...)
1a) Where do we draw the line with this? Only physical danger? Or does economic damage (decreased property values, for example) come into play?

2) How do we reconcile incapacity (again in the form of mental illness) with the economic needs of the general population, or should society be forced to spend the fruits of their labor supporting non-functional members?

3) How do we measure incapacity? Does the inability to live in "normal" circumstances automatically make you incapable? What if you sipmly decide to drop[ out of society, but are not mentally ill (Thoreau-esque)?

It's interesting that the people who are voting: Laziness, get a job!: aren't providing any reasons for their choice. Are you people just being facetious? Or are you serious? I'm interested in hearing your take on homelessness.
I'm serious. My grandmother moved here from an Eastern European country during the height of discrimination against them, with no money or contacts. All she had was English. She did just fine, because she tried and she worked. I don't expect any less of citizens.

For everyone saying it was economics that led to deinstitutionalization, please note that the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill wasn't simply an economic decision. Originally it was considered a human rights issue - we can't confine people against their will, even if (or perhapse especially if) they are mentally ill. This was a reaction to the horrors of mental institutions. Read Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451163966/102-9362492-2725728?v=glance). They were awful places. But turning these people out to live on the streets ended up an unforeseen result of well meaning legislation.

Just because you are homeless does not make you mentally ill.

There are many homeless families in America. A single mother loses her income but has children to take care of sometimes end up on the streets living out of their car. I went to public school with a friend that lived in a car for 4 months before his mother received any assistance.

Think about the elderly. Imagine growing older and losing your job just before retirement. Companies oftwen do these sorts of things - It happens all the time in the US. Many elderly people don't have any living relatives and they can't depend on friends to help them. Several people end up living in the streets because of this one.

Just because you are homeless does not make you mentally ill.

There are many homeless families in America. A single mother loses her income but has children to take care of sometimes end up on the streets living out of their car. I went to public school with a friend that lived in a car for 4 months before his mother received any assistance.

Think about the elderly. Imagine growing older and losing your job just before retirement. Companies oftwen do these sorts of things - It happens all the time in the US. Many elderly people don't have any living relatives and they can't depend on friends to help them. Several people end up living in the streets because of this one.
The wealthiest demographic is old people. If they're responsible they've saved something up. If they spent all their money on cable TV and a third car and whatnot, nuts to them.

I'm serious. My grandmother moved here from an Eastern European country during the height of discrimination against them, with no money or contacts. All she had was English. She did just fine, because she tried and she worked. I don't expect any less of citizens.

This is that "pull yourself up by your bootstraps like I did, and my father before me" attitude I referred to earlier. Your grandmother made it with little going in her favour, and so should everyone else. Well I doubt your grandmother was seriously mentally ill, or physically impaired. She was probably not mentally handicapped, or so shaken by abuse that she couldn't function normally. She probably wasn't brought to your country by gang members and then forced into prostitution. Your grandmother, therefore, falls into the smaller category of people who are temporarily homeless. Many of the temporary homeless can get out of their situation, because they have the life skills to do so. Others need a bit of help (as your grandmother was helped, by whoever hired her) to get out of their situation. The majority of homeless people, however, fall into the one of the categories I listed above and are not homeless temporarily. I challenge you to be in any one of the above situations and get out of it without help.



So what's to be done?
1) Strengthen the laws allowing people to be commited against their will.
2) Spend more (preferably private funds - more efficient) on institutions.
3) Strengthen (or simply enforce) vagrancy laws.

These are some good points. It's a slippery slope when we talk about taking away a person's personal freedom, even if they are incapacitated by a handicap or mental illness. It's the same problem many people face with aging parents suffering from dementia. Is it better to force them into a home, and watch them wither, or let them face possibly dangerous conditions in their own home. Tough call. A lot of people with mental illnesses lose their homes when they go off their medication, but again, no one can FORCE them to remain medicated. I don't have an answer here, other than there need to be more funding to services that monitor the health of those who are homeless. If their living situation becomes such that they are in imminent physical danger, then they should be temporarily located, against their will if necessary.


2) How do we reconcile incapacity (again in the form of mental illness) with the economic needs of the general population, or should society be forced to spend the fruits of their labor supporting non-functional members?

There again we run into the issue of fundamental belief systems. As a lefty, I believe that we should indeed support non-functional members (as well as encouraging their functionality...I mean, just because you're old or mentally handicapped or mentally ill, doesn't mean you are useless!). I am willing to pay taxes that ensure there is a safety net in place for people in hard times, as well as services that ensure a basic minimum standard of living for all citizens, regardless of their situation. Others will disagree, and argue that the private sector is better suited to do this, but I don't think you can make money off of providing social services, and the experiments to do just that have all failed miserably.


3) How do we measure incapacity? Does the inability to live in "normal" circumstances automatically make you incapable? What if you sipmly decide to drop[ out of society, but are not mentally ill (Thoreau-esque)?

I'm not sure what you mean by dropping out of society...perhaps like becoming a hobo, no fixed address, adventuring through the land? No, we can't force people to live in one place. We should have the help available for those who need it, and the resources to seek out those who neither realise there IS help, nor that they need it. Some people refusing to leave the streets may be mentally ill, but not to the extent that it is obvious. They may seem rational, and they may end up falling through the cracks. However, there is a marked difference between someone like that, and someone who suffers from delusions and thinks you're coming to kill them, not help them. The way things stand now, there just isn't the money to fund any sort of follow up on the truly homeless. That needs to change.

This is that "pull yourself up by your bootstraps like I did, and my father before me" attitude I referred to earlier. Your grandmother made it with little going in her favour, and so should everyone else. Well I doubt your grandmother was seriously mentally ill, or physically impaired. She was probably not mentally handicapped, or so shaken by abuse that she couldn't function normally. She probably wasn't brought to your country by gang members and then forced into prostitution. Your grandmother, therefore, falls into the smaller category of people who are temporarily homeless. Many of the temporary homeless can get out of their situation, because they have the life skills to do so. Others need a bit of help (as your grandmother was helped, by whoever hired her) to get out of their situation. The majority of homeless people, however, fall into the one of the categories I listed above and are not homeless temporarily. I challenge you to be in any one of the above situations and get out of it without help.

The truly mentally ill will never be functional. They should be institutionalized. As for the rest, it is not my fault that a woman got beaten, or a man got handicapped, or someone lost his job. Why are they now suddenly MY responsibility?

Just because you are homeless does not make you mentally ill.

There are many homeless families in America. A single mother loses her income but has children to take care of sometimes end up on the streets living out of their car. I went to public school with a friend that lived in a car for 4 months before his mother received any assistance.

Think about the elderly. Imagine growing older and losing your job just before retirement. Companies oftwen do these sorts of things - It happens all the time in the US. Many elderly people don't have any living relatives and they can't depend on friends to help them. Several people end up living in the streets because of this one.

That's all true. I apologize if it looked like I was labelling all homeless people as mentally ill...I tried hard to avoid that. It's also true that people that are homeless for economic reasons aren't always just there temporarily. Especially in the case of the elderly, it could be an until-they-die situation. Many of those elders worked all their lives, but still can't afford to own or rent a home on their pensions. Justify that!?

The wealthiest demographic is old people. If they're responsible they've saved something up. If they spent all their money on cable TV and a third car and whatnot, nuts to them.

If they were foolish enough to let their children fritter their savings away, or *gasp*, heavens forbid, they sold their house to pay for an expensive operation for themselves, or a family member, then they were just being irresponsible. Families today, with two incomes who STILL can't afford to save anything after the bills are just irresponsible for not preparing for their future. If they end up in the streets because their government pension no longer exists, and their kids refuse to take care of them, then nuts to them.

May you never find yourself in this situation, with someone thumbing their nose at your "irresponsibility".

The truly mentally ill will never be functional. They should be institutionalized. As for the rest, it is not my fault that a woman got beaten, or a man got handicapped, or someone lost his job. Why are they now suddenly MY responsibility?

You should educate yourself a bit more about mental illness (and I don't mean that to be insulting). Many people with mental illnesses are perfectly functional if they are on medication, or being treated on a regular basis by a psychiatrist. In fact, you probably work with, or live around people with mental illnesses, and aren't even aware of it. Grouped in with mental illness is also various shades of senile dementia, like Alzheimer's, and many of these states are age-related. Should we just lock up all the old people too? Depression is also a mental illness... and if controlled, does not interfere with a person's ability to work.

I think you are probably also grouping mental handicaps in with mental illness. A mental handicap, such as is common among those with Down's syndrome, also does not exclude a person from being "functional". Many of those people are able to hold jobs and live normal lives with a minimum of intervention. Others need a bit more help. None of these people deserve to be locked away and forgotten about.

No, you didn't abuse that woman, or cause a man to lose his legs, or fire someone, but if you want to be part of a society, instead of a man alone on an island, you have certain responsibilities as a member of that society. The amount of responsibility you have depends on the political system in your country, but even the most right-wing countries realise that a certain amount of social services are needed. High unemployment is bad for EVERYONE, not just for the unemployed. Lack of services for abused people is bad for EVERYONE...especially if that person turns around and abuses someone you know in return. Any of these situations could happen to you...you are not immune, and you should be happy to know that if something terrible DOES happen to you, or a person you love, you will not be totally on your own. The society you choose to be a member of has some policies in place to help...to what extent depends.

I don't believe most people are homeless because of laziness . . . even though I do believe that unconditional welfare may lead to it.

If they were foolish enough to let their children fritter their savings away, or *gasp*, heavens forbid, they sold their house to pay for an expensive operation for themselves, or a family member, then they were just being irresponsible. Families today, with two incomes who STILL can't afford to save anything after the bills are just irresponsible for not preparing for their future. If they end up in the streets because their government pension no longer exists, and their kids refuse to take care of them, then nuts to them.

May you never find yourself in this situation, with someone thumbing their nose at your "irresponsibility".
What bills? Operations because they didn't have insurance? Car payments because they didn't want a bike? House payments because they didn't want a condo? It's all about choices.

You should educate yourself a bit more about mental illness (and I don't mean that to be insulting). Many people with mental illnesses are perfectly functional if they are on medication, or being treated on a regular basis by a psychiatrist. In fact, you probably work with, or live around people with mental illnesses, and aren't even aware of it. Grouped in with mental illness is also various shades of senile dementia, like Alzheimer's, and many of these states are age-related. Should we just lock up all the old people too? Depression is also a mental illness... and if controlled, does not interfere with a person's ability to work.

I think you are probably also grouping mental handicaps in with mental illness. A mental handicap, such as is common among those with Down's syndrome, also does not exclude a person from being "functional". Many of those people are able to hold jobs and live normal lives with a minimum of intervention. Others need a bit more help. None of these people deserve to be locked away and forgotten about.

No, you didn't abuse that woman, or cause a man to lose his legs, or fire someone, but if you want to be part of a society, instead of a man alone on an island, you have certain responsibilities as a member of that society. The amount of responsibility you have depends on the political system in your country, but even the most right-wing countries realise that a certain amount of social services are needed. High unemployment is bad for EVERYONE, not just for the unemployed. Lack of services for abused people is bad for EVERYONE...especially if that person turns around and abuses someone you know in return. Any of these situations could happen to you...you are not immune, and you should be happy to know that if something terrible DOES happen to you, or a person you love, you will not be totally on your own. The society you choose to be a member of has some policies in place to help...to what extent depends.
Very few mental illnesses can be treated without dangerous surgery or expensive drugs. And there is no guarantee either will work. Money is not the solution to that problem, research is.

If I really care about that woman, I'll donate money to a homeless charity. But it will be my decision to do so. Before you call me a heartless bastard, I do donate to charity for that purpose, and I volunteer. However, I do both of those because I can afford to and I feel like it. And that is how it should be.

Very few mental illnesses can be treated without dangerous surgery or expensive drugs. And there is no guarantee either will work. Money is not the solution to that problem, research is.

If I really care about that woman, I'll donate money to a homeless charity. But it will be my decision to do so. Before you call me a heartless bastard, I do donate to charity for that purpose, and I volunteer. However, I do both of those because I can afford to and I feel like it. And that is how it should be.

It's nice that your self-interest can occasionally be scaled up to include your fellow humans, arammanar. It's a good thing. Really.

Very few mental illnesses can be treated without dangerous surgery or expensive drugs. And there is no guarantee either will work. Money is not the solution to that problem, research is.

If I really care about that woman, I'll donate money to a homeless charity. But it will be my decision to do so. Before you call me a heartless bastard, I do donate to charity for that purpose, and I volunteer. However, I do both of those because I can afford to and I feel like it. And that is how it should be.

Luckily that isn't up to you. Like I said, you choose to be a part of your society, and your society taxes you to pay for a certain level of social services. I'm glad you donate, and I'm glad you volunteer, because NO society can cover all the bases, and invariably there is a need from NGOs to step in. However, if you are one of those people who thinks that charities alone can do the job, I believe you are mistaken. Notice I said believe...because it's never been wholly left up to NGOs, and so we don't know exactly how it would work out. However, no group of independent non-governmental organisations have the resources to deal in a holistic manner with the various social issues that need intervention. Only the government has that sort of power.

My objection with taxes for social programs is not that they exist, but that they are not used effectively. Too much of our money gets diverted or "disappears". By the time it gets to the agencies that need it, very little remains, and this is a beaureacratic problem. I'm fine with a mixed system of government and private (non-profit) solutions, but I would like both to be more efficient (and I don't mean that word in the right-wing sense of cutting budgets just because).

What are you ideas on dealing with the problem of homelessness? Now, even if you institutionalised all the mentally ill and handicapped, the money for that institution has to come from somewhere...how do you think that should be paid for? What can we do to cut down on homelessness, or do you think things are fine the way they are?

What are you ideas on dealing with the problem of homelessness? Now, even if you institutionalised all the mentally ill and handicapped, the money for that institution has to come from somewhere...how do you think that should be paid for? What can we do to cut down on homelessness, or do you think things are fine the way they are?
I think that if job applications asked for no personal information, including your name, and only required a social security number and a resume, things would be much better for the homeless and everyone. As for the mentally ill, institutions are just jails for those who haven't committed crimes. And no one should object to jails.

It's nice that your self-interest can occasionally be scaled up to include your fellow humans, arammanar. It's a good thing. Really.
I don't hear about you volunteering to help orphans in Uganda. I don't hear you taking a vow of poverty so you can better your fellow men. I just hear a lot of bitching. Lead by example.

As for the mentally ill, institutions are just jails for those who haven't committed crimes. And no one should object to jails.

I'm sorry, but I can't tell...are you joking here?

I think that if job applications asked for no personal information, including your name, and only required a social security number and a resume, things would be much better for the homeless and everyone. As for the mentally ill, institutions are just jails for those who haven't committed crimes. And no one should object to jails.

That's funny, I thought institutions were hospitals, not jails. No-one objects to hospitals. Inmates object to jails.

I'm sorry, but I can't tell...are you joking here?

no, Sinuhue, I honestly don't think he is. Soak it up.

I don't hear about you volunteering to help orphans in Uganda. I don't hear you taking a vow of poverty so you can better your fellow men. I just hear a lot of bitching. Lead by example.

Most of us don't have to justify ourselves by how much volunteer work we do, or how much we give to charity. We just do it. Don't make assumptions just because we don't all go around patting ourselves on the back.

Most of us don't have to justify ourselves by how much volunteer work we do, or how much we give to charity. We just do it. Don't make assumptions just because we don't all go around patting ourselves on the back.
Dobbs thinks you can only measure someone's worth to humanity by how much they donate to the government. Evidently, not everyone just does it.

Dobbs thinks you can only measure someone's worth to humanity by how much they donate to the government. Evidently, not everyone just does it.

Do you two know each other? I can't imagine otherwise how you were able to make this assumption about Dobbs. As well, taxes are not government donations...are you mixing up the two? Do you have any actual knowledge of what Dobbs may or not do in terms of charity or volunteering? There's no need to make this personal...we're discussing issues, not each other.

Do you two know each other? I can't imagine otherwise how you were able to make this assumption about Dobbs. As well, taxes are not government donations...are you mixing up the two? Do you have any actual knowledge of what Dobbs may or not do in terms of charity or volunteering? There's no need to make this personal...we're discussing issues, not each other.
Dobbs makes every thread personal. But anyway, taxes are something that the government says you have to pay for, since they know what they're doing and you don't. I find that offensive.

Dobbs makes every thread personal. But anyway, taxes are something that the government says you have to pay for, since they know what they're doing and you don't. I find that offensive.

Many people do. Railing against it won't get you far though...something about inevitabilty....death....taxes:). Taxes are another issue altogether, and we seem to be straying...I asked before about your ideas on dealing with homelessness. Care to share?

Many people do. Railing against it won't get you far though...something about inevitabilty....death....taxes:). Taxes are another issue altogether, and we seem to be straying...I asked before about your ideas on dealing with homelessness. Care to share?
I gave them. Those that are completely incompetent (IQ < 50 or so) lock them up until someone, be it a charity or a relative, wants to pay for an operation or what not. Those that are competent, have them apply for jobs using only their SSN, along with everyone. That way there's no race, age, or sexism.

I gave them. Those that are completely incompetent (IQ < 50 or so) lock them up until someone, be it a charity or a relative, wants to pay for an operation or what not. Those that are competent, have them apply for jobs using only their SSN, along with everyone. That way there's no race, age, or sexism.

So you're talking about mandatory IQ tests for all homeless people? Lock up the ones that don't score high, and the rest should just get jobs? By the way...I've never heard of an operation that ups your IQ, did I miss this month's issue of Scientific American? Or should they just be locked up until the technology is available?

This still doesn't deal with people that are mentally ill, but not mentally handicapped. You can be a genius and still be mentally ill. If they can't afford medication to help them, we lock them up? What about the potential loss to the advancement of your nation? What if Einstein had been bi-polar and living on the street? Would you advocate institutionalising him for that?

How about the people that aren't homeless and have a low IQ? Should they still be allowed to hold political office (sorry, cheap shot:)).

I don't hear about you volunteering to help orphans in Uganda. I don't hear you taking a vow of poverty so you can better your fellow men. I just hear a lot of bitching. Lead by example.

Look here, pal. I volunteer two days a week teaching computer skills to children living below the poverty line in my inner-city neighbourhood. I've been actively involved in co-operative housing. I have worked for a number of charities, as much as I may despise the fact that there is a necessity for the services they provide.

And I'm unemployed, spending a great deal of time and energy trying to rectify that situation, but I still have time for my fellow man. My self-interest doesn't prevent me from being of service to others.

My pockets may not be as deep as yours, arammanar, but that's the difference between wanting to invoke positive change, and grudgingly doling out 'chequebook charity' when you are so moved. It only costs me time and effort, but the rewards are palpable. You're just looking to have still more of your precous money, you're looking for a tax write-off.

Don't lecture me, I am a better man than all your curmudgeonly 'charity' will ever make you.

I'll be back in an hour. Debate on!

So you're talking about mandatory IQ tests for all homeless people? Lock up the ones that don't score high, and the rest should just get jobs? By the way...I've never heard of an operation that ups your IQ, did I miss this month's issue of Scientific American? Or should they just be locked up until the technology is available?

This still doesn't deal with people that are mentally ill, but not mentally handicapped. You can be a genius and still be mentally ill. If they can't afford medication to help them, we lock them up? What about the potential loss to the advancement of your nation? What if Einstein had been bi-polar and living on the street? Would you advocate institutionalising him for that?

How about the people that aren't homeless and have a low IQ? Should they still be allowed to hold political office (sorry, cheap shot:)).
That was just a suggestion. However, the SCOTUS says you can't execute retarded people, so we'll just use their definition, whatever it is.

Look here, pal. I volunteer two days a week teaching computer skills to children living below the poverty line in my inner-city neighbourhood. I've been actively involved in co-operative housing. I have worked for a number of charities, as much as I may despise the fact that there is a necessity for the services they provide.

And I'm unemployed, spending a great deal of time and energy trying to rectify that situation, but I still have time for my fellow man. My self-interest doesn't prevent me from being of service to others.

My pockets may not be as deep as yours, arammanar, but that's the difference between wanting to invoke positive change, and grudgingly doling out 'chequebook charity' when you are so moved. It only costs me time and effort, but the rewards are palpable. You're just looking to have still more of your precous money, you're looking for a tax write-off.

Don't lecture me, I am a better man than all your curmudgeonly 'charity' will ever make you.
You're hardly a better man. Right now you could be saving orphans, but instead you're tooting your own horn on a message board. Shame on you for all your sanctimonity.

Dobbs makes every thread personal. But anyway, taxes are something that the government says you have to pay for, since they know what they're doing and you don't. I find that offensive.

I take blithe callowness in the face of human suffering very personally, but no, I don't make every thread personal. Taxes are a necessity, and have been since the advent of government. I see no reason to be offended.

I take blithe callowness in the face of human suffering very personally, but no, I don't make every thread personal. Taxes are a necessity, and have been since the advent of government. I see no reason to be offended.
Taxes for charities are. Granted, I can't run a better army than a government. Or a better police force. Or a better school system. But I can and do perform charity better, and of my own free well.

You're hardly a better man. Right now you could be saving orphans, but instead you're tooting your own horn on a message board. Shame on you for all your sanctimonity.

right now I'm railing against sancitmony, your sancitmony. You were the one who wanted me to illustrate that I am kind and giving to others. Am I to satisfy your fancies by spending all of my time working to render assistance to those you grimly write tax-deductible donations to when it suits you? What of my needs?

anyway, I feel dulled by this exchange. away i go. good luck with your chequebook.

right now I'm railing against sancitmony, your sancitmony. You were the one who wanted me to illustrate that I am kind and giving to others. Am I to satisfy your fancies by spending all of my time working to render assistance to those you grimly write tax-deductible donations to when it suits you? What of my needs?
You don't have any needs. You have money. Therefore, by your own arguments, you should be giving it to those who have no money.

I dont know about the states buddy, but in the UK a shitload of homeless people are mentally ill folks that have been abandoned by our "welfare state"
edit- it does suck ass that this isnt more of an issue at election time don t it?

Two words:

Margaret Thatcher.

That was just a suggestion. However, the SCOTUS says you can't execute retarded people, so we'll just use their definition, whatever it is.

Ok...I honestly don't think I can take you seriously anymore. I really hope you are just playing the devil's advocate, and are not as bigoted as you appear to be.

So, to bring this issue back into the realm of the serious...what are some other ways we could deal with homelessness? Why is low-income housing(not slum housing) not being funded more? Couldn't we offer tax incentives to buiding contactors to get some decent, affordable housing built?

As well...so far only one person who voted that homelessness is an effect of laziness has stated why he or she thinks that way...

I am currently a person who knows many homeless people and I think that it is not lazyness and more of what I think is the holes and traps in society.

I am currently a person who knows many homeless people and I think that it is not lazyness and more of what I think is the holes and traps in society.

What do you identify as the holes and traps in society, and what do you think could be done to make up for that lack?

I do donate to charity for that purpose, and I volunteer. However, I do both of those because I can afford to and I feel like it. And that is how it should be.

I call bullshit. You have proven time and time again that you are incapable of compassion. You probably throw your used McDonald's wrappers out of your car window at the guy on the side of the road with a "Please Help" sign.

An "either/or" forced choice on issues like this will never bring out the full story. It's probably a bit of each.

I call bullshit. You have proven time and time again that you are incapable of compassion. You probably throw your used McDonald's wrappers out of your car window at the guy on the side of the road with a "Please Help" sign.

Keruvalia, thanks. Arramanar really kicks dirt on my soul. I know I shouldn't let it get to me, but...it's really distressing to think that he considers himself a great benifiter of humanity.

And I'm not blowing any trumpets. Or calling people 'moron'. Just wanted to give you a thumbs-up. Thanks again.

Peace.

An "either/or" forced choice on issues like this will never bring out the full story. It's probably a bit of each.

Then, how do we make sure that the people who have a genuine need are helped, and not ingnored because the few (lazy ones) ruin it for everyone?

Then, how do we make sure that the people who have a genuine need are helped, and not ingnored because the few (lazy ones) ruin it for everyone?

Answer that effectively and I, personally, will make sure you get some sort of Nobel prize.

Keruvalia, thanks. Arramanar really kicks dirt on my soul. I know I shouldn't let it get to me, but...it's really distressing to think that he considers himself a great benifiter of humanity.


Yes, well, it's just the attitude that I cannot stand. We are filling up the world with ourselves. There are more of us alive today than have ever lived and died in the entire history of the world.

With each of us comes our waste products and our pollutants. Also with each of us comes a certain amount of social responsibility.

True story from when I was a kid:

My dad lost his job when Reagan took office thanks to sudden wild shifts in the economy in Reagan's first year. We had to move to a smaller apartment in Houston and I had to share a room with my brother. We bitched a lot about it until my father took us in the car and drove us all the way into Mexico and showed us several families where there would be four or five kids all crammed into the same small room and they were pretty happy just to have a roof.

We never bitched again about what we had and still, to this day, I will never take for granted that I have what I have now considering the utter destitute lives others may lead. It was a serious lesson in appreciation, compassion, and empathy.

I think Arammanar's problem is that he's probably never been truly poor or even truly seen poverty. He probably thinks all those guys with signs on the street corners go home at night in their BMWs to a five bedroom house.

Maybe somone needs to take him on a road trip to the Ozarks or to a Native American reservation and let him say to all of them how lazy they are and how they should boot-strap themselves to success.

The thing about homeless people is: Yes, they probably are mostly homeless for reasons not including laziness. The real problem is, money is not a solution, becasue this gives them alcohol money, im not saying all homeless people are alcoholics, but it is a problem, the real way to fix it, is to make jobs for homeless people. They are pretty dirty coming right off the streets (its the truth, it doesnt sound good but lets be honest) so thier first jobs should involve some kind of manual labor if they are built for it, or some other job that does not involve sanitation of any kind. then as they get enough money for some clothes and stuff (obviously these people will needa place to live during employment, so that should be provided) they can be moved up to a more permanent job that pays even better. Along the way there should be no very low wages, or anything of that sort, they should get as much money as the next man (of equal skill, this isnt communism).......etc. i think this "TYPE" of program would be good, involving, help thru employment, even very basic, low level jobs. Obviously the program I have just outlined is filled with problems of its own, but something similair would work good becasue the program could partially pay for itself, some kind of a homeless person run corporation that does odd jobs and moves its employees up the ladder to help them get thier lives back on track

for some homeless people, welfare can help too...



a little off subject----------->(But for those of you who are lazy and use welfare to sit around and watch TV all day...I hope you die a horrible death)