Out of the dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of homeless they had access to they happened to stumble across the magic number 13 and select 13 people who money would be their panacea and solve their issues as well as be competent enough to manage their money in the long term.
They looked at the needs of the many and selected 13 who they thought would both find the money useful for their problems and be able to handle it and gave them money.
Otherwise, they hit the statistical jackpot in finding the perfect 13 folks for their perfect little article.
I'm not saying what they did is a bad thing- I am very glad those people were helped in a fashion that was actually helpful to them but to think the 13 perfect samples were actually any sort of random draw of the general homeless population is probably not an accurate assessment of what happened.
-S
If you're replying to me, you aren't actually addressing anything I talked about.
You're focusing on the 13 people and the specific actions taken in helping them. While that is important and useful, you're ignoring how the APPROACH taken to arrive at that solution is different.
Don't focus on a specific solution. Focus on how solutions are found.
Out of the dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of homeless they had access to they happened to stumble across the magic number 13 and select 13 people who money would be their panacea and solve their issues as well as be competent enough to manage their money in the long term.
They looked at the needs of the many and selected 13 who they thought would both find the money useful for their problems and be able to handle it and gave them money.
Otherwise, they hit the statistical jackpot in finding the perfect 13 folks for their perfect little article.
I'm not saying what they did is a bad thing- I am very glad those people were helped in a fashion that was actually helpful to them but to think the 13 perfect samples were actually any sort of random draw of the general homeless population is probably not an accurate assessment of what happened.
And you know this how? Have you seen their methodology? I haven't. Would you support a larger scale trial of the concept, just to be sure they didn't just hit the statistical jackpot.
As I've said several times, the fact they picked a heroin addict suggests they weren't screening too carefully, so maybe they just got real lucky in finding one who could kick the habit.What do you think of the larger concept and the other examples they talk about, where just giving money without supervision worked better than more traditional welfare?
I personally suspect they approached it with the wrong school of thought. I've often wondered if welfare is actually intended to help people or if it is intended to trap them.
Edit: No conspiracy theory here. Just wondering at the premise behind how it currently works and the thought process behind it. Because it, combined with the conventional wisdom you pointed out, really does seem to be more focused on helping those more well-off feel good about themselves than solving the problem.
As for assigning case workers, it's not quite the same, butAnother Ugandan program awarded $150 to 1,800 poor women in the North of the country. Here, too, incomes went up significantly. The women who were supported by an aid worker were slightly better off, but later calculations proved that the program would have been even more effective had the aid workers’ salary simply been divided among the women as well.You might just do better without them.
I do think that when dealing with homelessness in an area, you're dealing with the worst off possible in an area. The women in Uganda, while massively poor in the grand scheme of things, were probably average for their area.
A homeless person in NYC on the other hand has tried to live their life and failed for some reason. That isn't an indictment on them, the reason might not be their fault, but for the long term unhoused, something is holding them back.
In my mind, the case-worker wouldn't be there to evaluate the person or some sort of gate-keeper. Rather an experienced person who knows where the resources are and can serve as a guide. The intensity of their involvement would be determined by the person being helped.
See my edit to the previous post ;)
I personally suspect they approached it with the wrong school of thought. I've often wondered if welfare is actually intended to help people or if it is intended to trap them.Out of the dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of homeless they had access to they happened to stumble across the magic number 13 and select 13 people who money would be their panacea and solve their issues as well as be competent enough to manage their money in the long term.
They looked at the needs of the many and selected 13 who they thought would both find the money useful for their problems and be able to handle it and gave them money.
Otherwise, they hit the statistical jackpot in finding the perfect 13 folks for their perfect little article.
I'm not saying what they did is a bad thing- I am very glad those people were helped in a fashion that was actually helpful to them but to think the 13 perfect samples were actually any sort of random draw of the general homeless population is probably not an accurate assessment of what happened.
And you know this how? Have you seen their methodology? I haven't. Would you support a larger scale trial of the concept, just to be sure they didn't just hit the statistical jackpot.
As I've said several times, the fact they picked a heroin addict suggests they weren't screening too carefully, so maybe they just got real lucky in finding one who could kick the habit.What do you think of the larger concept and the other examples they talk about, where just giving money without supervision worked better than more traditional welfare?
It's intended to help. The problem is that intention does not guarantee results.
I do agree that there are a lot of unintended consequences with welfare programs, or they don't actually solve the problem well. That said, even the social safety net of the USA with all of it's problems is better than no net at all. The % of seniors living in poverty today is much lower than 100 years ago. That doesn't mean Social Security doesn't need to be restructured or have problems fixed... just that it's better than nothing at all.
edit: Watch this video. He talks about the flaws in how governments and NGO's give aid to Africa and why they don't see positive results.
Very much that, Irontruth.
It's interesting that the reaction to an article that essentially said "Our common sense understanding that 'we know what homeless people need better than they do so we should determine how they get help' is wrong and that given the resources they can actually help themselves better.", is so strongly "No. They must be wrong. They must have done it wrong. We have to figure out what the homeless need on a case by case basis and then (maybe) give it to them. No way can they be trusted to do what's best for themselves."
Challenge the common wisdom and get laughed out of court. Don't get me wrong, the study in the article was small and maybe badly controlled. It might well be wrong. So try a bigger, better experiment along the same lines. Try 100 or a 1000, instead of 13. Choose them randomly. See if it works.
As for assigning case workers, it's not quite the same, but
Another Ugandan program awarded $150 to 1,800 poor women in the North of the country. Here, too, incomes went up significantly. The women who were supported by an aid worker were slightly better off, but later calculations proved that the program would have been even more effective had the aid workers’ salary simply been divided among the women as well.You might just do better without them.
I never said they couldn't decide for themselves. Rather, I said that simply throwing money at people wouldn't necessarily be a fix. For some, an amount of money would fix their problems. They'd get clean, get housing, and do their very best to get a job and move on.
That isn't for everyone though. Some folks would take that money and smoke it or inject it or pop it or whatever it is they do with drugs these days. Still others aren't competent to deal with it themselves and either would need medication to allow them to be competent or may just need permanent care (being never able to care for themselves).My point was to make the determination, with the person, on what it is they need so that you can proceed to the next step. Whether that is to give them money and help with housing and getting a job, or medication or drug treatment/rehab or even commitment into a place where they can be safe and taken care of is something that would need to be determined on a case by case basis.
-S
Out of the dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of homeless they had access to they happened to stumble across the magic number 13 and select 13 people who money would be their panacea and solve their issues as well as be competent enough to manage their money in the long term.
They looked at the needs of the many and selected 13 who they thought would both find the money useful for their problems and be able to handle it and gave them money.
Otherwise, they hit the statistical jackpot in finding the perfect 13 folks for their perfect little article.
I'm not saying what they did is a bad thing- I am very glad those people were helped in a fashion that was actually helpful to them but to think the 13 perfect samples were actually any sort of random draw of the general homeless population is probably not an accurate assessment of what happened.
And you know this how? Have you seen their methodology? I haven't. Would you support a larger scale trial of the concept, just to be sure they didn't just hit the statistical jackpot.
As I've said several times, the fact they picked a heroin addict suggests they weren't screening too carefully, so maybe they just got real lucky in finding one who could kick the habit.What do you think of the larger concept and the other examples they talk about, where just giving money without supervision worked better than more traditional welfare?
I wouldn't support a large scale "throw money at the homeless and hope it helps" approach, no. Too many of our homeless here are that way because of mental issues that just giving them stacks of money won't help with. They need help, not money. Money can be part of that help but just tossing them a few thousand dollars isn't a panacea to the issue they face. And thats not even counting the folks who are homeless due to drug use. I'm totally against just tossing them money.
I do grant though that other countries could have homeless folks for other reasons, and in those places it could work very differently than in the United States.As for fixing the Welfare system though, thats another thread entirely.
-S
As for assigning case workers, it's not quite the same, butAnother Ugandan program awarded $150 to 1,800 poor women in the North of the country. Here, too, incomes went up significantly. The women who were supported by an aid worker were slightly better off, but later calculations proved that the program would have been even more effective had the aid workers’ salary simply been divided among the women as well.You might just do better without them.I do think that when dealing with homelessness in an area, you're dealing with the worst off possible in an area. The women in Uganda, while massively poor in the grand scheme of things, were probably average for their area.
A homeless person in NYC on the other hand has tried to live their life and failed for some reason. That isn't an indictment on them, the reason might not be their fault, but for the long term unhoused, something is holding them back.
In my mind, the case-worker wouldn't be there to evaluate the person or some sort of gate-keeper. Rather an experienced person who knows where the resources are and can serve as a guide. The intensity of their involvement would be determined by the person being helped.
As I said, it's not quite the same case. You're still making the common sense assumption. It's what I would assume about the homeless as well.
What the article suggests is that may not be correct. It's worth looking into.
Watch that video. It'll give a better idea of what I'm describing.
The social worker's job would be to help connect the person to the things they need. You give the guy money, but if he needs drug rehab, he still needs to know where to go to get that. The social worker would be the hub to provide that information.
Finding and assisting people is still going to require infrastructure, there's no way to get around that. Even if you just leave bags of cash on the street marked "for homeless people", someone still needs to write that on the bags, put the money inside and drop them off.
One of the things to study and measure is when the drop-off happens. What if someone did the Uganda thing again, but reduced the aid workers by a factor of 10? or by 100? The women still get their money and if one of them has questions or other issues, there is still someone to handle that.
I know nothing about schizophrenia.
You don't seem to know much about homelessness either.
I personally suspect they approached it with the wrong school of thought. I've often wondered if welfare is actually intended to help people or if it is intended to trap them.Out of the dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of homeless they had access to they happened to stumble across the magic number 13 and select 13 people who money would be their panacea and solve their issues as well as be competent enough to manage their money in the long term.
They looked at the needs of the many and selected 13 who they thought would both find the money useful for their problems and be able to handle it and gave them money.
Otherwise, they hit the statistical jackpot in finding the perfect 13 folks for their perfect little article.
I'm not saying what they did is a bad thing- I am very glad those people were helped in a fashion that was actually helpful to them but to think the 13 perfect samples were actually any sort of random draw of the general homeless population is probably not an accurate assessment of what happened.
And you know this how? Have you seen their methodology? I haven't. Would you support a larger scale trial of the concept, just to be sure they didn't just hit the statistical jackpot.
As I've said several times, the fact they picked a heroin addict suggests they weren't screening too carefully, so maybe they just got real lucky in finding one who could kick the habit.What do you think of the larger concept and the other examples they talk about, where just giving money without supervision worked better than more traditional welfare?
It's intended to help. The problem is that intention does not guarantee results.
I do agree that there are a lot of unintended consequences with welfare programs, or they don't actually solve the problem well. That said, even the social safety net of the USA with all of it's problems is better than no net at all. The % of seniors living in poverty today is...
He barely even touches on the problems aid networks cause in Africa. I've had people from Kenya outright tell me Africa would be in better shape if people stopped trying to help it.
I also remember a lot of the tales about how welfare was early on. About how even having a simple phone, a requirement to get a job, could get a needy family kicked out of the program. It does not strike me as odd that there are people who have been on welfare for generations now; it strikes me odd that people have such of a hard time understanding why. And the thing is, I don't believe the situation has actually changed; just the methods of enforcing it.
Have you gotten out and investigated the quality of food in your local food pantries? In the organizations that are actually giving it out? I have. What I found is there is no lack of fruit and vegetables going to the poor. But the quality of it? Let's just say I understand why there's a weight issue and why so many poor end up with highly-processed foods loaded with salt and sugar now. For them, it's the healthier choice of their options.
And that's a major part of the problem: Aid groups are not just being used for actual aid; they're also being used as way to throw away garbage and claim it as a tax write-off. After all, beggars can't be choosers...
|
Mathematics isn't your friend, is it, dingo?
Well, I think I knew that already, but this suggests that mathematics used to push you into your locker in secondary school and gaffer tape you to the underside of the bench in gym.
Spending six billion dollars -- $6,000,000,000 -- to help sixty thousand homeless -- 60,000. That works out to $100,000 per homeless person. For a hundred thousand you can do a lot better than an air-conditioned shipping container. The median price for a house in South Bend, Indiana, for example, is less than $100,000.
Or you could give each person $1000 a month as a rent voucher and they could rent an apartment anywhere they liked for more than eight years.
The other issue, of course, is that you can't fix homelessness by giving people houses, any more than you can fix malnutrition by giving people Twinkies. There's almost always a root cause -- in the case of the adult homeless population, it's typically drugs, alcohol, or mental illness. That's typically why they're in shelters in the first place and it's also typically why they go back to shelters soon after someone's found a placement for them -- because they're not equipped to handle the actual demands of living.
But I suppose it's more glamorous to propose robotic vaporators and redistribution of land than it is to propose something useful like fully-funded drug and alcohol treatment centers.
How is maths not my friend? Sixty thousand homeless by one hundred thousand dollars per acre and shipping container house is six billion dollars. Yes the uneducated will need to be taught to read and right. Yes the mentally ill need specialized care. What i'm suggesting is raising a new generation of colonists who will with this minimum investment in their citizenship build what they need.
It might be better to establish square mile villages rather than the next new york city because the tesla recharge network requires villages surrounded by a ring road of charging stations and takeaway restraunts where people can dine while they recharge. That is a service hub economy.
cracked.com about homelessness
seems like the alcoholism can follow homelessness as well as lead to it,....being homeless is f+@$ing boring and people drink to kill time.
Also, half the homeless population is kids.
Then there are those that choose it and nothing will make them change short of punishing them for being homeless
Damn strait. Lets take away their food and their house and all of their nice stuff and not let them buy anything because they're homeless. That'll show em!
|
|
Then there are those that choose it and nothing will make them change short of punishing them for being homelessDamn strait. Lets take away their food and their house and all of their nice stuff and not let them buy anything because they're homeless. That'll show em!
are you under the impression that i am in favor of punishing them because i strongly am not. My only issue with the homeless by choice is if they are becoming a burden on others. because it is for some a choice not a forced situation. If they are collecting scrap or working odd jobs to care for themselves i say more power to them
are you under the impression that i am in favor of punishing them because i strongly am not. My only issue with the homeless by choice is if they are becoming a burden on others. because it is for some a choice not a forced situation. If they are collecting scrap or working odd jobs to care for themselves i say more power to themThen there are those that choose it and nothing will make them change short of punishing them for being homelessDamn strait. Lets take away their food and their house and all of their nice stuff and not let them buy anything because they're homeless. That'll show em!
I am trying to point out the absurdity of the idea that they're homeless by choice and that any punishment you could feasibly meet out would be more punishment than, you know, being homeless.
|
|
are you under the impression that i am in favor of punishing them because i strongly am not. My only issue with the homeless by choice is if they are becoming a burden on others. because it is for some a choice not a forced situation. If they are collecting scrap or working odd jobs to care for themselves i say more power to themThen there are those that choose it and nothing will make them change short of punishing them for being homelessDamn strait. Lets take away their food and their house and all of their nice stuff and not let them buy anything because they're homeless. That'll show em!I am trying to point out the absurdity of the idea that they're homeless by choice and that any punishment you could feasibly meet out would be more punishment than, you know, being homeless.
It happens. Vets afraid of being in society is the prime example. Or folks living out in the desert to be free of society. Some areas have tried to fine or jail people for sleeping on the street, it never seems to help and only makes a hard life harder
Honestly... A study with n=13 is a minor footnote at best. That is qualitative data, useful for proof of concept and building hypotheses, but certainly not anything you can draw conclusions from. To see if it works, do a few hundred to a few thousand. You can calculate how many you need for what level of power.
First, I want to say that "solving the homeless problem" is not a formulation I am comfortable with. But if you do make that a priority, you need to check each person's story. The victims of the bad economy can often be helped by money. The addicts aren't going to do much as a group if given money other than get more booze or drugs. So you need rehab for them - but look, there really isn't any easy solution there anyway. Kicking the habit is difficult. Far from everyone manages it even under optimal conditions. The mentally ill need help... but you may not want to force them, as I said. Sum total, I believe you can actually make a dent in the number of people living homeless, but when you have, the rest aren't going to resolve easily or quickly. Perhaps the best we can do is prevent recruitment.
As for punishing someone for living homeless... try it yourself before saying such a thing. Get out of your comfy apartment or house and stay out for three weeks, leaving your money behind. Live off what you can scrounge up. Do you think you'd survive?
Instead of telling people what they need, we should develop programs that ask them what they need. That's what the real take-away from the article should be. Responsive programs where social workers are empowered to help people with whatever they need.
I'm working towards a social work degree right now, and one of the core ethics we're taught is that a client has a right to self determination (with exceptions for cases where life is at risk). This isn't just about respecting the person, and acknowledging that they know their situation, it's also a matter of understanding that if you always try to solve someone's problems they only learn to be reliant on you rather than learning how to solve their own problems.
I agree that getting away from trying to decide what people need is a good idea, and it has the added benefit of making the people themselves think about what they need.
He barely even touches on the problems aid networks cause in Africa. I've had people from Kenya outright tell me Africa would be in better shape if people stopped trying to help it.
I also remember a lot of the tales about how welfare was early on. About how even having a simple phone, a requirement to get a job, could get a needy family kicked out of the program. It does not strike me as odd that there are people who have been on welfare for generations now; it strikes me odd that people have such of a hard time understanding why. And the thing is, I don't believe the situation has actually changed; just the methods of enforcing it.
Have you gotten out and investigated the quality of food in your local food pantries? In the organizations that are actually giving it out? I have. What I found is there is no lack of fruit and vegetables going to the poor. But the quality of it? Let's just say I understand why there's a weight issue and why so many poor end up with highly-processed foods loaded with salt and sugar now. For them, it's the healthier choice of their options.
And that's a major part of the problem: Aid groups are not just being used for actual aid; they're also being used as way to throw away garbage and claim it as a tax write-off. After all, beggars can't be choosers...
I just really have to point out, that everything you just wrote is in agreement with my point. You're not actually disagreeing with me right now. If you think you are disagreeing with me, you haven't understood my point.
It happens. Vets afraid of being in society is the prime example.
Having your brain break is no more of a choice than having your leg break.
Or folks living out in the desert to be free of society. Some areas have tried to fine or jail people for sleeping on the street, it never seems to help and only makes a hard life harder
We could help them. But some people are so dead set on any government aid at all being theft from someone else that we can't.
are you under the impression that i am in favor of punishing them because i strongly am not. My only issue with the homeless by choice is if they are becoming a burden on others. because it is for some a choice not a forced situation. If they are collecting scrap or working odd jobs to care for themselves i say more power to themThen there are those that choose it and nothing will make them change short of punishing them for being homelessDamn strait. Lets take away their food and their house and all of their nice stuff and not let them buy anything because they're homeless. That'll show em!I am trying to point out the absurdity of the idea that they're homeless by choice and that any punishment you could feasibly meet out would be more punishment than, you know, being homeless.
Just like there are people that are jobless by choice, they refuse to get a job, there are people that are homeless by choice. There was a gentleman in a nearby town that was quite well off, owned a home, had 6 figures of cash in the bank, etc. He wandered around the city, homeless. He never went to his home, never got cash out of the bank, rarely bathed, lived on the street begging money from the gullible college students. The way he lived was his choice.
And you want to make public policy for millions of people based off of one oxymoron?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
National Coalition for the Homeless 2009 Factsheet
I have no idea about their methodology or how they gather "facts". One can quibble with them, but I'm just going to quote from the Factsheet:
--in 2003, 39% of all homeless people were less than 18 years of age.
--in 2006, severe mental illness represented 26% of sheltered homeless people
--Persons Suffering from Addiction Disorders: this one takes full quoting, methinks:
Surveys of homeless populations conducted during the 1980s found consistently high rates of addiction, particularly among single men; however, recent research has called the results of those studies into question (Koegel et al., 1996). In Summary, the studies that produced high prevalence rates greatly over represented long-term shelter users and single men, and used lifetime rather than current measures of addiction. While there is no generally accepted "magic number" with respect to the prevalence of addiction disorders among homeless adults, the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ number in 2005 was 30%, and the frequently cited figure of about 65% is probably at least double the real rate for current addiction disorders among all single adults who are homeless in a year. Among surveyed homeless people 38% have an alcohol problem, and 26% report problems with other drugs (National Health Care for the Homeless Council). For more information, see our fact sheet on Addiction Disorders and Homelessness.
----
The bit in Spanky's Cracked article about rich neighborhoods getting twice the amount of housing subsidy dollars than poor ones coincides greatly with my recent readings in Michael Harrington's The Other America: Poverty in the United States which was published in 1962 and made similar points, even back then, about America's piss-poor welfare state: it mostly benefitted the rich and well-off and didn't do much to address the concerns of the actually impoverished. For example, even back when the U.S. was bound by a 1949 law to provide housing for all Americans, they tended to destroy more housing for poor people than they put up, and more housing subsidy dollars went to provide for the middle and upper classes than they did for the poor.
Remember those videos that you've seen of government agents during the Depression destroying milk and piglets in order to keep agricultural prices up? Well, eventually somebody had the brilliant idea that giving surplus product to the poor would also help stabilize prices and, voila!, the predecessor of food stamps was born.
The more I read about the shiznittiness of the American welfare state, the more I can sympathize with poor right-wingers' anti-gov't stance, but I, of course, draw opposite conclusions.
Expropriate the expropriators!
Smash capitalism!
For workers revolution!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scanning through the thread again, I am all in favor of: nationalized health care; quality, integrated public housing; free rehab programs; free drugs; pretty much anything Comrade Dingo has ever proposed, ever; and that article about giving away free money.
That last one in particular, IIRC, seemed to work pretty well for Wall Street and General Motors.
I just really have to point out, that everything you just wrote is in agreement with my point. You're not actually disagreeing with me right now. If you think you are disagreeing with me, you haven't understood my point.He barely even touches on the problems aid networks cause in Africa. I've had people from Kenya outright tell me Africa would be in better shape if people stopped trying to help it.
I also remember a lot of the tales about how welfare was early on. About how even having a simple phone, a requirement to get a job, could get a needy family kicked out of the program. It does not strike me as odd that there are people who have been on welfare for generations now; it strikes me odd that people have such of a hard time understanding why. And the thing is, I don't believe the situation has actually changed; just the methods of enforcing it.
Have you gotten out and investigated the quality of food in your local food pantries? In the organizations that are actually giving it out? I have. What I found is there is no lack of fruit and vegetables going to the poor. But the quality of it? Let's just say I understand why there's a weight issue and why so many poor end up with highly-processed foods loaded with salt and sugar now. For them, it's the healthier choice of their options.
And that's a major part of the problem: Aid groups are not just being used for actual aid; they're also being used as way to throw away garbage and claim it as a tax write-off. After all, beggars can't be choosers...
I was not trying to disagree.
|
|
It happens. Vets afraid of being in society is the prime example.Having your brain break is no more of a choice than having your leg break.
Or folks living out in the desert to be free of society. Some areas have tried to fine or jail people for sleeping on the street, it never seems to help and only makes a hard life harderWe could help them. But some people are so dead set on any government aid at all being theft from someone else that we can't.
Mental illness making them chose it doesn't change the fact that they choose to live on the streets or in the woods. Weather or not treating the mental issues will help is another story
The desert folks WANT to live that way. Some people CHOOSE to live on the streets or in the wild.
|
|
Scanning through the thread again, I am all in favor of: nationalized health care; quality, integrated public housing; free rehab programs; free drugs; pretty much anything Comrade Dingo has ever proposed, ever; and that article about giving away free money.
That last one in particular, IIRC, seemed to work pretty well for Wall Street and General Motors.
How about we loan a billion dollars to anyone with an awesome idea at zero interest and give them twenty years to pay it back? State benifits from taxes on future income only. Growth is slower, but it ensures every idea is evolved and profited from.
|
|
It happens. Vets afraid of being in society is the prime example.Having your brain break is no more of a choice than having your leg break.
Or folks living out in the desert to be free of society. Some areas have tried to fine or jail people for sleeping on the street, it never seems to help and only makes a hard life harderWe could help them. But some people are so dead set on any government aid at all being theft from someone else that we can't.Mental illness making them chose it doesn't change the fact that they choose to live on the streets or in the woods. Weather or not treating the mental issues will help is another story
The desert folks WANT to live that way. Some people CHOOSE to live on the streets or in the wild.
No, they live that way because there is a wall between them and anything better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and all in all Andrew, you're a brick in the wall.
and all in all Andrew, you're a brick in the wall.
Just curious what have you(or anyone in this thread) done to help a homeless person? Or do just sit around and wait for the government to 'do something' about it?
and all in all Andrew, you're a brick in the wall.Just curious what have you(or anyone in this thread) done to help a homeless person? Or do just sit around and wait for the government to 'do something' about it?
I've got nine food drive campaigns under my belt, but currently am just trying to keep a roof over my head.
What have you done?
and all in all Andrew, you're a brick in the wall.Just curious what have you(or anyone in this thread) done to help a homeless person? Or do just sit around and wait for the government to 'do something' about it?
I spent most weekends in college working for habitat for humanity. Not much but its all I have really. Can't even do that much these days.
And yes, I am trying to get government to do something about it, because the problem is simply too large and requires too many resources and disparate skills from mental health to urban planning for any other organization to handle.
I serve food/wash dishes at a neighborhood soup kitchen. Mind you, if I didn't have a small disability check from the VA, I'd probably be on the other side of the counter.
and all in all Andrew, you're a brick in the wall.Just curious what have you(or anyone in this thread) done to help a homeless person? Or do just sit around and wait for the government to 'do something' about it?I've got nine food drive campaigns under my belt, but currently am just trying to keep a roof over my head.
What have you done?
I actually got to know a homeless person and helped him out with some money, advice and support so he managed to get back on his feet...true his problems were not a mental illness or a drug habit just bad luck really.
The problem is I really just believe if we as individual reached out and helped the people around us...we could do a lot better job than any government program could possibly do.
Not that gov a programs is not needed in cases and a safety net is also a good thing. I just don't think the solution is yet another large gov. organization where the real benefices turn out to be the Civil servants.
|
|
I give to charity as well. I just do not think the answer to all problems is to have the government steal from others to do what i want it to. It is about time we start convincing the people what is right instead of sending thugs to take and give as we demand. Not to mention that this issue is far more than just money, especially the mental health aspect.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is I really just believe if we as individual reached out and helped the people around us...we could do a lot better job than any government program could possibly do.
This is worse than unfounded. There is no way individuals can match the scope and reach of section 8 housing, welfare, CHIP, school lunch programs, and social security.
|
|
The problem is I really just believe if we as individual reached out and helped the people around us...we could do a lot better job than any government program could possibly do.This is worse than unfounded. There is no way individuals can match the scope and reach of section 8 housing, welfare, CHIP, school lunch programs, and social security.
And those programs do nothing to fix the root issues. They are wrappings over a leper to not see what is beneath not a cure to the disease. All they often do is make it easy for generation after generation to make a lifestyle out of the system and trap people in it.
I give to charity as well.
And you don't give enough. The fact is it wouldn't matter if you gave 100% of it. You don't make enough. By the math of your own political party, you're a moocher.
I just do not think the answer to all problems is to have the government steal from others to do what i want it to.
All taxation is not theft. That is a ludicrous, disingenuous position that undercuts any legitimate arguments you might have. Feigning moral outrage that government needs money to do stuff and GASP! isn't perfect is not a legitimate discussion point.
It is about time we start convincing the people what is right
Seriously, you're saying we don't need taxation because you are somehow going to do something Jesus and Buddha together couldn't accomplish. Its not a viable alternative to taxation, don't pretend it is one.
And those programs do nothing to fix the root issues.
And the root issues are.... ? If you don't want to allow government the ability to tax giving them the power to fix the underlying issues should give you apolexy.
They are wrappings over a leper to not see what is beneath not a cure to the disease. All they often do is make it easy for generation after generation to make a lifestyle out of the system and trap people in it.
As opposed to the eminently escapable life of abject poverty that existed before these social programs.
|
|
I give to charity as well.And you don't give enough. The fact is it wouldn't matter if you gave 100% of it. You don't make enough. By the math of your own political party, you're a moocher.
I just do not think the answer to all problems is to have the government steal from others to do what i want it to.All taxation is not theft. That is a ludicrous, disingenuous position that undercuts any legitimate arguments you might have. Feigning moral outrage that government needs money to do stuff and GASP! isn't perfect is not a legitimate discussion point.
It is about time we start convincing the people what is rightSeriously, you're saying we don't need taxation because you are somehow going to do something Jesus and Buddha together couldn't accomplish. Its not a viable alternative to taxation, don't pretend it is one.
My complete lack of a party makes that a fools judgement. The fact that i strive to never take from anyone makes me the opposite of a moocher
Taxes are taking what a man earns, it should be done as little as possible.
True charity and people actually working together gets more results than any attempt to cover over an issue with money. Real human interaction does more good than institutions ever will, especially once the bureaucrats start to game and take from it
and all in all Andrew, you're a brick in the wall.Just curious what have you(or anyone in this thread) done to help a homeless person? Or do just sit around and wait for the government to 'do something' about it?I've got nine food drive campaigns under my belt, but currently am just trying to keep a roof over my head.
What have you done?
I actually got to know a homeless person and helped him out with some money, advice and support so he managed to get back on his feet...true his problems were not a mental illness or a drug habit just bad luck really.
The problem is I really just believe if we as individual reached out and helped the people around us...we could do a lot better job than any government program could possibly do.
Not that gov a programs is not needed in cases and a safety net is also a good thing. I just don't think the solution is yet another large gov. organization where the real benefices turn out to be the Civil servants.
BigNorseWolf is right on this one.
Part of what I did back when doing the food drives was take a look at the distribution data to see how effective we were being. Much of it was done as part of individuals being assigned to help homeless. Grand total, we had precisely zero effect on the total situation; we simply didn't have the resources. And that's individuals supported by an organization, not individuals doing it on their own dime.
If you were Bill Gates or the CEO of ExxonMobil, then I could believe that you were making a difference. But most people don't have that kind of money. In fact, really, most people barely have enough money to maintain their own situation; they certainly don't have enough for supporting someone who is homeless. So for individuals trying to get out to help, you face a potential worsening of the situation by stretching even further resources that are often strained as it is right now. And, yeah, I could go out and help some homeless people... and then I would homeless as well.
This is a problem where you have national and international organizations throwing the resource equivalent of billions of dollars at the problem and they're not even making a dent, even with the ones trying to aid on every level. And these are organizations with budgets bigger than some nations. Governments are throwing millions at it, including programs intended to help on every level, and the poverty levels are still growing.
So, basically, we need to restructure the entire system. Every part of it. Which means government action is necessary.