Republicans and Homelessness

[PredFan]

I already told you what the better way was.

Jobs for the disabled.

Why are we responsible for people with substance abuse issues? Why do we have to take care of people who ran up
Massive debt? Why do we have to support the children of people who can't stop having kids?

The important point is what I originally stated, by giving them homes, by giving them money, we make living off the taxpayer a viable option for them,

How does supporting people who have massive debt get them to change their ways? Hiw does giving unwed mothers who can keep their legs together more money for each child the birth convince them to be more responsible?

No need to answer because I'll tell you the truth, it doesn't do a damn thing to help them.

And I don't believe for a second that you would vote for anything a conservative comes up with. Progressives are proven liars.

What if someone is so disabled that they are unable to work enough or at a job that pays enough to be self-sufficient?

It isn't about being responsible for other people, it's about what kind of society in which we want to live. People make mistakes - no one is perfect. And everyone is susceptible to misfortune. So do we, as a society, do something to help those less fortunate, or who took a risk that went bad, or when they were young made mistake that affects their potential to earn or excel, or the disabled, the handicapped, those most vulnerable?

A person can't be on Welfare forever. It's two years and then they are on their own. Same with food stamps, unemployment, etc. There are many Americans who went on to be financially successful who at one time benefitted from government intervention. There are even more who it helped get back on their feet again. There are a very few who game the system. So should we throw everyone off and into the streets because of a few bad eggs?

I don't want to live in a country like Mexico where people build walls around their property and line them with barbed wire or broken glass to keep the numerous desperate from robbing and/or killing them just to survive. I don't want to see cities surrounded by shanty towns filled with desperate people clinging to survival. I don't want children to beg for money or try to sell me chiclets in this country because we won't help their parents out of a mess because "how will they learn?".

I have voted with Conservatives several times. Prove me a liar before you judge me as one.

There are charitable organizations that can help those who are disabled and cannot work. No American should be forced by the government to give money that he or she has earned to those who do not earn it.

Why should the producers be responsible to take care if those who screwed up their lives? Again, we are making irresponsible behavior a viable option for people.

You live in denial when you try to claim that there are only a few bad apples. But even if it's true, why should those who didn't screw their lives up have to pay for others who did and continue to do so?

You have yet to answer that question.

Again the most important facts are theses:

1. That government assistance most often fails at turning a person's life around
2. Increasing entitlements only makes homelessness a viable option for people.

No one is responsible for anyone but themselves or their dependents. We agree on that. I'm not responsible for the drunk across the street who gets subsidized housing or any kind of government assistance and neither is anyone else.

Charitable organizations are not able to handle the volume of the problems associated with poverty, physical or mental disability, substance abuse, etc. they never have been and will not be in the foreseeable future.

You want this to be a moral absolutism about earning, taking, and contributing. I see this as a practical problem about a safe society and quality of life. You find it morally repugnant to be forced by We the People to have a portion of your taxed income go to people who don't pay their own way through life, whether through their own fault or through no fault of their own, because it's a forced contribution instead of a voluntary one.

From my POV, I don't want the mentally or physically disabled on the streets begging, children begging, people starving, shanty towns, high rates of crime, large danger zones that are unsafe to travel through at night. To me it's a matter of pragmatism: our neighborhoods, cities, and nation is safer, less impoverished, and there is less suffering and misery all around: for the most vulnerable as well as for those who are productive. And it helps many people, who wish to be responsible and productive, through the hard times so that they can get back on their feet again.

According to this website: Welfare Fraud - Federal Safety Net

All government assistance programs, including negative tax returns, pell grants, Medicaid, SNAP, etc. had a total 8.1% of improper payments made, including fraud.

"Improper Payment Definition
Improper payments are described this way by the OMB: “ ‘Improper payments’ occur when:

• funds go to the wrong recipient;
• the right recipient receives the incorrect amount of funds (including over payments and underpayments);
• documentation is not available to support a payment; or
• the recipient uses funds in an improper manner.

Although not all improper payments are fraud, and not all improper payments represent a loss to the government, all improper payments degrade the integrity of government programs and compromise citizens’ trust in government.”"

So, yes it's a few bad apples because most of these improper payments were clerical or bureaucracic mistakes.

As for your last two points: Please link.

But your solution to the problem only creates more of the problem. That is why it's getting worse and worse.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your response.

Sorry, spell check changed "creates" to "crests".

You want to at least continue entitlement programs like welfare, food stamps, etc., am I right?

Well that only creates more of the problem.

 

[Nosmo King]

The problem with the bleeding heart liberal policy toward the poor is that giving away all of this stuff and taxing the producers for it makes the problem worse in two ways:

1. It drives away business, which loses jobs and creates more unemployed homeless.
2. It makes unemployment and homelessness a viable option for many.

More importantly for the left, it creates more government dependant democrat voters.

Driving business away is a strawman, but it does reveal your love of the rich and your disdain of the mentally infirmed.

Folks don't desire to be unemployed and homeless, but that option is too often their only option because of the reluctance of business owners to,employ the infirmed.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Surely there are many progressive employers that hire the infirm so that the problem is minimal ..... No ? Shocking

 

[Flopper]

There's always lots of talk about the need to return to the traditional American system of community and faith-based help for the needy: charity, not government handouts. You hear it on talk radio and congress quite often.

The idea that community or faith-based charities are more efficient, effective and capable than the government at addressing economic stringency hasn't been true since the industrial revolution transformed the U.S. from an agrarian to an urban nation.

The cost of all the federal and state programs for low income families is about 1 trillion dollars. A 2007 study by the Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy found Americans love to give but not to the poor. Yes, we love to give money to the starving children in Africa, environmental causes, saving puppy dogs, cats, and warthogs, but we really don't like giving our dollars to the poor in the US. Of 330 billion dollars in US contributions, only 78 billion go to help the poor. That's only about 8% of what the government programs provide.

Unfortunately charitable giving drys up when the need is the greatest. That is, we give more money in good times when less money is needed. In the last the recession, charitable giving fell by nearly 25% at the time when the need was greatest. Even worse, charitable giving directed at the poor often has strings attached to it such as children only, restrictions by geographic location, or restriction by race, religion, or ethnicity.

So when someone says let the churches and charities take care of the poor, they don't know what there're talking about.

 

[jwoodie]

Millions of children are mentally disabled because of drug use during pregnancy. But that's the mother's choice, right?

That's because the paradigm by the government has always been jail, not treatment.

So now the government will throw those mentally disabled people whose mothers did drugs, out on the street. Some of them, I am sure, are women, who will turn to drugs and prostitution, just like their mothers before them did, and they will have babies, and the cycle will repeat because of the short sighted politicians and bureaucrats.

​

The stereotype of the homeless is an old drunks that's too lazy to work but like most stereotypes, it's not very accurate.. Approximately 1.6 million children will be homeless over the course of a year and 60% of those that make it to shelters are children under the age of 6. 34% of the homeless are families and 84% of those families are headed by a women.

Family Homelessness Facts Green Doors

Thanks for the cite, but it is designed to disguise the fact that homelessness results from mental illness and/or drug addiction. Otherwise, these people would take advantage of the myriad of programs that would provide them with permanent housing. (The drug addicts don't want to submit to drug testing.)

The fact that many of them have children does not alter this fact. People who neglect or abuse their children should have their children taken from them and they should be incarcerated or confined in a treatment facility where they can't have more children. The longer we pretend otherwise, the worse this problem will become.

Judging from the homeless shelters, I have seen I agree with your assessment that drug addition and mental illness are a major cause of homelessness. However, that's about all I agree with.

Most of the families that remain homeless for long periods are trapped by addiction and or mental illness and they simply aren't capability of escaping. That doesn't mean they don't love their children or they abuse them. As bad as the situation is, taking children away from their only parent is usually not in the best interest of child, the parent, or the state. The outlook for kids that enter foster care or orphanages is not good compared to kids left with the parents. They are 5 times more likely to drop out of school, three times more likely to end up on government assistance as adults, more likely to be incarcerated and 85% less likely to attend college.

Another problem with your suggestion is cost. The national average for keeping a child in foster care is $26,000/ year. Incarceration for the parent will run $25,000 to $30,000 a year Supporting a mother with 2 children is far cheaper than making them wards of the state and generally the outcome for the kids is better. It also gives the parent a chance to turn their life around which is very difficult if you're living on streets.

Making your child live on the streets is certainly neglect, if not abuse. We need educational academies where these children can live and learn to become civilized, with carefully controlled parental visits. Supporting a mentally ill and/or drug addicted mother with two children is a proven recipe for even larger social costs in the future, especially when she is financially rewarded for having more children. Adults without children may be allowed to camp in designated areas, but they should be sent to a work camp for treatment if they break the rules. It's called tough love, and it is the only way to solve this problem.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Millions of children are mentally disabled because of drug use during pregnancy. But that's the mother's choice, right?

That's because the paradigm by the government has always been jail, not treatment.

So now the government will throw those mentally disabled people whose mothers did drugs, out on the street. Some of them, I am sure, are women, who will turn to drugs and prostitution, just like their mothers before them did, and they will have babies, and the cycle will repeat because of the short sighted politicians and bureaucrats.

​

The stereotype of the homeless is an old drunks that's too lazy to work but like most stereotypes, it's not very accurate.. Approximately 1.6 million children will be homeless over the course of a year and 60% of those that make it to shelters are children under the age of 6. 34% of the homeless are families and 84% of those families are headed by a women.

Family Homelessness Facts Green Doors

Thanks for the cite, but it is designed to disguise the fact that homelessness results from mental illness and/or drug addiction. Otherwise, these people would take advantage of the myriad of programs that would provide them with permanent housing. (The drug addicts don't want to submit to drug testing.)

The fact that many of them have children does not alter this fact. People who neglect or abuse their children should have their children taken from them and they should be incarcerated or confined in a treatment facility where they can't have more children. The longer we pretend otherwise, the worse this problem will become.

Judging from the homeless shelters, I have seen I agree with your assessment that drug addition and mental illness are a major cause of homelessness. However, that's about all I agree with.

Most of the families that remain homeless for long periods are trapped by addiction and or mental illness and they simply aren't capability of escaping. That doesn't mean they don't love their children or they abuse them. As bad as the situation is, taking children away from their only parent is usually not in the best interest of child, the parent, or the state. The outlook for kids that enter foster care or orphanages is not good compared to kids left with the parents. They are 5 times more likely to drop out of school, three times more likely to end up on government assistance as adults, more likely to be incarcerated and 85% less likely to attend college.

Another problem with your suggestion is cost. The national average for keeping a child in foster care is $26,000/ year. Incarceration for the parent will run $25,000 to $30,000 a year Supporting a mother with 2 children is far cheaper than making them wards of the state and generally the outcome for the kids is better. It also gives the parent a chance to turn their life around which is very difficult if you're living on streets.

Making your child live on the streets is certainly neglect, if not abuse. We need educational academies where these children can live and learn to become civilized, with carefully controlled parental visits. Supporting a mentally ill and/or drug addicted mother with two children is a proven recipe for even larger social costs in the future, especially when she is financially rewarded for having more children. Adults without children may be allowed to camp in designated areas, but they should be sent to a work camp for treatment if they break the rules. It's called tough love, and it is the only way to solve this problem.

So like work houses, poor houses, debtors prisons, and concentration camps. Haven't those been tried before?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Wouldnt want to stigmatize the mentally impaired by housing them in psychiaric facilities and hospitals.....

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Wouldnt want to stigmatize the mentally impaired by housing them in psychiaric facilities and hospitals.....

For those ones who need it. But what about adults who are only marginally psychotic and marginally functional with treatment. Should they be imprisoned in an institution against their will? Or adults with Down's Syndrome or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or who have extremely low IQs but are no threat to themselves or anyone else?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Lets have "experts", social scientists, anthropologists, psychologists , and academic crusaders for justice come up with a bunch of overfunded , centrally planned schemes to help rescue them.
Its sure to help....... With the right funding of course. Lol

 

[Katzndogz]

When Ronald Reagan was president in the 1980s, he cut funding for federal housing programs while at the same time many states closed mental institutions.

Liberals were in favor of deinstitutionalization.

Closing those facilities was due to the ACLU fighting to do just that. People can't be locked up and medicated against their will. So they die in the streets.

 

[Kondor3]

Is there any bill currently before Congress that proposes to de-fund homeless programs, etc?

Is there any bill currently before Congress that proposes to tighten the criteria for SSI or SSDI?

 

[Iceweasel]

Is there any bill currently before Congress that proposes to de-fund homeless programs, etc?

Is there any bill currently before Congress that proposes to tighten the criteria for SSI or SSDI?

I believe the thinking is that it's what Republicans would do if it wasn't for the guardians of goodness standing in their way so you might as well blame them for it.

 

[Kondor3]

Is there any bill currently before Congress that proposes to de-fund homeless programs, etc?

Is there any bill currently before Congress that proposes to tighten the criteria for SSI or SSDI?

I believe the thinking is that it's what Republicans would do if it wasn't for the guardians of goodness standing in their way so you might as well blame them for it.

So, naturally, the Hyper-Libtards whip themselves up into an orgasmic frenzy, over a nonexistent scrap of groundless speculation? Interesting.

 

[rdean]

I suspect the homeless are a great and never ending source of humor for the GOP. It seems they think it's hilarious.

 

[Kondor3]

I suspect the homeless are a great and never ending source of humor for the GOP. It seems they think it's hilarious.

Doubtful.

Generally speaking, I get the impression that Republicans donate far more than Democrats do, to various charitable and poverty-relief causes and organizations, but I could be wrong.

 

[Flopper]

Millions of children are mentally disabled because of drug use during pregnancy. But that's the mother's choice, right?

That's because the paradigm by the government has always been jail, not treatment.

So now the government will throw those mentally disabled people whose mothers did drugs, out on the street. Some of them, I am sure, are women, who will turn to drugs and prostitution, just like their mothers before them did, and they will have babies, and the cycle will repeat because of the short sighted politicians and bureaucrats.

​

The stereotype of the homeless is an old drunks that's too lazy to work but like most stereotypes, it's not very accurate.. Approximately 1.6 million children will be homeless over the course of a year and 60% of those that make it to shelters are children under the age of 6. 34% of the homeless are families and 84% of those families are headed by a women.

Family Homelessness Facts Green Doors

Thanks for the cite, but it is designed to disguise the fact that homelessness results from mental illness and/or drug addiction. Otherwise, these people would take advantage of the myriad of programs that would provide them with permanent housing. (The drug addicts don't want to submit to drug testing.)

The fact that many of them have children does not alter this fact. People who neglect or abuse their children should have their children taken from them and they should be incarcerated or confined in a treatment facility where they can't have more children. The longer we pretend otherwise, the worse this problem will become.

Judging from the homeless shelters, I have seen I agree with your assessment that drug addition and mental illness are a major cause of homelessness. However, that's about all I agree with.

Most of the families that remain homeless for long periods are trapped by addiction and or mental illness and they simply aren't capability of escaping. That doesn't mean they don't love their children or they abuse them. As bad as the situation is, taking children away from their only parent is usually not in the best interest of child, the parent, or the state. The outlook for kids that enter foster care or orphanages is not good compared to kids left with the parents. They are 5 times more likely to drop out of school, three times more likely to end up on government assistance as adults, more likely to be incarcerated and 85% less likely to attend college.

Another problem with your suggestion is cost. The national average for keeping a child in foster care is $26,000/ year. Incarceration for the parent will run $25,000 to $30,000 a year Supporting a mother with 2 children is far cheaper than making them wards of the state and generally the outcome for the kids is better. It also gives the parent a chance to turn their life around which is very difficult if you're living on streets.

Making your child live on the streets is certainly neglect, if not abuse. We need educational academies where these children can live and learn to become civilized, with carefully controlled parental visits. Supporting a mentally ill and/or drug addicted mother with two children is a proven recipe for even larger social costs in the future, especially when she is financially rewarded for having more children. Adults without children may be allowed to camp in designated areas, but they should be sent to a work camp for treatment if they break the rules. It's called tough love, and it is the only way to solve this problem.

It's called fascism.

Women don't choose to live on the streets with their kids and no it's not abuse or neglect. The most common case is a husband that leaves the wife and kids without resources or there's illness. Drugs and alcohol are usually a big part of the problem.

No, taking the kids away from the mother and institutionalizing them is not the answer. The best solution is to find housing for the family, get the kids in school, get the mother help, rehab, mental health counseling, or a job program and put the family under social welfare supervision. If the mother is unable to care for the children, then you have to put the kids in foster care with parental visits until the mother get's her act together. A plan to save the family is a far better choice than a plan to destroy it. The savings in lives as well and dollars make it well worth it even though it doesn't always work.

 

[Flopper]

When Ronald Reagan was president in the 1980s, he cut funding for federal housing programs while at the same time many states closed mental institutions.

Liberals were in favor of deinstitutionalization.

Closing those facilities was due to the ACLU fighting to do just that. People can't be locked up and medicated against their will. So they die in the streets.

That's not the way I remember it. The ACLU lead a campaign to close down archaic state mental hospitals in the 70's. This resulted in hundreds of hospital closures in 70's and 80's. Cartier's Mental Health Institution Act which would have funded thousands of mental health clinics throughout the country was quickly discarded by Reagan. Mental hospitals dumped mentally unstable patients on the communities with no place to go. States tried to turn Mental Health Care into the same framework used for physical illness and injuries. Hospital stays were very short duration as dictated by the healthcare insurance industry. Hospital mental wards became 2 to 3 day holding pent for these people, filling them with pills and dumping them back on the streets. The problem is still with us as evidenced by headlines in the newspapers.

NH INSIDER- Your Source for NH Politics - NHI Editorials - 1970 s ACLU Guided Mental Health Care Reform Haunts Us Today
Ronald Reagan 8217 s shameful legacy Violence the homeless mental illness - Salon.com

 

[PredFan]

The problem with the bleeding heart liberal policy toward the poor is that giving away all of this stuff and taxing the producers for it makes the problem worse in two ways:

1. It drives away business, which loses jobs and creates more unemployed homeless.
2. It makes unemployment and homelessness a viable option for many.

More importantly for the left, it creates more government dependant democrat voters.

Driving business away is a strawman, but it does reveal your love of the rich and your disdain of the mentally infirmed.

Folks don't desire to be unemployed and homeless, but that option is too often their only option because of the reluctance of business owners to,employ the infirmed.

Bull shit on three counts! Well done.

 

[BluesLegend]

I see the libs are reaching back 35+ years again to find something to bitch about lol. Poor libs it must suck becoming irrelevant.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If I were you, I wouldn't post from Alternet. Completely left wing and hardly objective. Anytime someone posts from sites like these, their arguments instantly lose credibility. But for you, since you are a cool guy Sonny, I'll rebut your post if I can.