Republicans and Homelessness

Sonny Clark

Diamond Member
Dec 12, 2014
51,089
5,935
1,870
Gadsden Alabama
The Terrible GOP Policy That'll Kick Thousands More Mentally Ill Homeless People Out on the Streets.
The GOP's new war on the poor could result in more mentally ill people living on the streets.

(1) -- Tens of thousands of people could be pushed into the streets, primarily because they would either lose access to subsidized housing or could not afford rent.
(2) -- If 10 percent [of the 3.6 million SSDI recipients with diagnosed mental disorders] lose their benefits, the likelihood is that some will lose their housing.
(3) -- Qualifying for the benefit opens up access to other subsidized and private housing programs. “It’s been a real lifeline to the homeless.”
(4) -- "Many beneficiaries are very sick, or even terminally ill – one in five male and one in six female Disability Insurance beneficiaries die within five years of receiving benefits, and beneficiaries are three to five times more likely to die than other people their age," wrote TalkPoverty.org.
(5) -- Workers who have been denied Disability Insurance fare extremely poorly in the labor market. A recent study found that among people whose Disability Insurance applications were denied, the vast majority—70 percent to 80 percent—went on to earn less than $1,000 per month."
(6) -- As of December 2013, about 35 percent of SSDI recipients, or 3.6 million people, had been diagnosed with the following mental disorders to qualify for the program: autism (0.4 percent); developmental (0.1 percent); other childhood and adolescent disorders (0.1 percent); intellectual disabilities (8.3 percent); mood disorders (14.0 percent); organic (3.3 percent); schizophrenic and other psychotic (5.0 percent); and other (3.8 percent).
(7) -- As of January 2013, there were 578,424 homeless people across America “on a given night,” according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s annual homelessness report to Congress, published last fall. Of that number, 31 percent, or more than 179,000 people, were not staying in temporary shelters.
(8) -- “Studies have been done of the percentage of income received from various benefits that goes into housing,” Nortz said, speaking about homeless people who found housing. “It’s already well above 50 percent and in some cases 90 percent. For unsubsidized housing, if you take away 20 percent of their income, they no longer will be able to afford the housing they have. They will join the ranks of the most difficult-to-help people.”
(9) -- 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. Together, those trends resulted in thousands of people, especially the mentally ill, becoming homeless across America.
(10) -- As GOP leaders promote cutting Social Security, demonize and mock SSDI recipients, and use the program as the vehicle for their first wave of reforms, one can only hope this new war on the poor will not increase homelessness. But there’s a strong possibility it will.

The Terrible GOP Policy That ll Kick Thousands More Mentally Ill Homeless People Out on the Streets Alternet

******** If the Republicans have their way, What will we do with the people cut from the program?

 
There's a certain irony here.

The left and the liberal media is always trying to push this "gun control" paradigm on the nation. The conservatives and the Right are always telling us that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, and that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Now the conservatives want to turn around and take away the very options and security that the most potentially dangerous and desperate people have for security? :eusa_doh: This would then make them MORE insecure, desperate and dangerous, would it not? How can they be so short sighted?

It boggles the mind. If these representatives weren't so comfortable, one would think THEY are the mentally ill ones.

guns-mental-illness-cartoon-englehart-495x349.jpg

guns-mental-illness-cartoon-beeler-495x351.jpg

mentalhealth_500.jpg

mentalhealthcartoon1.jpg

 
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.
 
If the Republicans had there way, we would make it easier for Christian charities to help these people instead of the liberals who don't want these beautiful Christians organizations to even help the homeless and down trodden.
 
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.

When Reagan was governor of California, mental facilities were also closed. I see a pattern here, especially since at the time of the closings, Governor Reagan said in a speech that the care of these people was the responsibility of the families. When it looks like a republican idea, and smells like a republican idea (screw everybody but the wealthy) it usually is a republican idea.
 
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.

When Reagan was governor of California, mental facilities were also closed. I see a pattern here, especially since at the time of the closings, Governor Reagan said in a speech that the care of these people was the responsibility of the families. When it looks like a republican idea, and smells like a republican idea (screw everybody but the wealthy) it usually is a republican idea.

Are liberals in favor of reopening mental health facilities?
 
If the Republicans had there way, we would make it easier for Christian charities to help these people instead of the liberals who don't want these beautiful Christians organizations to even help the homeless and down trodden.

Please link.
 
If the Republicans had there way, we would make it easier for Christian charities to help these people instead of the liberals who don't want these beautiful Christians organizations to even help the homeless and down trodden.

Please link.
What am I linking? The liberal hate of anything Christian or the thousands of Christian organizations that help the homeless with homeless shelters, food shelters and training programs?
 
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.

Link, please.

In 1967, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) a so-called "bill of rights" for those with mental health problems passed the Democratic-controlled Assembly: 77-1. The Senate approved it by similar margins. Then-Gov. Reagan signed it into law.
It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman, a Republican, and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short, both Democrats. LPS went into full effect on July 1, 1972.
The bipartisan law came about because of concerns about the involuntary civil commitment to mental health institutions in California.

Another Voice - Mental Health Myths - Ukiah Daily Journal


In 1967 the California Legislature passed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) which changed the state's mental-commitment laws to limit involuntary detention of all but the most gravely mentally ill and to provide a "patients bill of rights" regarding treatment.
With the help of conservative Republican Assemblyman Frank Lanterman of La Canada (who liked to tell the American Civil Liberties Union that he had championed the rights of mental patients long before it did), the bill was pushed primarily by a group of young, liberal activists on the Assembly Office of Research staff. It was sold to Democrats as a civil-rights measure and sold to Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan as a savings--community care, without the long-term costs of custodial care in state hospitals, would cut California's mental health care costs.
Nearly 20 years after its enactment, the bill is now blamed, at least in part, for the problems of the homeless. Its emphasis on deinstitutionalization, some policy analysts claim, has placed too many people on the streets who should, for their own sake and society's, be hospitalized for treatment. This is not what supporters intended but the evidence is all too visible.

California Good Aims Bad Results - Los Angeles Times
 
Last edited:
If the Republicans had there way, we would make it easier for Christian charities to help these people instead of the liberals who don't want these beautiful Christians organizations to even help the homeless and down trodden.

Please link.
What am I linking? The liberal hate of anything Christian or the thousands of Christian organizations that help the homeless with homeless shelters, food shelters and training programs?

Strawman Fallacy.

I agree with some of what you post on USMB, but this is some partisan BS. My liberal girlfriend, who does volunteering, is a Christian. My friend, who used to be the Colorado DNC Assistant Communications Director is a Christian.

How has any liberal policy ever adversely affected the effectiveness of religious organizations to help the needy?
 
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.

Link, please.

In 1967, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) a so-called "bill of rights" for those with mental health problems passed the Democratic-controlled Assembly: 77-1. The Senate approved it by similar margins. Then-Gov. Reagan signed it into law.
It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman, a Republican, and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short, both Democrats. LPS went into full effect on July 1, 1972.
The bipartisan law came about because of concerns about the involuntary civil commitment to mental health institutions in California.

Another Voice - Mental Health Myths - Ukiah Daily Journal


In 1967 the California Legislature passed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) which changed the state's mental-commitment laws to limit involuntary detention of all but the most gravely mentally ill and to provide a "patients bill of rights" regarding treatment.
With the help of conservative Republican Assemblyman Frank Lanterman of La Canada (who liked to tell the American Civil Liberties Union that he had championed the rights of mental patients long before it did), the bill was pushed primarily by a group of young, liberal activists on the Assembly Office of Research staff. It was sold to Democrats as a civil-rights measure and sold to Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan as a savings--community care, without the long-term costs of custodial care in state hospitals, would cut California's mental health care costs.
Nearly 20 years after its enactment, the bill is now blamed, at least in part, for the problems of the homeless. Its emphasis on deinstitutionalization, some policy analysts claim, has placed too many people on the streets who should, for their own sake and society's, be hospitalized for treatment. This is not what supporters intended but the evidence is all too visible.

California Good Aims Bad Results - Los Angeles Times

Ah, so in trying to help, a liberal policy ended up hurting the mentally ill.

Well, at least the liberals had good intentions and it wasn't some cynical policy to cut tax expenditures by taking advantage of the most vulnerable.

Why haven't religious organizations stepped in to fill that void?
 
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.

Link, please.

In 1967, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) a so-called "bill of rights" for those with mental health problems passed the Democratic-controlled Assembly: 77-1. The Senate approved it by similar margins. Then-Gov. Reagan signed it into law.
It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman, a Republican, and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short, both Democrats. LPS went into full effect on July 1, 1972.
The bipartisan law came about because of concerns about the involuntary civil commitment to mental health institutions in California.

Another Voice - Mental Health Myths - Ukiah Daily Journal


In 1967 the California Legislature passed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) which changed the state's mental-commitment laws to limit involuntary detention of all but the most gravely mentally ill and to provide a "patients bill of rights" regarding treatment.
With the help of conservative Republican Assemblyman Frank Lanterman of La Canada (who liked to tell the American Civil Liberties Union that he had championed the rights of mental patients long before it did), the bill was pushed primarily by a group of young, liberal activists on the Assembly Office of Research staff. It was sold to Democrats as a civil-rights measure and sold to Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan as a savings--community care, without the long-term costs of custodial care in state hospitals, would cut California's mental health care costs.
Nearly 20 years after its enactment, the bill is now blamed, at least in part, for the problems of the homeless. Its emphasis on deinstitutionalization, some policy analysts claim, has placed too many people on the streets who should, for their own sake and society's, be hospitalized for treatment. This is not what supporters intended but the evidence is all too visible.

California Good Aims Bad Results - Los Angeles Times

Ah, so in trying to help, a liberal policy ended up hurting the mentally ill.

Well, at least the liberals had good intentions and it wasn't some cynical policy to cut tax expenditures by taking advantage of the most vulnerable.

Why haven't religious organizations stepped in to fill that void?

Ah, so in trying to help, a liberal policy ended up hurting the mentally ill.


Yes.

Well, at least the liberals had good intentions

Liberals are good at intentions, bad at results. Commies too, but then I repeat myself.
 
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.

Link, please.

In 1967, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) a so-called "bill of rights" for those with mental health problems passed the Democratic-controlled Assembly: 77-1. The Senate approved it by similar margins. Then-Gov. Reagan signed it into law.
It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman, a Republican, and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short, both Democrats. LPS went into full effect on July 1, 1972.
The bipartisan law came about because of concerns about the involuntary civil commitment to mental health institutions in California.

Another Voice - Mental Health Myths - Ukiah Daily Journal


In 1967 the California Legislature passed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) which changed the state's mental-commitment laws to limit involuntary detention of all but the most gravely mentally ill and to provide a "patients bill of rights" regarding treatment.
With the help of conservative Republican Assemblyman Frank Lanterman of La Canada (who liked to tell the American Civil Liberties Union that he had championed the rights of mental patients long before it did), the bill was pushed primarily by a group of young, liberal activists on the Assembly Office of Research staff. It was sold to Democrats as a civil-rights measure and sold to Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan as a savings--community care, without the long-term costs of custodial care in state hospitals, would cut California's mental health care costs.
Nearly 20 years after its enactment, the bill is now blamed, at least in part, for the problems of the homeless. Its emphasis on deinstitutionalization, some policy analysts claim, has placed too many people on the streets who should, for their own sake and society's, be hospitalized for treatment. This is not what supporters intended but the evidence is all too visible.

California Good Aims Bad Results - Los Angeles Times

Ah, so in trying to help, a liberal policy ended up hurting the mentally ill.

Well, at least the liberals had good intentions and it wasn't some cynical policy to cut tax expenditures by taking advantage of the most vulnerable.

Why haven't religious organizations stepped in to fill that void?

Ah, so in trying to help, a liberal policy ended up hurting the mentally ill.


Yes.

Well, at least the liberals had good intentions

Liberals are good at intentions, bad at results. Commies too, but then I repeat myself.

Oh, you had to go and ruin your good point with some partisan bullshit. Too bad.

So I guess the other side of this is that conservatives achieve good results with their bad intentions?
 
If the Republicans had there way, we would make it easier for Christian charities to help these people instead of the liberals who don't want these beautiful Christians organizations to even help the homeless and down trodden.
Thats how we handle the problem locally,food banks,shelters,local churches banding together,its more personnel and effective.The propaganda that repubs want to, as the lie goes shove granny off the clif is just that a lie.
 
If the Republicans had there way, we would make it easier for Christian charities to help these people instead of the liberals who don't want these beautiful Christians organizations to even help the homeless and down trodden.

Please link.
What am I linking? The liberal hate of anything Christian or the thousands of Christian organizations that help the homeless with homeless shelters, food shelters and training programs?

Strawman Fallacy.

I agree with some of what you post on USMB, but this is some partisan BS. My liberal girlfriend, who does volunteering, is a Christian. My friend, who used to be the Colorado DNC Assistant Communications Director is a Christian.

How has any liberal policy ever adversely affected the effectiveness of religious organizations to help the needy?
Just like the tea party hate faction of the GOP destroys the good name of conservatism...the athiest, anti- Christian faction destroys the misguided efforts of the liberals.
 
If the Republicans had there way, we would make it easier for Christian charities to help these people instead of the liberals who don't want these beautiful Christians organizations to even help the homeless and down trodden.
Thats how we handle the problem locally,food banks,shelters,local churches banding together,its more personnel and effective.The propaganda that repubs want to, as the lie goes shove granny off the clif is just that a lie.

Then why aren't they handling it? Even with the federal, state, and local governments helping there are still many homeless, hungry, and impoverished people. Before government assistance, these problems were worse. Why weren't religious institutions stepping up to the task in the early 20th Century?

Could it be that the problem is too big for our society to simply rely on the good will of its citizens's religions alone?
 
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top