How to Solve Homelessness

When I run for President on the Flora McFlimsey/Ukelele Ike ticket (Surprise Party), here is my plan on homelessness:

1) Set up drop-in drug & alcohol rehab clinics in all cities and towns over a certain population (a certain number of clinics per 100,000 people). No waiting! C'mon in!

2) Establish good, safe homeless shelters, with access to counseling and rehab.

3) Commit the mentally ill whether they like it or not, and no matter how big a cow the ACLU has. In New York, a good propoortion of the homeless are dangerously mentally ill and are headed to certain death unless they get drugs, counseling and looking-after, even if you have to drag 'em in against their will.

None of this will ever happen, of course, which is why Ike and I will just have to take over the country by force (by force of our charming personalities, I mean, and Ike's dirty sax-playing).

--Sen. F. McFlimsey, State of Denial

[phouka]

Sex education and comparative religion classes mandatory.

Free birth control given to anyone asking.

Legalization, regulation, and taxation of all prohibited substances.

Taxation of all for-profit religious organizations.

[phouka]

Oh, I thought we were doing political platform.

Heh. Never mind.

------------------
"Damn, it'd be like two days at Disneyland without the kids!" - Comment by a male friend the first time he saw a picture of me and my breasts.

[Satan]

Playing Devil's advocate - a position I think I am qualified to do...

(1) Some people are homeless because they want to be. I know this sounds odd, but I also know that I have seen many people have tons of opportunities to get off the streets and choose that they prefer living like that, much like some convicts, upon their release, will commit a crime to get back in - They know no other life, and don't feel the need to.

(2) How would you pay for this program, and have you considered how much it would cost? Would this be faderal or would the states and specific municipalities have to kick in some dinero?

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

[Polycarp]

Brian...you doing anything in Fall, 2002? I figure if we can get John Edwards in, maybe we should team up on putting the guy who calls himself by an evil name in place of the one who really is one!

[Ukulele Ike]

No problemo on the money front, Satan. When I get Power, we'll hang each and every plutocrat from the nearest lamppost and funnel their capital into the public coffers. Then we'll nationalize General Motors and make 'em start building bicycles, then close down the Department of Defense and...

Oh, waitaminnit. VICE President. That means I'm going to funerals, not making policy. Where'd I leave my black suit?

------------------
Uke

Ike, I had planned to put you in charge of Vice--think you can handle it?

Oh, I'd be completely re-vamping the tax laws (and I'm the gal who knows a lot about vamping--just ask Ike!). Those $200 toilet seats and $500 wrenches would go a long way to financing homeless shelters.

[Doctor Jackson]

Yep, you just can't have enough of those $500 wenches. Oh, you said wrenches. Never mind.

[Satan]

Polycarp: My schedule looks free, but we've already established that us questioning-types don't do well in the media's spotlight.

And unless it's on stage at The Brewery, us long-hairs don't do well in anything that requires public opinion. And I ain't cutting my hair.

Flora: I would seriously love to see you address the questions I brought up.

OK, Satie:

1) Some people are homeless because they want to be . . .

In that case, screw 'em, unless they are obviously deranged and need mental help. If they want to be homeless and don't want any help, eventually they'll die off and thin the herd.

(2) How would you pay for this program, and have you considered how much it would cost?

Dunno yet. There's a lot of tax dollars being wasted and pissed away, enough to go for such programs--the problem would be ferreting out those dollars and redirecting them. It could be done without raising taxes, though it would raise a lot of hackles.

[Sam Stone]

How much tax money is being wasted, in your opinion?

I'll give you a hint to get you started: The entire operation of the government consumes only 18% of the budget. How much waste do you think you can squeak out of that? Especially considering that salaries make up the bulk of that 18%.

The $500 hammer is a magical device grasped by both conservatives and liberals to be able to claim that they can have all the fancy services they want without anyone having to pay for it. It just ain't so. I'm no fan of big government, and I know that there is waste there, but the hard, cold reality is that the real money in the government budget is basically payments to individuals and interest on the debt. The price of actually running the government is almost trivial.

So, start cutting. Tell us what's going to go if you want to be taken seriously. Or at least justify your notion that you can fund a nationwide network of new shelters and rehab programs by cutting waste in government. This is the Straight Dope board, so the fuzzy thinking doesn't cut it.

To start with, why not have a look at the actual government budget? It's on the internet (go to your favorite search engine and type "U.S. Federal Budget"). Then figure out roughly how much your shelters are going to cost (not that hard... If you look at the budget, you'll see the cost for similar nationwide programs), and figure out what you want to replace to pay for it, or at least figure out how much you want to raise taxes by.

This isn't rocket science. Sit in front of your computer for half an hour and you should have a rough idea of the scope of what you're talking about. (hint: It's not going to be cheap. A new federal initiative to curb violence in schools already has a price tag of 3.6 billion dollars).

[pldennison]

"Got it: Can't win, don't try!" -- Bartholomew J. Simpson

[tracer]

dhanson wrote:

figure out what you want to replace to pay for it, or at least figure out how much you want to raise taxes by.

Why, dhanson, have you forgotten?

If you want to spend X number of dollars on a new government program, you neither have to reduce government expenditures by X nor increase government revenue by X! You can have your cake and eat it too, with ... deficit spending!

Pay no attention to that debt behind the curtain.

[Diane]

(1) Some people are homeless because they want to be.

I work with the homeless. We have programs that take them off the streets, find them jobs, get their meds stabilized (those who are mentally ill), teach them living skills, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, get them in housing, assign a fiduciary to handle their finances (those who need it). They continue to receive this support for as long as needed. We basically hold their hands.

Sure, we get the success stories, but it doesn't work in most cases. Why? Because a large percentage are homeless by choice.


------------------
>^,,^<
KITTEN
If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.

[Polycarp]

DHanson...absolutely. You made it quite clear in another thread that there is not a whole lot of "fat" in the Federal budget.

However...figure out what are your priorities. Is it essential to build a new post office here? Are the renovations to that Army base necessary?

Set each GS-12 to GS-15 administrator the requirement that he/she trim 5% of his/her annual budget, without compromising his/her assigned mission.

In place of Federal funds for economic development, grant a tax credit/deduction (50:50) for business investment in designated depressed areas.

Review every foreign aid allocation for its effectiveness in benefiting both the aims of the U.S. and the people of the aided country. Discontinue all those that flunk either test.

Stop subsidizing slumlords by discontinuing paying fair market value HUD Section 8 rental subsidies on substandard properties. Protect the tenants by proscribing eviction pending a revaluation of what fair rent for this particular unit is worth.

And so on. Economies can be made, and they will add up to a fair chunk of the budget. Use this money to start funding the programs that, whenever they're proposed, you raise this objection to.

I am sure that it won't be a big chunk of the budget. But I'm sure it will be enough for some of the programs people have suggested.

[AHunter3]

As a candidate running on the Schizophrenic Party ticket, I promise to institutionalize Flora McFlimsey on the grounds that her brain's chemistry isn't working the way mine does. We'll fix that, though, don't worry...

:::raising the hypodermic:::

Seriously, lady. You got a lot of nerve deciding to impose changes in the way my brain works without my permission. I'm genuinely offended by your politics and formally request that you go here to read why:
http://members.aol.com/ahunter3/



------------------
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post

[Sake Samurai]

I'll run against your party as I'm for using the homeless to help solve the world hunger problem.

------------------
Hell is Other People.

[Diane]

I'll run against your party as I'm for using the homeless to help solve the world hunger problem.

Solent Green.


------------------
>^,,^<
KITTEN
If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.

[Lucky]

Ditto what Diane said re: working with the homeless. I worked in social service for 8 years, and I concur that the successes are few and far between. Tons of man-hours are spent on every case and most often the client doesn't give a crap. There is little hope in trying to turn these people into 'productive citizens' because they don't want to be productive citizens.
The State is also at fault for designing programs with no hope of success.

I had better stop now before I go off.

------------------
Don't get me wrong--I love life. I'm just finding it harder and harder to keep myself amused.

[bantmof]

Sure, we get the success stories, but it doesn't work in most cases. Why? Because a large percentage are homeless by choice.

I believe you. (Sadly). That's why I've always thought that anyone who finds themselves, for whatever reason, in that situation and _wants_ to fix the problem should be given plenty of help to insure they can do it. But for the perpetual ones, who've been given chance after chance and blown it, or have shown no interest in getting or holding down a job - screw 'em. The world does not owe them jack. I don't know how well one can tell the difference between the two types early on, but in some cases it seems quite clear.

This problem is an infinite money sink for exactly the reason you mention. No matter _how_ much you spend on it, it won't go away - in fact, it'll probably get worse. All that happens is that people (for valid, humanitarian reasons) want to divert more and more money from other, useful programs into income redistribution.

I also believe the system is currently set up to make sure people can't sink. If people were permitted to sink (after being handed a life vest and chosing to throw it away), perhaps they'd be more interested in learning to swim.

--
peas on earth

[bantmof]

Set up drop-in drug & alcohol rehab clinics in all cities and towns over a certain population (a certain number of clinics per 100,000 people). No waiting! C'mon in!

If you disband the "war on drugs" to pay for it, I'm all for it. No more fear of incarceration; if you wanna quit, there will be help available for you.

Commit the mentally ill whether they like it or not, ... even if you have to drag 'em in against their will.

This is a really dangerous road to travel. I would urge you to think about this one pretty seriously.

I would be very, VERY much against doing anything to anyone against their will "for their own good" (excepting criminals and related cases such as making serious criminal threats). This "I know what's good for you better than you do, and I'm going to force it down your throat" idea has been, IMHO, responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in human history. That the intentions were good is irrelevant. (The road to hell etc).

To give you some idea of just how repugnant this is to me, consider this. I'm probably "mostly" sane, but for the purpose at hand here let's say I was not a danger to anyone, but was (as an adult) involuntarily committed for mental health reasons. I am not a violent guy. I don't like confrontation, and I am (almost) always polite and friendly to people. I hold doors open for people, and I'm kind to small animals. But I value my right to self-determination more than my life - even where you might feel you know better than I do what's good for me. If involuntarily confined like that without having committed a crime, I can and would kill to regain my freedom, and feel morally justified in so doing. I feel very strongly that that situation is equivalent to kidnapping.

I am not bullshitting here. Nor am I grandstanding. I am just trying to give you some idea of how strongly this sort of involuntary "I know what's best for you" committment repulses me. I see it as contrary to the freedoms that my ancestors fought and died for.

Please be wary of that road, no matter how seductive it may appear. Please.
--
peas on earth

[Boris B]

I think you people need to open your minds. Listen to people with REAL knowledge of the problem: http://www.theonion.com/onion3539/homelessness.html

------------------
Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.
- Boris Badenov

[Sam Stone]

There was a newspaper reporter here in Edmonton who caused a bit of a sensation a few years ago because he drove around looking for panhandlers and offering them a job. Nothing complex, just 'Come with me and help me clean my garage and I'll give you $50'. A decent wage for a couple of hours worth of work.

After asking dozens of people all day, he never found a single person who would take him up on it, including a guy who was standing with his whole family on a streetcorner with a sign that said, "Will work for food."

[Ringo]

I have, twice (took me that long to learn), offered food from my grocery sack to a guy w/a a "Will work for food sign" and had the food refused w/a request for cash thrown in. A few years ago a friend of mine pointed out that the WWFF signs aren't out on the street at 7-8 AM when somebody might be recruiting day labor, but there on the job for the evening rush hour (casual observation seems to bear this out).

I was homeless for three months. Actually, now that I think about it I was homeless twice for three months. But it was planned both times. The time I was originally thinking about came second; the summer before my last semester in college I had figured that, with the odd work I'd lined up I would be able to eat and have my tuition in place for the fall and be ready to take on my part of a lease if I could forego housing expenses for the summer. So, I just made myself very useful to a select group of friends (did a lot of dishes and laundry) and made a point to move around so I wasn't crashing at any one person's place two nights in a row. I think I spent max five nights on the street that summer. But I spent enough time on the street that a friend confided the summer students were starting to ID me as one of those street people.

The other time I went on a hitchhiking backpack tour of the western U.S. for three months. Since I had no apartment at the time, I guess I was homeless.

Both times I had opportunities to interact with other street people on a level that's foreign to my life of the last twenty years. I think the observation that manny of the homeless are such by choice has much merit. That's not to say that there are not those who've been overwhelmed by the circumstance of life. I do, though, think if you're motivated and not incapacitated by substance abuse or mental health problems, you can get yourself off the street in a short time.

[Markxxx]

As a person who has been homeless (but thankfully never w/o a job) you must understand, homelessness is not about not having a place to live.

It is about being in a position where you have lost all your support systems. Most people have the support that if they lose a job or get sick they have friends or family who will help them out or take them in. Homeless people do not have these systems.

It is very hard to start over in life. I have done it twice, with nothing but the clothes on your back.
In order to understand this, ask yourself, if you were to take the clothes on your back and the money in your pocket right now and walk out into the street would you make it. How would that affect you??

I mean I have had problems dating as you meet someone and they want to see photos of you when you were young. I have none. I have not a picture of any of my family. They can't believe it could be and yadda yadda yadda.

So there is tons more to being homeless than finding a home. It is so hard to pull yourself up by your boot straps. But you can do it. But I can't imagine how you could even start if you were not in your right mind or drunk or sick. It is hard enuff when you got your health and mind going for you.

[tracer]

I guess I should be thankful that I've never asked a woman out who said, "I won't go out with you unless you show me a picture of yourself when you were young." (I mean, I DO have pictures of myself when I was young, but it seems like kind of a weird request.)

[tracer]

Diane wrote:

a large percentage are homeless by choice.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3539/homelessness.html

Seems an Onion editorial agrees with you.

[Boris B]

Actually, tracer, I can't believe you forgot to include a link to this page: http://www.theonion.com/onion3539/homelessness.html
Do your homework next time.


tee hee

[tracer]

Yes, Boris, but did you know about http://www.theonion.com/onion3539/homelessness.html ?

[Boris B]

Yes, and I proved it, at 6:41 on October 27.

[Satan]

Quite fighting, or I'll stop this thread, I swear! I'll turn this thread right around! Don't make me come back there!

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

[Boris B]

He started it! He made me do it!

Okay, then, the devil made me do it!

Uhh, a homeless guy made me do it?

Seriously though, I was just kidding. Please don't turn the thread around. I want to go to Disneyland so bad! Aww, please?

[jmullaney]

Oh, BTW, I didn't care much for that Onion link when I read it 2 weeks ago. I don't think anyone needs to panhandle to survive on the street in most cities; and drunks are certaintly an annoying representation of the homeless population in general. Because of their "A-camp"-y (hippie slang for agro) behavior they are the most visible (smellable?).

Anyway, here is a competing link:
http://www.tmcm.com/comics/comics%20...1morebums.html

[tracer]

jmullaney wrote:

3) The world doesn't owe poor people jack.

Hmm, but if I'm rich and live off the interest I earn from money in the bank, that's OK? I mean, the bank just lends that money to big corporations to cut down rain forests, do third world mining operations in Indonesia et al., and generally work to exploit the labor of other people in one way or the other.

Um, no. That's not what big corporations mostly do. That's not even what most big corporations do at all. It's as stereotyped and inaccurate a view of large companies as the stereotype of the drunken-bum-as-homeless-person that you complain about elsewhere in your post.

Yes, big corporations do pay very small wages in countries that don't have the U.S. minimum wage. But they pay these small wages to people who are willing to work for those small wages. Generally, these workers would otherwise make even less money for the same work, were it not for the big company that moved into town and offered additional employment.

------------------
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

[jmullaney]

Hmmm.... last time I heard about striking mine workers in Indonesia they were merely arrested and lined up and shot by corporate Thugs. Oh, well, NASDAQ, the stock market for the next hundred years. I forget the Stock Ticker for that corp., but last quarter's result were very promising : ).

But, you are right: I was exagerating. I don't even know if those stories I heard about MBNA lending money to companies to tear down the rain forests is even true.

My point is that people here or anywhere else who aren't willing to work for whatever wages shouldn't be institutionalized or otherwise mocked. Is it only OK to be homeless in Indonesia, or shall we mock them as drunks (before our savings accounts help buy the bullets to shoot them) too?

[jmullaney]

Oh, if you don't believe me, here's a link:

ftp://ftp.alternatives.com/library/bizmine2/freeprt.txt

The server is *really* slow. It must be in Australia or something.

The list continues at:
http://www.alternatives.com/libs/bizmine2.htm

Please don't tell me this was way back in 1996, so it doesn't apply anymore...

[jmullaney]

Most people who are homeless are pretty happy about the situation. I lived on the street for six months while traveling all over the Southwest US, and I just wanted to clear up a few of the prevailing and I think wrong headed attitudes I've seen in this thread.

1) There are all these home-less people who don't want to be turned into productive citizens and that is somehow 'sad'

This strikes me as funny, because I recall many of my homeless compadres thinking just the opposite: that there are way too many home-ful wage-slaves who are too weak to live as free people. Of course, now I make 6K more than the average US family of four, and I still feel sorry for people who are dumb enough to work two jobs for minimum wage out there; but I figure I got mine. But I'm sure plenty of street dwellers still feel this way. That people should some how be guilted into working at tedious jobs to enrich big corporations by "homeless outreach" groups (also usually funded by big corporations) and society in general is what is sad.


2) We should put people who don't want to be wage slaves in the nut house.

I think bantmof summed this up nicely.

3) The world doesn't owe poor people jack.

Hmm, but if I'm rich and live off the interest I earn from money in the bank, that's OK? I mean, the bank just lends that money to big corporations to cut down rain forests, do third world mining operations in Indonesia et al., and generally work to exploit the labor of other people in one way or the other. I fail to see why poor person A is any less deserving of food, clothing, and shelter (or at least not harrassed where they lay their head) than rich person B, just because rich person B has access to a limitless supply of green colored pieces of paper. There are other arguements to be made here -- most people don't do anything productive for society anyway, considering all we really need from human labor -- from the homeless point of view -- is food, shelter and clothing. My apologies to farmers/fishers, weavers, carpenters, and the like). The rest of you don't kid yourselves -- why do all the rest of you deserve jack?

3) The poor are somehow taking advantage of you charitable types.

Ridiculous. This is an entirely sybiotic relationship. Admittedly, the people who give away food can be real "Soup-Nazis" (gutterpunk slang, not mine) sometimes, trying to impose their value system on you in exchange for food (usually a capitalist system sometimes in the guise of religion). But, ultimately, these charity-people must enjoy (and/or get paid) for what they are doing, or they are idiots (see #1 above), in which case to redux bantmof, screw *them*.

4) Homelessness can be cured by any draconian plan ala the war-on-drugs

If you really want to cure homelessness, quit you job, default on all your corporate loans, and live on the street. Just make sure about 200 million of your closest friends do so at the same time. Once the economy collapses, we can all move back into (squat)our former abodes rent and mortgage free. We can all plant victory gardens in our yards, learn to spin cotton, and live pretty darn well IMHO.

[The Ryan]

From the OP:

3) Commit the mentally ill whether they like it or not, and no matter how big a cow the ACLU has. In New York, a good propoortion of the homeless are dangerously mentally ill and are headed to certain death unless they get drugs, counseling and looking-after, even if you have to drag 'em in against their will.

I've heard that in the USSR, the Communistic Party went through the following reasoning:
1. Marxism is obviously true.
2. Anyone who disagrees with Marxism is therefore obviously insane.
3. The insane are a danger to themselves and others.
4. Therefore, all dissidents should be locked away in insane asylumns "for their own protection".

But of course, that could never happen in good ol' US of A, right? Naaah.

dhanson
Member posted 10-26-1999 10:22 AM

How much tax money is being wasted, in your opinion?
I'll give you a hint to get you started: The entire operation of the government consumes only 18% of the budget. How much waste do you think you can squeak out of that? Especially considering that salaries make up the bulk of that 18%.

I've always been partial to wild claims with no references. They're so darn convincing.

I'm no fan of big government, and I know that there is waste there, but the hard, cold reality is that the real money in the government budget is basically payments to individuals and interest on the debt. The price of actually running the government is almost trivial.

Are you saying that payments to individuals and debt payments aren't part of running the government? I guess when you say "The price of actually running the government is almost trivial", what you really mean is "The price of actually doing what I think the government should be doing is almost trivial". If you think that homelessness can be cured by getting rid of welfare, Social Security, and other "payments to individuals", then I think you'll be included in Flora's round-up.

[manhattan]

I think you misunderstood dhanson, Ryan. In fact, I think you got his statement almost exactly backward. All he was pointing out was that the preponderance of the non-defense federal budget is made up of transfer payments and are (for all intents and purposes) non-discretionary. Yes, technically we could go back on the implicit promise we made to Social Security recipients or the explicit promise made to bondholders. But we’re not.

So what’s left after all of that is actually not a ton of money, from which can be cut not a ton of waste. dhanson’s point, I think, was simply that there really isn’t as much "waste" in the federal budget as the sheer size of it would leave many to intuit.


------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[Sam Stone]

Thank you, Manhattan. Pretty close.

I brought up those points specifically to refute the notion that we can fund a gigantic new social program by just tweaking government and getting rid of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.

[Phaedrus]

Flora: you got MY vote!

[handy]

Take corporate welfare [takes 20 minutes of work per day to pay for that] & give it to social welfare [25 seconds!].

Take the money from the rich, give to those in need.

Sorry, Phaedrus--like Libby Dole, I have dropped from the race. I discovered the unpleasant way that to EVER comment on thoughtful or serious issues is to ask for a raging mob to jump down your throat and whack away at your internal organs with baseball bats.

So from now on, look for me in MPSIMS and nowhere else . . .

. . . the former candidate

[jmullaney]

Aw, c'mon Flora. I liked your first and second proposals. Give me free housing and I'll quit my job tomorrow .

[AHunter3]

Threads about homelessness and/or mental illness and policy recommendations should not be pruned.

::bump::

[Shodan]

I fail to see why poor person A is any less deserving of food, clothing, and shelter (or at least not harrassed where they lay their head) than rich person B, just because rich person B has access to a limitless supply of green colored pieces of paper.

I would think a relevant question is how he got access to that paper. Figure that out, and tell poor person A to do the same thing. Problem solved.

You become deserving of something by earning it.

Regards,
Shodan

[AHunter3]

You become deserving of something by earning it.

Which doesn't necessarily result in you obtaining it, however much you have earned it; nor does possession of something necessarily indicate that such is the means by which it came to be in your possession.

[Shodan]

No, of course not, but not earning something does mean you don't deserve it, and earning it means that you do.

Or something like that. What I am struggling to say is that people have a right to keep what belongs to them. I don't think this is quite a tautology.

Robin Hood makes a great story, but if he operated in my city I would do what I could to assist the authorities in hunting him down and breaking up his merry band of adventurers. And I would certainly never vote for him.

Regards,
Shodan

[AHunter3]

If everyone had the opportunity to work if they were willing, I'd be entirely happy with "Ya don't work, ya don't eat".

Such is unequivocally not the case. Although there are, among the homeless, many people who have the ability to work but no inclination, there are others who might have the inclination but don't have the ability (lacking useful skills and/or experience), and there are others who have both inclination and ability but don't have the opportunity, and when I was homeless myself I was primarily in the lattermost category.

You could claim with logical consistency that people have a right to the money that belongs to them, and that that right supercedes any obligation to help others. In doing so, you choose not to help the homeless, and to allow it, as a phenomenon, to continue unsolved.

The homeless folks could claim with logical consistency that people have a need to eat, and that addressing that need supercedes any obligation to obey the law. So they mug you and take your money, which addresses their immediate need.

You might find their position immoral. They might find yours immoral.