I’ve said probably three times in this short thread that I don’t think anyone is obligated to give, but only want them not to lecture me about doing so. Please retract the above false statement.
Indeed, people are responsible for how they act. I’m not responsible for how other people act nor do I have any control over other people. I don’t see panhandlers, in general, as menacing, nor do I see Black people that way but there are people who do… Where do we draw the line?
I don’t. My choice to give is based on my ability to do so.
That dumps a lot of responsibilty on the people like Edison and me, and a lot of blame. Homelessness, addiction, mental illness untreated and unaddressed are SOCIETAL problems. We, as a society, have not done a very good job of addressing those problems. Treatment is in high demand and short supply. Many people, particularly those suffering mental illnesses are afraid of shelters and are, indeed, preyed upon in them. Our outreach programs to address mentally ill street people are virtually non-existent. To assert that my giving a dollar to a beggar is the root of the problem ignores the MUCH larger problem in society in terms of the way we view street people, addicts and the mentally ill.
I don’t try to prescribe for anyone else what they should do in order to be the people they want to be nor do I have an preference in what kind of people other people are. I’ll even take the “lectures” if it comes as fodder for good debate!
I’ve occasionally seen somewhat scary-looking people. I’ve once been shout at because I hadn’t given money. But typically, the guys who ask me for money are well into their 40 or older (or at least look like they are), are sitting on the ground alone or in small groups, and look pretty destitute. And they aren’t aggressive, and rather polite.
I give money sometimes, to the guys with signs at intersections. Most of the time I give them $5 McDonald’s gift cards. I feel good that they can eat (albeit crap food) and I don’t give them cash to feed their addictions. They have to have a certain look for me to decide to give them anything. It’s more a vibe of real desperation or something. I would quickly go broke if I gave to every beggar I saw.
Houston is such a spread out city, that I think it might be difficult for some of the suburban homeless to find such shelters as you would find downtown. I haven’t researched this, though.
I don’t know what he’s doing with the money. And it’s none of my business. I’m not in charge of his life. Not giving him money won’t cure his addiction. Giving him money might buy him a cup of coffee.
And you know that how? It’s quite well known that most people become homeless following a life accident, like divorce/unemployment, etc… How would you fare in such circumstances, do you know that you wouldn’t begin drinking, that you would surely be able to score a job when right now people with stable life arrangement are struggling, that you wouldn’t succumb to hopelessness, that you would be content with a warm bed offered by a charity and would never ask someone for spare change? If I were a believer, I’d say “Don’t judge lest thou…etc…”
Gladly, as soon as you retract this one:
I don’t give to panhandlers because I don’t think it will improve their situation. It only allows them to maintain the state they are in.
If the panhandler is an able-bodied, mentally stable person, then it means he doesn’t have to look for a job. If he made no money panhandling, he’d find other means such as getting a job or applying for social services.
If the panhandler is mentally ill, giving to him will just allow him to remain living on the street. If that’s the only way he has to make money, society has failed. If he made no money panhandling, society would have to come up with a solution. Many mental hospitals have been closed for budget cuts. If mentally ill people started to struggle living on the street, maybe more hospitals would be reopened.
If a panhandler is an alcoholic or drug addict, it just enables him to stay in that state. He is just going to use the money to buy his drug of choice. If he got no money, he would not be able to get his drug of choice.
I think it is the rare case that a panhandler takes the few dollars he gets and uses it to turn his life around. Mostly they just use the money to maintain their current lifestyle and I don’t want to support that.
So, apparently, you also have a problem with soup kitchens? Is there a way to help the homeless you’re fine with?
Apparently, a number of people would just want them to get away, to be invisible. See, if there are homeless, they will be somewhere. If not in your backyard, then in someone else’s. So, it homeless are always a problem, then the solution is obvious : make sure there are none. How do you propose to do that? Extra-generous public policies, say an acceptably high guaranteed income? Jailing them all? What?
In my opinion, generous public policies to ensure that no-one is homeless out of need.
I think it is a public disgrace if the mentally disabled are forced to beg in the streets and sleep in doorways - a disgrace, not to them, but to the rest of us for allowing it to happen. It should be part of the social compact that those of us who are unable to take care of ourselves are cared for.
Conversely, if someone chooses such a life when they do not need to live it (because other options are readily available), I don’t see that we are required to accomodate them. It is then their responsibility to live that self-chosen lifestyle in a way that does not harrass others.
In the case of an alcoholic, not being able to quell withdrawal from alcohol could lead to convulsions and death. I’m OK with buying him a beer. Until we address the problem at it’s core… Society and it’s narrow judgements, we will not cease having the problem. If there weren’t kind people who gave a dollar or five when they could, I think we’d see more crime, not fewer panhandlers.
I can tell a crack head from a long way off, and they get nothing from me. Neither do the con artists who don’t change thier story and don’t recognize my face. (You need money to get a bus to Rochester to pick up your baby? Still? After 8 years?) Most of the time I don’t give money, maybe a few coins to someone waiting for the same bus as me, but people who really are hungry or cold are grateful for a hot cup of coffee or some food.
My little sister, four years old at the time, and I were walking through the park on our way home from the bakery and saw a boy sleeping on a bench. He was in my third grade class, and he was my friend. We went back to the bakery and spent the last of our pocket money to buy him a bagel, fruit, juice and a cup of coffee. I filled a boy’s belly and taught my sister a lesson about generosity that she remembers twelve years later; I don’t see how I’ve exacerbated any problems.
I guess they could have went with a longer title, and say, “How do panhandlers spend their money that you gave them” but, methinks you’re just pickin’ nits.
razncain
Coffee and food doesn’t mean much to an addict; it is secondary to them, so chances are they will buy their drug with it first and foremost. It should be your business and the general public if you know he is a hard-core addict, and you should care what he does in that state of mind when he takes whatever drug he is taking if you pretend to care about not only that person, but others around him who have to deal with his fucked up state that you help put him in, along with the surrounding businesses that have to deal with it why you go on your merrily way. And since this poster I wrote to said it was obvious that some he was giving to were addicts, I fail to see how that translates into some good deed for that person or the community. At least get the cup of coffee for him, or the food, instead of giving him money which he’s probably irresponsible with to begin with or else he wouldn’t be there asking you for it.
I’ve watched a few documentaries on this, and read a few links, starting with the one I posted. Common sense also tells me through my own eyes, that they seem at least physically capable of work from the majority of the ones I seen, and what little conversations I’ve had with the panhandlers I’ve confronted personally, it seemed quite obvious it was a bullshit story they were selling. Let them find some other dupe. If they are truly needy, and they can’t take care of themselves, and need a helping hand, again, most communities have programs in place for the rest.
I have done somewhat well for myself, with both unemployment and a few break-ups; but no car accidents to speak of. I bought my first new home when I was a young man just after I got laid off from work, and was unemployed for nine months. It was a two year old home that caught fire, and I spent all of the next nine months rebuilding it. Paid cash for all of it, and only had in it one-fourth of the appraisal. It’s no biggee at all. Just a little planning ahead, that’s all. After I finished I sought work again. I didn’t come from a rich home, I have worked blue collar jobs most of my life starting at 15. Only during the last eight years, did I start my own business. My money came hard for me, still does, but not so much now. I have always saved every cent I could for days when I might need to fall back on it, even as a young man, because that is how I was taught.
I myself, have too much pride and self respect to ever ask for one penny from a perfect stranger off of the street. Some seem proud to be beggars, and boast of what they can make off of the dupes. Again, see link.
This one guy in the video clip claims he recently was crippled so isn’t looking for employment, although he’s been panhandling for ten years, and since they filmed him from the chest up, I don’t know what the nature of his injuries are that keep him from working, and if they were that bad, I’m sure he would be eligible for SS. He certainly seems like a nice enough person to me too, I have nothing against him. I actually kind of liked the guy. But for me, anyway, that is no reason to give, and I don’t need to buy friendships; nor do I think these people are going to starve by not giving in to them.
If I truly was in need, I have family members, relatives, and friends that care for me very much. I would do anything for them, and I know it goes without saying that would do return the favor in kind. That’s where I would go, not out on the streets. Nor would I ever just want something without paying it back. There is something wrong with always asking from strangers, and not ever feeling compelled to not pay it back. SS would also be an option for me if I was in a serious car wreck or something equivalent.
So my question is, did these people ever not have people around them that ever cared enough for them to help? Chances are they did, but perhaps they got fed up with them for whatever reason, and not found them worthy to give to anymore. And if that is the case, if someone who knows them quite well doesn’t think they are worthy to give to, why should a perfect stranger? Most of the people panhandling, I see, seem quite healthy enough to me. Certainly healthy enough to stay out all day begging, telling everyone their hard luck stories which is a farily good chance is just bullshit anyway.
For the truly unfortunate homeless person that have had a serious car wreck or whatever; in the States they can draw SS, and there are other institutions, organizations and charities that most communities have in place.
People make judgments all of time, nothing wrong with it. Our courts make judgments. Individuals judge on whether or not someone is worthy or some charity is worthy to give too. It’s just a idiotic biblical passage. I feel comfortable enough in my decision not to give money to the perfect strangers on the street. If you feel the opposite, knock yourself out as long as it isn’t in my neighborhood.
razncain
I love this. Homeless people are just harmless, but they know enough to stay away from other homeless because they are dangerous.
That’s an adorable, and far reaching, conclusion you’ve come to there. There are certainly some people in shelters, be they homeless and untreated schizophrenics or just rotten SOB’s who prey on the vulnerable, the homeless and mentally ill who stay away from shelters and either keep to themselves or stick with groups of other homeless people they’ve come to trust. You’ve also completely evaded my point which is that homeless shelters are not the end all be all answer to the problem of the homeless people in our society.
I think the start is not calling them homeless. It’s not like their only problem is that they don’t have a place to live.
Instead let’s separate them out. Criminals should be in jails, substance abusers need to get treatment or be institutionalized if they refuse, same for the mentally ill. The people with short term financial issues need micro-loans. The street kids who are on the street for jollys need to get a job.
Not one of the problems above is best addressed by having people live on the street and beg.
I don’t disagree with you that the answer is NOT having people living on the streets begging. The socioeconomic problems however are complex and they range from stigma to not enough resources to provide the necessary care. That in the greatest country in the world (a subjective statement but nevertheless…) we have people living on the street, reduced to begging for spare change is appalling.
Let look at treatment for addicts - Here in Houston, the largest govt funded (and there are VERY few govt funded rehabs left at all around here) treatment hospital is full… EVERY.DAY. If one calls for treatment they are told to be at the fence at 7 AM and then it’s first come, first serve. I know this firsthand because I am a recovering addict who works with other addicts. I’ve tried more than a few times to get someone into treatment. We could get into a whole discussion, a lunch and learn, about the disease of addiction. In fact, while you may find this hard to swallow, an addict desperate for treatment is actually a crisis case, an emergency. If we don’t get the willing addict help when they have that moment of clarity and desparation, we will most likely lose them to the disease again in short order. Addiction is POWERFUL and cunning and insidious. The addict who is willing and seeking help today will likely be using again tomorrow if help is not available in the same way a psych unit is available to the suicidal patient.
Criminals… Panhandling is not a crime, not as of yet anyway, in this city. Criminals should be arrested, tried and if convicted, sentenced… But don’t get me started on the criminal justice system… At any rate, no argument from me… Criminals need to be dealt with by law enforcement and to the best of my knowledge are, when they can be caught.
Mentally ill people. Mental illnesses are another insidious group of maladies. Crazy people often don’t know or accept that they are crazy. Many have tried medications and found the side effects to be worse than the ailment. We have stigmatized the mentally ill in this country and in the case of those who are homeless and unmedicated… As has been demonstrated in this thread… are seen as frightening, to be avoided and shunned.
Institutionalizing the mentally ill and unwilling addicts… Where? We don’t have enough treatment options available. Where do you suggest… Should we just commission warehouses to stick people away in? Personally, I don’t see human lives as disposable.
This to me sounds like one of the leading causes of homelessness/vagrancy: untreated mental illness. The drugs and alcohol go along with that. It’s self-medicating for many. With the numbers of prescriptions in America, it’s very likely that a large number of those who scoff at beer-soaked panhandlers are on Prozac, Xanax, Wellbutrin or some other psychoactive medication, but justify denying the less fortunate some measure of the same relief on some alleged moral grounds that it’s for their own good, or society’s good. It’s a very self-centered way of thinking.
It would be great if these people could get addiction treatment. It would be great if they could get mental health care. It’s next to impossible to get those things if you’re an uninsured, homed, working, taxpaying citizen. If you’re a transient with no address, can’t even shower or wash your clothes, how far do you think you’re going to get trying to get into a 28-day detox program?
Explain then, why when the weather is cold here in Pittsburgh, the shelters, if you can get to them, are routinely full up and the city and charitable organizations that don’t run shelters routinely open up temporary emergency shelters for the “overflow?” Could it be because there is a limit to how many beds and warm meals are available “every night?”
You also presume that it’s simple to get to the shelters. In Pittsburgh, if you’re a homeless woman, there’s one shelter you can go to, which presumes that you can get downtown. I believe that there are four for men, three of which are in one particular part of town which might require someone to cross two rivers to get to it. Ironically, if you’re downtown and you’re a man, you’re going to cross a river to get shelter, regardless. Not everyone can do that. And yes, you might have a couple of bucks in your pocket, but you’re not going to be able to get on a bus if you stink.
And you’re able to tell by looking at someone or talking to them for the 10 seconds of a panhandling effort if they’re able-bodied and mentally stable?:rolleyes: You don’t want to “maintain” the state they’re in, but if they’re hungry and you don’t help them, you’ve just maintained their state of hunger. That’s nice.
Our current situation is the result of a rare partnership of convervatives who wanted to save money by closing institutions and liberals who opposed the idea of trating people against their will. I think we may have to re-think our opposition to mandatory treatment and housing of the mentally ill who can’t take care of themselves.
I’m confused. The statement you quoted is me complaining about people lecturing me, in accordance with my previous post. What is it you want me to retract?