:rolleyes: back atchya dear, and I mean that in the nicest way possible.
Eternal said:
By that def’n, I suppose if they sat around all day you would say that they’d be working hard at doing nothing?
I also have to disagree with Eternal. These people, whether legit or scam artists, are not “working stiffs”. They provide neither a product nor a service in exchange for their monetary compensation. It’s charity, not employment.
What I think most people are annoyed with are the beggars that lie to them. If someone came to my door, said they were collecting for the local red cross, and then pocketed the money, I’d be pissed.
This is why I don’t give money to the “disabled” guy who hangs out a block from my apartment. I recognize him, and know that his bad leg seems to heal pretty quick when he wants it to. That’s not a “working stiff” - that’s a con-man. However, I will help our local wandering schizophrenic, I’ll call him “Rodney”, when he needs it.
The odd thing is, Rodney almost never asks for anything. Both guys would come into the bar where I used to work, though not together. Rodney would ask for water, or a budweiser if he had a couple of bucks (I was concerned about serving alcohol to a schizophrenic, but did it anyway). Asshole con-man would demand something to eat. Rodney would either leave with his water or sit quietly at the bar nursing the budweiser (sometimes talking to himself, but that’s neither here nor there). Asshole would rub his pelvic region against the nearest waitress untill I hopped out from behind the bar and ejected him. In the afternoons, I’d see Rodney walking up and down the street talking to himself. I’d ask him if he needed anything and his eyes would clear as if coming back to reality, he’d smile his crooked smile complete with missing teeth, and ocassionally ask for something to eat or a couple of bucks - but usually he’d say he was fine (or he’d just keep walking while arguing with himself - but that’s neither here nor there). I’d see asshole leaning against the Chevron pulling his “disabled vet” act. He would studiously ignore me because he knows that I know his legs worked perfectly the night before when I kicked him out for harrassing the wait staff. As to the “vet” thing, how a 35 year old man fought in Vietnam is beyond me.
I wouldn’t say either of them is a working stiff. Neither of them is doing anything to earn their keep. However, in Rodney’s case it’s acceptable.
Allthough I do not work with the homeless, I have dealt with them plenty due to living and working in the city. It is my experience that the more demanding and obnoxious one is, the more likely it is that he can work, but won’t. The more meek and polite, the more likely they really do need help.
Or Beeblebrox, is that just the stereotype of the ‘humble’ beggar coming out? Perhaps it makes YOU feel better that they are eternally grateful for the few bucks you give them?
some of the most demanding and ‘obnoxious’ street-people around here are also the most needy, as their personality difficulties make it hard for them to fit in to the STREET community as well. They don’t necessarily mean to be personally threatening although it often comes across that way.
Oh, and Diane, just because a Veteran wasn’t actively fighting in the war does NOT mean they suffered NO ill effects from it. The controversy that surrounded the US involvement in Vietnam led to a HUGE number of returned service-people experiencing psychological problems that have lasted to this day. Disabilities are not always physically visible y’know.
Said to Diane??? Yiiiiiii…mamma me iah…
Not really picking on you Kam but this just goes to show that about ½ the folks in this thread are not reading what is being said. ::: sheesh ::::
And… (just knew that was coming didn’t ya?) If I give my 22 year old kid, well he was 22 once a long time ago but I digress, money for college and he spends it on whacky tabaky and does not go to school by what deffinition is that okay? Just as if I give $2.00 to the street bum and want him to buy food with it but it is okay for him to say it is for food like my kid said it was for school and then they both buy whacky tabacky with it. Put in anything you like at the MJ references as long as it is not the purpose I intended when I gave them the money. (not about drugs , just what is not the intended purpose.
This is Okay how? We are not talking a Christmas present here ya know.
I realise that you are talking about the situation in the US but I have extensive experience of dealing with the homeless in London (10 years plus) and the same arguements are had here. So heres my tuppence worth (about three cents).
People choose to be homeless?
Not in my experience. However I can see where the perception comes from. The immediate alternative on offer here in london is often very grim indeed. Violent, dirty and gruesome. Also many people find a form of cameraderie on the streets which is missing in hostels, and they miss their friends. THis is a typical hostel (one of the better ones):
http://www.aisling.org.uk/pages/ahnow.htm
Some feel safer on the streets. Another problem (especialywith paranoid schizophrenics) is that the process of obtaining this accommodation is very bureacratic and many find that it sets off their paranoia.
Its financially rewarding?
Yes it is, however the hours are dreadful. In London a single man is entitled to £53 pwk and his accommodation costs paid by welfare. By selling the big issue and begging it is quite possible to make around £150 a week (20+ pounds a day). Giving a disposable income of around £200 ($300) a week.
The downsides to this apparently easy money are: violence (aka “taxing”) illness, loss of self esteem etc.
“Vets”
I can’t speak for the US but 60% of London’s rough sleepers have a service history (this tends not to be in the elite regiments, but I have had ex SAS clients before). THis is an official figure.
some info here:
http://www.ssafa.org.uk/howWeHelp_faq.html
UK rough sleeping info (UK Govt paper).
http://www.housing.dtlr.gov.uk/information/rough/ar99/index.htm
hope this helps.
No, it isn’t, and I resent the implication. Obviously, I don’t have statistics to back it up, but my personal experience was that nearlly all the frauds were obnoxious. I gave a real a world example and specifcally wrote “It is my experience that…more likely to” and you jumped to conclusions.
Jesus. Fuck off already. Did you read my post? Rodney ain’t grateful, he doesn’t even understand what’s going on half the time. Perhaps if you stepped down from your Socialist Ivory Tower and actually dealt with these people, you might have some real world stories of your own. Do you know one single homeless person, kambukta? I don’t mean seeing the same guy two blocks from your office as you drive past everyday, I mean do you actually know one?
preview, B, preview
Uh, no shit Sherlock. You do realize what I do for a living, right? If not, maybe I suggest you re-read this thread.
But HUGE number of non-combat servicemen experiencing psychological problem that have lasted to this day?
Bullshit.
Let’s see a cite backing up this “HUGE NUMBER”.
Another FYI since you have taken it upon yourself to educate me on the differences between mental and physical disabilities in relation to military service:
(1) VA recognizes ANY disability or condition that occurred during active duty to be service connected. These disabilities can range from schizophrenia to a knee that was injured playing football during peace-time service. There must be medical evidence showing these conditions began ni service and still exist in order for VA to pay compensation.
(2) Service connected disabilities are **NOT ** the same thing as combat related.
(3) There are some conditions that are presumptive to military exposure, for example, diabetes mellitus type II is considered a presumptive condition to exposure to Agent Orange. In other words, if veteran records show in-country service to Vietnam and a current diagnosis of diabetes, it is presumed the two are related and benefits are paid. Same goes for mustard gas, radiation, etc.
(4) Certain mental conditions such as post traumatic stress disorder are result of specific stressors that have happened while on active duty. A peace-time veteran may experience PTSD because he was the driver in an automobile crash that killed his best friend or a female soldier may experience depression to do sexual assault.
So yeah, although uncommon, part your claim is correct, there are SOME non-combat veterans who suffer mental conditions.
However, in all my years in this career field, in all the publications and studies I have read, in all my training and experience, I have NEVER, ever, ever seen anything that even comes close to suggesting “a HUGE number” on non-combat veterans suffering from PTSD.
If I got the wrong impression from your post and this really isn’t what you are implying, please clarify. If not, I (as well as VA) would be most interested in seeing a valid cite.
Diane, if I may, I would like to state for the record that you fucking rock! That was a great series of posts. What you have written is what I have always suspected with regards to all of those beggers claiming to be vets. Now I have some proof.
Haj
gobear said it already:
**
donnat was a bit hasty, but I believe that’s what he meant.
Whaaaaat?! Entitled by whom? The Invisible Pink Unicorn? Listen, even god has his hands full right now, and I’m not going to take it upon myself to figure out who’s entitled to what.
**
Okay, so you’re effective because you donate to charities, but we’re all bastards for not giving directly.
Forgot to add: Like a Black OPs guy would be on the streets instead of having been duly compensated to shut him up. :rolleyes:
Entitled by my code of morality as a result of his humanity. You may disagree (as per your own code of morality) and hence give nothing.
I simply disagree that the essence of being human is mere survival and so do not begrudge anyone - no matter their circumstances - the desire for something more than mere survival. This leads me to not condemn the homeless man that wants the dollar for something other than a sandwich.
I’m sorry - I don’t know what you’re saying here. Rather than presume something which may not have been your intent, I’m going to instead have to ask you to clarify.
Are you being sincere? Sarcastic? Are you saying that it is or is not effective to give to a homeless charity rather than direct to the homeless? Or should I give to both (hence doubling the amount of charity I currently pay - not an inconsiderable amount)?
Once you clarify, I can either agree or rebutt as appropriate.
pan
I meant that it seemed hypocritical of you to state that it’s more effective to give to charity, where you can be reasonably sure that it will be used constructively, after a big schpiel about how noble it is to put money in someone’s hand and let them make their own, possibly unhealthy, decision. I think it is more effective to give to charity. But if you don’t give cash to panhandlers, why are you criticizing others who don’t?
I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m not criticizing anyone who does not give directly to the homeless. I’m just trying to show that a homeless person is not evil incarnate just because they use money given them to buy beer rather than bread.
I’m saying that the complaint, “But they didn’t use the money I gave them to buyt food” is one with which I don’t have much truck. As individuals they know what their priorities are - if it’s food then they’ll buy food. If you specifically want to give them food, then offer them some food and if they refuse then that’s up to them.
Personally, I don’t want to give them beer or bread directly. This is for two reasons:
(1) high profile homelessness charities have specifically requested us not to, since it undermines their initiatives and encourages the status quo; and
(2) I believe that my charity money is more effectively spent contributing to the aforementioned initiatives and trusting that both necessities and life-enhancements will be provided by those charities.
I understand that some people prefer their charity to go directly to the recipient, so would not enforce this way of contributing on others. But if you do want to give directly, I question the “not for anything but food” methodology.
pan
Or, in other words, I expect my charities also to provide more than merely food.
pan
Fair enough. But it’s still my decision.
When I lived in Cleveland, I used to give panhandlers granola bars. Make of that what you will.
I make of that some rather befuddled panhandlers munching on yuppie snacks. Which is an image that rather appeals, for some reason.
kabbes, they were not yuppie snacks. They were “The Phar-Mor in Shaker Heights is closing and everything’s 50% or more off” snacks.