Doing the math to reduce homelessness

[AlonzoMourning23]

From New York to San Francisco, the nation has arrived at a collective aha moment about how to reduce chronic homelessness. Instead of just trying to manage this entrenched problem, cities are aiming to end it, and they're making laudable headway.

People who may live for years on and off the street are not the largest part of the homeless population; they are only about 10 percent. But they are far more expensive and difficult for a city to deal with than other kinds of homeless. Often mentally ill or addicted to drugs or alcohol, the long-term homeless shuttle between the street, shelters, detox centers, jails, and emergency rooms.

What cities are discovering is that it's more costefficient – and humane – to provide these individuals a long-term residence up front and assign them visiting case workers, rather than allowing them to rack up hefty tabs as "frequent fliers" to city and private services.

Dayton, Ohio, for instance, has found that on the street, one group of mentally ill homeless individuals cost taxpayers $203 a day. But when they were moved into a 10-unit apartment building, with supportive health services, that cost dropped to $85 a day.

Dayton is part of a recent federal-led assault on chronic homelessness. It's spearheaded by the Interagency Council on Homelessness, whose director, Philip Mangano, is taking a business-school approach to the problem. "Cost-benefit analysis is a friend to the homeless," he has said.

More than 200 cities and other jurisdictions have started 10-year plans, promoted by Mr. Mangano's council, to actually end chronic homelessness. They're getting community buy-in by including just about everyone on their task forces: businesses, foundations, religious groups, the media, and, of course, social services. They've had to identify the long-term homeless, then track them down one by one. They've found that a stable residence, individual attention, and a certain independence are helping people turn around their lives, with some finding jobs and contributing to rent.

Called "housing first," this approach differs from the more costly, managing-the-problem strategy of the mid-1980s. Then, cities built shelters tied to health services, with the hope that after the homeless stabilized, they would find long-term residences. But some spurned group shelters, or never stabilized.

Early returns show that the "housing first" approach to chronic homelessness is having an impact. In total, 30 of the 200-plus jurisdictions have reported homeless declines (some in chronic populations, others in their general homeless count). Since success breeds success, this should encourage cities to stick to their plans. It won't be easy to actually realize the savings because government agencies are loath to give up budget dollars – even ones they no longer need.

At the same time, these cities, as well as the federal government, should redouble efforts for the remaining 90 percent of the homeless. Two of the fastest growing homeless groups are the working poor and women with children (now, sadly, children make up a quarter of that vulnerable population).

Finally, the nation is making progress on homelessness. But it must become a 100-percent effort.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/ehomeless;_ylt=AtoyOvqqQKWC0UQy3Ex.NYSs0NUE;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

[Athena]

When Reagan slashed domestic budgets and poured money into the military, he lied about the reality of oil and the reality of the homeless. He was a great actor and everyone loved him because he said what they wanted to hear. That is when I became an activist for the homeless and we have made major improvements.

I think by law everyone should be covered by what call Section 8 Housing. Right now Eugene, Oregon has a two year waiting list for Section 8 Housing and that is rediculous. No one should have to wait 2 years to have affordable housing.

What Section 8 does is pay a person's rent. The person can live anywhere s/he can find a house the will pass Secition standards and is within the budget limits set for each person/family. The person pays 1/3 of his/her income for rent and Section 8 pays the rest. In some cases there is even an utility allowance.

This would for sure keep women and children in save housing, and it is not civilized to not protect women and children. However, I feel just as strongly about protecting men. Through my advocacy work, it became obvious if we helped the men, many of them would form families and remove the women and children from public assistance. By not helping men, we are not only discriminating against them, but also preventing the most practical self help unit, the family unit.

Section 8 Housing is made necessary largely by capitalism and the impersonal management of rental properties. The cost of housing continues to climb, and this puts working people and their families in a desparate situation, as their rent consumes too much of their income, and when they become homeless, it is almost impossible for them to get into another home without assistance. Assistance that is often not available or not enough. This is a social crime.

[BoogyMan]

Section 8 Housing is made necessary largely by capitalism and the impersonal management of rental properties.Â*Â*The cost of housing continues to climb, and this puts working people and their families in a desparate situation, as their rent consumes too much of their income, and when they become homeless, it is almost impossible for them to get into another home without assistance.Â*Â*Assistance that is often not available or not enough.Â*Â*This is a social crime.Â*Â*


Wow, capitalism causes homelessness?Â*Â*You have got to be kidding me!

Some Reading:
http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2004/s1108983.htm


Homeless Statistics for Developed Countries

Taken from Wikipedia at the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness

The following statistics indicate the approximate average number of homeless people at any one time. Each country has a different approach to counting homeless people, and estimates of homelessness made by different organisations vary wildly, so comparisons should be made with caution.

European Union: 3,000,000 (UN-HABITAT 2004)
England: 459 rough sleepers, 98,750 households in temporary accommodation (Department for Communities and Local Government 2005)
United States: 842,000 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 1999)
United States: 3,500,000 including 0.9 to 1.4 million children (UN-HABITAT 2004)
Canada: 200,000 (CBC News December 1998)
Australia: 99,000 (ABS: 2001 Census)

The number of homeless people worldwide has grown steadily in recent years. In some Third World nations such as Brazil, India, Nigeria, and South Africa, homelessness is rampant, with millions of children living and working on the streets. Homelessness has become a problem in the cities of China, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines despite their growing prosperity, mainly due to migrant workers who have trouble finding permanent homes and to rising income inequality between social classes.

[Athena]

Section 8 Housing is made necessary largely by capitalism and the impersonal management of rental properties.Â*Â*The cost of housing continues to climb, and this puts working people and their families in a desparate situation, as their rent consumes too much of their income, and when they become homeless, it is almost impossible for them to get into another home without assistance.Â*Â*Assistance that is often not available or not enough.Â*Â*This is a social crime.Â*Â*


Wow, capitalism causes homelessness?Â*Â*You have got to be kidding me!

Some Reading:
http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2004/s1108983.htm


Homeless Statistics for Developed Countries

Taken from Wikipedia at the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness

The following statistics indicate the approximate average number of homeless people at any one time. Each country has a different approach to counting homeless people, and estimates of homelessness made by different organisations vary wildly, so comparisons should be made with caution.

European Union: 3,000,000 (UN-HABITAT 2004)
England: 459 rough sleepers, 98,750 households in temporary accommodation (Department for Communities and Local Government 2005)
United States: 842,000 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 1999)
United States: 3,500,000 including 0.9 to 1.4 million children (UN-HABITAT 2004)
Canada: 200,000 (CBC News December 1998)
Australia: 99,000 (ABS: 2001 Census)

The number of homeless people worldwide has grown steadily in recent years. In some Third World nations such as Brazil, India, Nigeria, and South Africa, homelessness is rampant, with millions of children living and working on the streets. Homelessness has become a problem in the cities of China, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines despite their growing prosperity, mainly due to migrant workers who have trouble finding permanent homes and to rising income inequality between social classes.




Yes, capitalism causes homelessness, but it is not the only cause.Â*Â*Around the world populations are far exceeding the need for labor.Â*Â*Large populations can not provide well for the people without industrialization.Â*Â*The beginning stages of industrialization are terrible until a nation accumulates enough wealth to begin resolving the terrible social problems.Â*Â*In the beginning of England's and the US industrialization, children were used to man the factories and they were paid very poorly or not at all.Â*Â*In England, people sold their children to industries, as still happens today in some places in the world.Â*Â*These children were worked long hours, beaten to work, poorly feed, and slept on the floor.Â*Â*If they attempted to escape, they were put in chains.Â*Â*Things were not as bad in the US, because people could move west and own land.Â*Â*They risked their lives to do this and many died in the effort, but this possibility did contribute to slightly better industry conditions.Â*Â*

The advancement of our working class was largely due to the unions, and people willing to risk getting their heads bashed in as they fought for better wages and better working conditions.Â*Â*That fight continues to this day.Â*Â*True the US is doing better than newly industrialized countries, but this is about the beginning of industrialization, not the superiorty of the US, and if the value of the dollar drops and brings down the US economy, it will be worse than the Great Depression.Â*Â*The US is no longer the exporting nation it once was, but has become an importing nation.Â*Â*Much of US wealth was built on oil, than used for banking and increased, but now the US is importing oil and making loans to keep going.Â*Â*The problem is not just capitalism, but also autocratic industry.

Civilizations rise and fall, and the US has consumed its natural resources and spent its wealth. Like Rome, it is blowing the last of its wealth on military spending and taxing the people heavily for this, while neglecting social needs. It is in trouble.

[Mayberry]

The advancement of our working class was largely due to the unions, and people willing to risk getting their heads bashed in as they fought for better wages and better working conditions. That fight continues to this day. That fight is half of our current problem of jobs fleeing overseas as fast as they can. An assembly line worker does not need to earn $30 an hour. I'm all for someone making a decent living, which can be had at even $15 an hour (in most locations). it is blowing the last of its wealth on military spending and taxing the people heavily for this, while neglecting social needs. So if we are at the end of our wealth, isn't social spending "blowing our wealth" as well? Yes, capitalism causes homelessness O.K., environmental wackos cause homelessness too, then. So do social programs when people get taxed to death to support them, and can no longer afford their homes. One can argue nearly everything "causes" homelessness. In reality, it is the person's own poor choices that cause homelessness. A person could have chosen to have a job, not to have 4 kids by age 21, not to smoke crack, ......

[AlonzoMourning23]

Wow, capitalism causes homelessness? You have got to be kidding me!

Some Reading:
http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/con...108983.htm

Look, I'm not making that comment, but that's a horrible response, considering China's increasingly capitalist nature.

The following statistics indicate the approximate average number of homeless people at any one time. Each country has a different approach to counting homeless people, and estimates of homelessness made by different organisations vary wildly, so comparisons should be made with caution.

European Union: 3,000,000 (UN-HABITAT 2004)
England: 459 rough sleepers, 98,750 households in temporary accommodation (Department for Communities and Local Government 2005)
United States: 842,000 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 1999)
United States: 3,500,000 including 0.9 to 1.4 million children (UN-HABITAT 2004)
Canada: 200,000 (CBC News December 1998)
Australia: 99,000 (ABS: 2001 Census)


Numbers mean little without knowing the percentage of the population.

I assume that homeless means homeless at any point throughout the year, since that rate is about 1% of the u.s. population, which is relatively consisten with the 3.5 million figure. And, considering most eu countries a stronger social network, and a population of 450 million people (compared to our 300), while having 500,000 less homeless, that doesn't help your case either.

[kanyon40]

China has 1 billion people and is a communist coutry. Their recent capitalist tendencies change neither of those facts. Though I am not sure the relevance of the point anyway. What has China to do with what Mayberry said?

Just for the record, I am not going to talk about homelessness issues overseas, so if I leave any discussion on that from above unaccounted for, it is intentional. Instead, I want to talk about the homeless problem in America.

The largest percentage of homeless people in America are mentally and/or drug abusers. This is a fact. However, I don't say that dismissively as if to say that it is their fault, their problem, and who cares. Instead, I feel it is important, first, that we admit it is a fact, and second, begin to develop strategies for how to deal with it.

If we think that the biggest reason is unemployment then creating jobs as a solution will only lead to disappointment as the majority of homeless people in our country remain homeless. This is why it is important to recognize that the highest percentage are mentally ill or drug addicts.

Yes, it is true that drug addicts often became addicts on their own. That doesn't mean that the problem of drug addiction (or homelessness related to it) are any less of an issue for us to consider. We have a responsibility to each other. We have a responsibility to care for one another. The founding fathers believed that the bigger government got, the worse off we would be as a nation. So instead of attacking marginalized groups such as the homeless, which leaves them to be dealt with by an ever expanding government, we should be willing to respond to others' needs in a compassionate way.

Why is it that we are willing to celebrate our soldiers, thanking them for the great freedom that we have, assuming that we deserve that freedom when we didn't fight ourselves but let others do it for us; yet at the same time, we have a negative attitude towards helping those in our country. If some 18 year old can give his life in a war to protect my freedom, then as an American, I should be willing to protect the very life of my homeless neighbor. To ignore such issues is to suggest that only certain people are worthy of compassion or care. If that becomes the common belief in America, then no one will be willing to fight to defend freedom and we will lose everything.

(I am not a fan of government welfare or handouts, so please don't respond acting as though I am a big government liberal. I think government should be as small as possible; but in order to get government to stay out of our lives, we have to be willing to do the tasks that they will do if we don't, such as feeding the poor and housing the homeless.)

One program that is working (on a small scale) in Pittsburgh is what is known as the Community Treatment Team (for which my mother works). What they do is they help mentally ill and drug abusers to live normal lives while receiving treatment. Instead of long hospital stays that end up being billed to the government, the CTT takes meds to these people, helps them with their finances (including budgeting, and even holding onto their money for them) so that they can learn to be more responsible, take them food shopping, take them to AA and the like, and helps them to get into and keep housing that they wouldn't be able to get into on their own (because a paranoid schizophrenic on heroin isn't even thinking about a home, let alone working towards acquiring one). The result is that many of those same people who are homeless and would randomly show up in hospitals every so often just so they could get a shower and a free meal; they no longer end up in the hospital.

Another example of ways to deal with the problem are various humanitarian and faith-based organizations. Such organizations as soup kitchens and shelters do wonders. But there is much more we can do than that. For example, there is an organization in Pittsburgh called the Pittsburgh Project (what else hehe). This is a Christian organization (though their services are in no way dependent upon someone accepting Jesus) that has dedicated itself to revitalizing the city of Pittsburgh. They do things like buying burnt out homes for next to nothing and then restoring them and selling them to low income people. They sell them to low income people for almost nothing, and use the money to reinvest in more homes to buy and fix up. In addition, all the work is done by otherwise unskilled people in the city who have used this as an opportunity to be trained in a marketable skill such as carpentry or electrical work. So the benefit is double- low income people receiving very nice homes for next to nothing AND learning skills at the same time.

Furthermore, they run camps (weeklong in the summer and weekend in the fall/winter/spring) where they bring in youth groups to go into the rundown communities and do free home repairs for low-income and senior citizen people. So the benefit is that the kids learn the value of helping AND the less fortunate get to be cared for.

While this may not sound like it directly helps the mentally ill or drug abusers, let me share how it actually does. The city block where the Pittsburgh Project has set up used to be the most dangerous block in the city. Thanks to their work, there is virtually no crime there. The kids can go to the coffe shop they run instead of hanging out on street corners. They get to go to the after school program there instead of hanging out on the streets. The effect has not just been a drop in crime, but a drop in drug use amongst the kids there. So it becomes a pre-emptive strike against the next generation of would be abusers. At the same time, the housing and training that is provided for the low income families that were previously living in sub-par "projects" brings about a feeling of accomplishment and self worth that keeps them from becoming despondent and hopeless, which, in turn keeps them from turning to drugs when things get too bad to handle.

These are just some examples of ways to make a difference. Ultimately, my point is that we should take this kind of thing seriously. It is much better to keep the social services with the people instead of the government. The government sends a check and there is no dignity in that. The faith-based and other organizations not affiliated with the government are about uplifting the person- building skills, self-worth, self-esteem, and also providing for the people's needs. If we leave this to the government, the homeless population will be the same; nothing more than handouts will be given; and nothing will genuinely improve.

[Nathan Brazil]

What Section 8 does is pay a person's rent.Â*Â*The person can live anywhere s/he can find a house the will pass Secition standards and is within the budget limits set for each person/family.Â*Â*The person pays 1/3 of his/her income for rent and Section 8 pays the rest.Â*Â*In some cases there is even an utility allowance.Â*Â*

Why should I be responsible for housing the useless? That's a social crime, for certain. I owe those people nothing, they've done nothing for me. Why should the financial resources of my family be tapped, at the threat of arrest by mean people with guns if I don't pay what's demanded by the useless people for their support? Shouldn't they instead be arrested an hauled away because they're useless and thus present a threat to me and my family? Clearly a sane world would look askance at the beggar, not at the responsible person supporting his family and ten others besides.

[Nathan Brazil]

The largest percentage of homeless people in America are mentally and/or drug abusers.Â*Â*This is a fact.Â*Â*However, I don't say that dismissively as if to say that it is their fault, their problem, and who cares.

Why? What's wrong with saying honestly that you don't give a crap about them? I certainly don't. It is THEIR problem, isn't it? Aren't they the ones dying of hypothermia on Christmas?

Instead, I feel it is important, first, that we admit it is a fact, and second, begin to develop strategies for how to deal with it.

The only fair strategy is to find the people that give a crap, and ask them to donate time and money, and to leave the rest of us alone, since this is supposed to be a free country. And don't give me any crap about how civilized nations should care. Caring isn't enforced with guns and threats of prison.

Why is it that we are willing to celebrate our soldiers, thanking them for the great freedom that we have, assuming that we deserve that freedom when we didn't fight ourselves but let others do it for us; yet at the same time, we have a negative attitude towards helping those in our country.

The man in uniform is risking his life to defend your home. They're not paid anywhere near enough. The homeless bum is expecting you to help him for no practical reason at all.

If some 18 year old can give his life in a war to protect my freedom, then as an American, I should be willing to protect the very life of my homeless neighbor.

If you feel that way, you have the freedom to act on it. To enact laws enforcing such motivations on all of us does a complete disservice to the ideals this nation was founded on.

To ignore such issues is to suggest that only certain people are worthy of compassion or care.

Only certain people are worthy of compassion and care.

Idiots that get themselves addicted to drugs aren't in that group, and their presence on the A-List only serves to repel prospective but sensible charitable donors.

If that becomes the common belief in America, then no one will be willing to fight to defend freedom and we will lose everything.

Ah, an Eivel Kneivel leap over the Snake River Canyon of flawed logic. The core ideal that needs defending is the freedom each man has to decide who to feel sorry for.

(I am not a fan of government welfare or handouts, so please don't respond acting as though I am a big government liberal.Â*Â*I think government should be as small as possible; but in order to get government to stay out of our lives, we have to be willing to do the tasks that they will do if we don't, such as feeding the poor and housing the homeless.)

Fair enough.

One program that is working (on a small scale) in Pittsburgh is what is known as the Community Treatment Team (for which my mother works)....

Sounds fair enough...who's footing the bill?

Another example of ways to deal with the problem are various humanitarian and faith-based organizations.Â*Â*Such organizations as soup kitchens and shelters do wonders.Â*Â*But there is much more we can do than that.Â*Â*For example, there is an organization in Pittsburgh called the Pittsburgh Project (what else hehe).Â*Â*This is a Christian organization (though their services are in no way dependent upon someone accepting Jesus) that has dedicated itself to revitalizing the city of Pittsburgh.Â*Â*They do things like buying burnt out homes for next to nothing and then restoring them and selling them to low income people.Â*Â*They sell them to low income people for almost nothing, and use the money to reinvest in more homes to buy and fix up.Â*Â*In addition, all the work is done by otherwise unskilled people in the city who have used this as an opportunity to be trained in a marketable skill such as carpentry or electrical work.Â*Â*So the benefit is double- low income people receiving very nice homes for next to nothing AND learning skills at the same time.

Wouldn't they be able to serve more people if they hired the destitute to fix up damaged properties then sold those properties at market prices, using the proceeds to pay decent wages to the employees and then letting them buy their own homes just like everyone else?

[kanyon40]

Nathan, I never suggest in my post that anyone is "obligated" to do anything altruistic. But it isn't a leap of logic to suggest that there is a correlation to those who protect our freedom and lives over seas, and those who protect it here at home by caring for the destitute. An 18 year old goes to war because the 80 year old can't. The same way, the willing person with the means helps the one who doesn't have the means. While I don't in any way think that charity or altruism should be mandatory, I also try to offer another reason other than altruism. While we would like government to stop expanding and start shrinking; and to stop taking on social programs that aren't actually the purpose of government; you and I both know that they aren't going to do that. The only real chance there is of keeping the government from adding more and more entitlements, is if private citizens start meeting the needs first. So while it is altruistic to help a neighbor, it is also politically beneficial in keeping the government from getting involved. I am not foolish enough to believe that we will ever get the government out of the social programs system, but since they don't work, anyway, I see it as certainly worth trying.

As for who is footing the bill of the Pittsburgh Project- the Pittsburgh Project is. They don't run on government money. They were set up to do just what I am saying... to try to take the power from the government and put it back with us.

For the Community Treatment Team, it is funded by the Mental Hospitals in the area who are able to dramatically cut costs and government handouts by not having people admitted who really don't need any treatment.

[Athena]

What Section 8 does is pay a person's rent.Â*Â*The person can live anywhere s/he can find a house the will pass Secition standards and is within the budget limits set for each person/family.Â*Â*The person pays 1/3 of his/her income for rent and Section 8 pays the rest.Â*Â*In some cases there is even an utility allowance.Â*Â*

Why should I be responsible for housing the useless?Â*Â*That's a social crime, for certain.Â*Â*I owe those people nothing, they've done nothing for me.Â*Â*Why should the financial resources of my family be tapped, at the threat of arrest by mean people with guns if I don't pay what's demanded by the useless people for their support?Â*Â*Shouldn't they instead be arrested an hauled away because they're useless and thus present a threat to me and my family?Â*Â*Clearly a sane world would look askance at the beggar, not at the responsible person supporting his family and ten others besides.




Darling, it cost less to house someone in a high class hotel than in the jail, and if you want to take care of the worthless people in the cost effective way, I am sure everyone will be happy. Especially the homeless who have nice, clean and safe hotel rooms.

There but for the grace go you. How old are you? What will happen to you if you are in a car accident with someone who has no insurance, and you loose the use of your legs, or are brain damaged? What if you get one of several diseases that slowly deteriorates a person's body or mind. A 44 year man with ALS, the disease that destroys a person's memory and ability to think, is looking for a care giver. Others around that age have ALS, which destroys a person's nervous system. Would you recommend we shoot these people so you don't need to help support them? What if someday that person is you?

What of the vets who return so messed up they can't succeed with the job and home thing? Should we just shoot them, so they stop holding up signs asking for help? Did you serve in a war?

A rather large per centage of males are schziod, then we have people with Down's syndrome, and plenty of people with a variety of learning disabilities. Just worthless human beings? Where I live, we have special work programs for these people, and foster homes, and other forms of housing for low income people. Sometimes we have to make adjustments for people to over come their problems, and I sure don't think of these people as worthless. If nothing else, they teach us to be better human beings, and thankful for what we have, the ability to see, hear, walk, qualify for good jobs.

As for those who go into drug detox and rehabilitation places, plenty of them are contributing citizens, holding good jobs and supporting families.
They are good people who did not expect the effects of addiction. So they need help. When they get the help they need, they join main stream society again, and are just like the average citizen, but perhaps a little more compassionate and a little wiser. Just because a person falls, that doesn't mean the person is worthless.

[Athena]

Nathan, I never suggest in my post that anyone is "obligated" to do anything altruistic.Â*Â*But it isn't a leap of logic to suggest that there is a correlation to those who protect our freedom and lives over seas, and those who protect it here at home by caring for the destitute.Â*Â*An 18 year old goes to war because the 80 year old can't.Â*Â*The same way, the willing person with the means helps the one who doesn't have the means.Â*Â*While I don't in any way think that charity or altruism should be mandatory, I also try to offer another reason other than altruism.Â*Â*While we would like government to stop expanding and start shrinking; and to stop taking on social programs that aren't actually the purpose of government; you and I both know that they aren't going to do that.Â*Â*The only real chance there is of keeping the government from adding more and more entitlements, is if private citizens start meeting the needs first.Â*Â*So while it is altruistic to help a neighbor, it is also politically beneficial in keeping the government from getting involved.Â*Â*I am not foolish enough to believe that we will ever get the government out of the social programs system, but since they don't work, anyway, I see it as certainly worth trying.

As for who is footing the bill of the Pittsburgh Project- the Pittsburgh Project is.Â*Â*They don't run on government money.Â*Â*They were set up to do just what I am saying... to try to take the power from the government and put it back with us.

For the Community Treatment Team, it is funded by the Mental Hospitals in the area who are able to dramatically cut costs and government handouts by not having people admitted who really don't need any treatment.


It is nice to share agreement with you. It is nice I am not alone with the idea that good people care for each other.

[Nathan Brazil]

Darling, it cost less to house someone in a high class hotel than in the jail, and if you want to take care of the worthless people in the cost effective way, I am sure everyone will be happy.Â*Â*Especially the homeless who have nice, clean and safe hotel rooms.Â*Â*

If I'm "Darling", you're "Babe".

Looky here, Babe, I can't for the life of me figure out why prison inmates have it so nice. Why, they even get fed meat daily. There's no need for that. And we heat the jails, too. What a novel concept.

Also, we have people in jail that shouldn't be there. Drug users and dealers who've committed no crime of violence, for example.


There but for the grace go you.

Bullsh, Babe. Men can only crawl into the gutter when they already have the gutter in their souls.

What if you get one of several diseases that slowly deteriorates a person's body or mind.Â*Â*A 44 year man with ALS, the disease that destroys a person's memory and ability to think, is looking for a care giver.Â*Â*Others around that age have ALS, which destroys a person's nervous system.Â*Â*Would you recommend we shoot these people so you don't need to help support them?Â*Â*What if someday that person is you?

That's an option. I certainly would insist on shooting myself rather than persist in such a condition.

What of the vets who return so messed up they can't succeed with the job and home thing?Â*Â*Should we just shoot them, so they stop holding up signs asking for help?Â*Â*Did you serve in a war?

Vets that are damaged by their service should be taken care of by a grateful nation. Period. If they're not be taken care of, all funding for the truly useless should be stopped until they are.

A rather large per centage of males are schziod, then we have people with Down's syndrome, and plenty of people with a variety of learning disabilities.Â*Â*Just worthless human beings?

Pretty much. They aren't doing me any good, explain why I should be forced to support them. If you care, you pay for it. That's not only fair, it's true democracy and it's even emblematic of true freedom.

As for those who go into drug detox and rehabilitation places, plenty of them are contributing citizens, holding good jobs and supporting families.

Well, then, they don't need any tax dollars from me, right?

They are good people who did not expect the effects of addiction.

That means they were good and stupid people. Duh.

So they need help.Â*Â*When they get the help they need, they join main stream society again, and are just like the average citizen, but perhaps a little more compassionate and a little wiser.Â*Â*Just because a person falls, that doesn't mean the person is worthless.Â*Â*


What it doesn't mean is that everyone that hasn't failed should be required to carry their burdens for them.

[Mayberry]

What will happen to you if you are in a car accident with someone who has no insurance, and you loose the use of your legs, or are brain damaged? What if you get one of several diseases that slowly deteriorates a person's body or mind. A 44 year man with ALS, the disease that destroys a person's memory and ability to think, is looking for a care giver. That's why I pay large sums of money every month for health insurance. What of the vets who return so messed up they can't succeed with the job and home thing? Should we just shoot them, so they stop holding up signs asking for help? Veterans receive veteran's benefits. There should be no vets on the street. If there are, it's because they choose to be. No need to shoot them. A rather large per centage of males are schziod, then we have people with Down's syndrome, and plenty of people with a variety of learning disabilities. The parents of these people are responsible for them. You have a kid, that kid has problems, those problems are now theirs, not mine. They are good people who did not expect the effects of addiction And this is my problem because? I don't do drugs, because I'm smart enough to know the consequences. Those consequences have been beaten into my head for the last 20 years, same as everyone else. Your stupidity is not my problem. Take responsibility for yourself.

[Athena]

Well, it looks to me like the two of you do not agree about the right or wrong of doing drugs. I will let you two argue that one.

Mayberry, is your health insurance going to take care of you for the rest of your life if you become disabled? This would mean, you will keep your home, have enough money of a decent standard of living, plus people to care for you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. What is the name of that insurance and how much do you pay for it?

[Athena]

One more thing, there are plenty of veterans on the streets.Â*Â*Haven't you heard of their plight?Â*Â*How about those who faced serious health problems because of the chemicals they used in Vietnam and had to fight for compensation?Â*Â*What of all those who suffer post trauma syndrome and have such severe emotional and social problems, their families avoid them, and employers don't want them, and they get no help because these cases are very hard to prove.

Plenty of people in prision today, were the people who were once kept in sanitariums.Â*Â*They have brain defects that are beyond their control and they did nothing to cause this problem.Â*Â*It is said a society has the crime it deserves.Â*Â*What do you think that saying means?

Those who do not have defective brains, had defective home and school school lives.Â*Â*Harsh treatment doesn't correct the problem.Â*Â*And when was the last time you actually looked into jail and prison conditions?Â*Â*Some are more humane than others, and some are so bad they should be closed.Â*Â*Or better, subject those responsible for these inhumane conditions to their own creation of hell.Â*Â*

What do you know of brain function and personality development?Â*Â*Like if you are on a mountian road and your car breaks down, you could push it over a cliff, or you could have it towed to a mechanic.Â*Â*I think your attitude towards others is emotional and short of information.Â*Â*It is certainly lacking compassion, and people who lack compassion frighten me.Â*Â* The attitude is like pushing the car over the cliff because it stopped functioning they way you want it to function, rather than finding our what the problem is and fixing it.Â*Â*

Are those of you who just assume shoot defective human beings and element them from society, also in favor of abortion?Â*Â*I hope so.

PS I think humans who lack compassion are defective. Bang, bang you are dead. Is there something wrong with this logic? Like Isreals idea of bombing their trouble out of Lebanon is a good one as long as Israel isn't bomb with equal military force. I think when we think of elementing others, as the way to resolve human problems, we are not thinking of subject so to the social rule. Just because you think your life is valuable, is no gaurentee everyone thinks your life has value. ;) Just how do we determine if another human being has value or not?

Hey, the Aztecs had a great system. The first time a person commitment a crime, the person was sold into slavery. The second time the person was sold to a different owner. The third time, the person became food for the gods.

[Nathan Brazil]

Oh, crap.

Some people just choose to be criminals. If they're momma failed to teach them to respect others, it's their momma's problem, but they still belong in jail.

Veterans? Homeless? If they've got a service related injury, they're eligible for care at VA facilities. If they choose not to avail themselves of this, why should we care?

If they're alleged problem isn't service related, then we shouldn't care any more about them than anyone else that makes a bad personal choice, right?

And if the remainder was cracked to begin with, isn't that what true charity is for?