There are so many miltary bases that are not being used
anymore in every state. The homeless problem has become a horrible
shame and a growing one. Why couldn't these bases be used for
the homeless? This idea was given to me by older brother and I
agree with him. What do you think?
The facilities are there and I am sure this could be a volunteer
effort with some freebies donated by the government.
Im in. It sounds like a terrific idea.
Walden - I finally checked in and read all the responses - the government would most obviously would have to provide atleast half of the expenses and more than likely they would expect something from the homeless in return for the help. Low rent - submit forms - volunteer - participate in self-help - and so forth. They would need security, cleaning, first aid, all that stuff for living a decent life. Thanks for the comments. I work odd shifts - took a cooking class and had to get my car worked on - so my computer life lags behind.
Sounds like it might be a good solution, but you know what happens when you involve the government in anything.
I love the idea, and it's definitely a good one. However, I would probably make some changes though while these people are staying on the base that they should be given opportunities to continue their education, and/or become a part of some sort of job placement program. this way while the homeless are allowed to live there for free, they can eventually bounce back on their feet to support themselves. After all, the only problem with this solution would be how would you keep people from taking advantage of it?
As a person could in theory, after losing his/her job, they could easily lose all their money and assets on purpose, or pretend to be homeless, just to get a free meal and housing out of the whole situation. Not saying that everyone would do that, but it definitely leaves the door open for that possibility. This is why I think if we did start using abandoned military bases as you suggest, then we should only do it if we're going to somehow figure out a way to make these same homeless people take part in a job placement program, or allow them the opportunity to continue their education.
Not saying that people still wouldn't take advantage of that same system if it were to happen, but it would certainly be step in the right direction.
Absolutely great ideas.
Rehabilitation is key.
Steve & Walden: I am going to print out all these responses for my brother who will be estatic. When the government and military bases get involved - right away one realiuzes they expect results. If they didn't follow the rules - they would have to leave. Glad you found this idea a good one.
have you ever seen what happens to places that homeless people take over. they destroy them. i've been homeless and i've seen what happens first hand. this need to help people that don't want help or in many cases don't deserve help is foolish and not sustainable. i'd love to see every person have a decent place to live but the problem is far too many people aren't decent.
It's a great idea but will not happen - the homeless don't vote so why would any politician life a finger to help them? It's an utter disgrace that America spends Trillions on the military and on wars - if you have the equipment you have to use them - but millions are homeless and go hungry. It's time for mankind to beat our swords into plowshares.
First - would they go if some of those bases were away from cities and sources of revenue? Secondly, a lot of these bases simply would be unacceptable for a wide variety of reasons. There would certainly be some that would be suitable, however this could result in a wide range of additional costs as the government would then be liable for a range of things.
The who situation with people not having a home to live in is a problem that does not go away even with massive social reforms. Even here in Aus where I come from the social systems are in place to help these people and you still see them on the streets because some of these people are very hard to help, or outright refuse any kind of help other than dollars in their hands. That is why I encourage people to offer food if they want to help someone and not money as they cannot guarantee where the money will be spent.
Not true, look at parks theyre not liable. You can wave things like that.
Some of what you said is true about the kinds of homeless there are.
However, imagine you help 50 families at that base.
Imagine if one of the kids grew up to cure aids or cancer or whatever.
The possibilities are endless. The only certain outcome is if you don't help nothing can happen.
Now stop right there. At no point did the posts above mention parks. The discussion was about military bases and as such the government would have to consider costs and also the potential for their own liability.
Even if the homeless lived on the training fields in the bases there is still the possibility that the government could be held liable for any incidents or accidents that occur. You must remember that these are not parks, they are military facilities.
Also - your last statement is not a valid argument. I could just as easily counter by saying "imagine if one of the kids grew up to be just like Hitler or cause world war III". That kind of argument, be it positive or negative, is pointless.
Now stop right there. Obviously you do not understand leases, real estate, property transfers.
Not helping people because their children could be hitler.
Seriously go somewhere in public and say that out loud.
What an argument lol.
Now you are just trying to put a spin on my words. Why do people always try that tactic when the carpet is pulled out from under their arguments?
Now you are bringing leases, real estate and property transfers into the discussion. That is twice you have sought to add something to the discussion for whatever reason. First Parks (which I was not talking about) and now real estate (which I was also not talking about). What is next? How about broadway musicals or the value of the canadian dollar.
At no point were leases, real estate or property transfers mentioned and I have a good understanding of them. By raising them, you are employing misdirection in an obvious attempt to win what you percieve to be some kind of argumentative contest. I do not see our discussion as such. I am just pointing out the facts.
Lol. Your final statement is flawed to the point of comedy. It is quite clear to everyone that in my last post I was inferring that your arguments about curing aids or cancer were flawed because the same argument could be used in the negative.
It is very clear that I was not suggesting that people should not be helped because of who their children may become - as you rightly know. That was clearly an attempt to deflect my logical statement and twist its meaning. I do not appreciate that as an attempt to put an alternate meaning to a persons words is character assassination. However, I don't hold that against you and can easily forgive it as at the end of the day we both have the same goal in mind, namely to get people off the streets and into shelter of some kind.
How would the government let an organization use a base without a lease, rental, or property transfer agreement of some kind?
I thought it was common sense till you attacked it.
The park example you keep bringing up for some reason, was to show the governments ability to remove liability from itself on the real property it holds.
How you don't see this boggles and troubles me.
All I did for your "logic" lol, was to show the fallacy in which you stated.
I just asked you to repeat it in public.
No im not a grant writer. I actually help people though and have a college edumocation so the two apparently give me a little bit more knowledge on the subject than you have.
After all this you still don't understand that the government has homeless shelters being run out of their buildings now, at least on the state level for sure.
They don't need water forced in, or communism, or whatever nonsense you keep writing.
Please say this out loud.
There are homeless shelters in America.
Some are already in government buildings.
They exist on grants and charity.
What a spout of nonsense. Again you insist on trying to put words in my mouth. Tell me when I have wrote about communism?
It is clear that you want this to go on as long as possible because you are getting some kind of kick out of having an argument and trying to twist my words around. Quite childish really.
I have no interest in this kind of nonsense. If you wish to use the homelessness as a foundation to attack people for fun then by all means do so, however you won't be wasting any more of my time.
I just countered every point you had made and you zero in on the obvious hyperbole.
Then you dismiss all of it as nonsense.
It's painfully obvious what I'm dealing with.
Actually, having just read the rest of this thread, it is clear that you do not know what or who your are dealing with in any of your replies!
Clearly you are getting mixed up and don't know if you are replying to me or someone else further down. No wonder you are bringing up topics we are not even speaking about!
Still when you are trying to start AND win arguments with more than one person at the same time, for reasons of personal ego no doubt, then I can understand why you get it all confused and coming unstuck. Lol. Anyway - It has been an interesting discussion and I think it is time for me to move on. Good luck keeping on track, maybe worth focusing on one topic at a time!
Brian - Yes - there are always problems with whatever is tried today. Many homeless need mental healtrh care - I will have to get back to everyone with what my brother has to say - since we discussed this idea in a phone conversation. He is a retired English teacher. thanks.
That sounds like a great idea, but:
Who will supply the electricity?
Who buys the water?
Who provides police protection?
Who provides fire stations?
Who comes up with oil or gas for heat?
Most bases are a ways from city shopping or jobs - who provides the free bus service?
Many bases have "privatized" base houses - they are rented out to the military personnel. Who pays the rent to the owners?
Much base housing is in the form of barracks, with community mess halls. Who provides the food and cooks it?
Who maintains the housing and does repairs?
Who cuts the grass?
Who cleans community bathrooms?
And biggest of all, who determines who gets free housing? As soon as such a thing went into effect thousands upon thousands of people will line up for free housing. You can expect a large percentage of section 8 recipients to suddenly be "homeless" if they can get housing without even the small rent required now.
Finally, charity and welfare is not a long term solution. It only promotes the requirement for ever more charity. People all the time lose their home, job, etc. and need temporary help, but to supply unlimited support to those too lazy to work will not solve anything. To supply temporary housing to someone down on their luck could be the best thing that ever happened to them; to provide years or a lifetime of the same thing to someone will only hurt them and society.
Who provides anything for charity?
What kind of ridiculous questions are these?
You think people on section 8 housing will become homeless to have the most basic necessities?
Shelters are for short term.
It's obvious from your statements you have an agenda and have never helped homeless or poor.
You have an agenda not solutions.
Individuals. Churches and other charities. State and federal government.
Too ridiculous to answer? At least I note you failed to provide any...
You think that a 3rd generation welfare mama in section 8 won't triple her free money by claiming homelessness? Wake up and look around you.
The OP did not mention short term shelters, just homes for the homeless. Did you read that first post?
I have three times taken in homeless and housed and fed them for weeks or months. All three ended up back on their feet and leading productive lives - it's how charity should work and not simply a lifelong handout.
I thought my post was pretty plain that this idea has merit for short term housing help but that there are also huge problems in starting up a good sized city of otherwise homeless and helpless people.
Or do you just live in a dream world and think lawns will magically cut themselves when the homeless turn up without lawn mowers? Will water magically come from the tap and the lights and heat work by magic? Or does someone have to actually supply and deliver these things?
I didn't state any because it was so plainly obvious.
Why would you ask then?
I hope what you say is true, I only have your word to go by .
People get electricity for shelters the same way they all do.
Charity, grant writing, etc etc
Hmmm. I presume you think the red cross will cover all expenses for a dozen or so 5,000 population cities then, as it is so obvious. Certainly no city or state has the budget to do it, and the feds are so far in the red it is ridiculous to even think they should.
Or were you offering to do it from your pocket?
I ask because you appear to think that it will all be paid for by magic. I might estimate my own housing costs (outside of the house itself) to run maybe $1000 per month. Utilities, groceries, police and fire, repairs, transportation, etc. etc. A thousand homes is then a million per month - what city or state could absorb that kind of expense today? Half of them are already toying with bankruptcy - just one small town of homeless could tip them over the edge!
A dozen 5000 person cities?
Where are these figures coming from?
your failing the idea from the beginning for whatever reasons you have.
Talking about people leaving there house to live on a cot and crazy stuff like that.
How is it not likely to find donors for maybe an area of the base for say maybe 10 families to start.
You can write for grants like every shelter I know.
Churches sponsor shelters.
Grow your own food.
Maybe these things aren't available where you live?
It's not an unreasonable estimate. I know that here in Sacramento a few years back there were two or three hundred people who formed a city on some private property, and insisted on their "right" to live "somewhere." It was a compelling argument in that there is no place you can go live for free, or near free, having as spartan an existence as you choose. However, just look at the problems that the Occupy movements are having in the parks and places they take over. Not only is there urine and feces everywhere, trash and drug materials laying about, the lawns in a few cities have been "teeming with lice."
And that's just after a few weeks. Wilderness is trying to make a very reasonable point. People will show up and live for free somewhere if they are allowed to, as evidenced by the tent city in Sacramento among others. If word gets out that there is a permanent place for such a thing, it won't just be the local-word-of-mouth crowd, but lots of people from all surrounding areas that don't have access to a free place to live. The numbers will swell. 5,000? Who knows. In my town, maybe not. Maybe more like 800 or 1200. In L.A., New York? 5,000 is probably a joke it's so small.
And who will police it. Clean it. Kill the lice and rats, stem the tides of disease that erupt from primitive (no sanitation) urban communities that have not been planned and built with all the infrastructures in place.
To which you will likely say, "So let's do that. Let's anticipate the tent city and build all that."
If you do say that, then you are asking that we build towns for people who don't want to work and then provide them all the services for free that you and I pay taxes for. And the excuse for them getting to live there for free while the rest of us have to work even harder, even longer, for even less is that "its the right thing to do."
I love idealism, but at some point we have to balance Utopian ideals with natural truth. Regular working people aren't going to eat sh-- every day "For the Man" to pay for people to live in free towns that WILL grow steadily as working becomes less and less rewarding than it already is. Which is where part of your comment comes in...
I can't believe you really refuse to admit that there are people, lots of them, who would rather take a free ride than sweat through a lifetime of long, boring, thankless rat-race days.
If you won't admit this supremely well documented truth, then I dismiss anything else you can possibly say as being nothing but the fruit of a hippy tree. No offense. Hopefully, it won't come to that.
There are lots of these. But not enough to pay for permanent towns of 500 or 5,000 or 50,000. Not enough to cover all those costs, every day, day after day, year after year... especially once they become voting blocks with advocacy and all that, which begins to mandate more "rights" for them. No way.
Shades - I will let my brother answer your comment - look for a reply this week-end sometime. Thank you.
Please show me where this supremely documented truth is.
Like the poster your defending you are creating arbitrary figures and scenarios. Nothing exists so where do these figures come from?
What if it is for only maybe 10 families?
Not to mention You have no science to varify any claims.
And maybe there isn't a soul in the country that would care to live for free, with all their needs and half the luxuries they want provided for by someone else. We won't have to support even the 10 that you think would come.
Come out of your dream world, Looking, and live in the real world. Where the biggest single expenditure of our trillion dollar budget is spend on welfare programs of one kind or another.
Your vision of what a homeless shelter is and who stays there is so skewed it is unbelievable.
Looking for Walden - my brother mentioned something about rules would have to be followed - if the people lived in these facilities and didn't comply -they probably would be given a limited amount of time to move out. Also - in a negative vein - he said probably the military would not agree to it. He has the printed pages to read without the last 15 new posts. Thanks.
This is the typical reply of an Internet forum troll (not saying you are a troll, just saying this is the type of response trolls use, and you have done it, inadvertently or otherwise).
If you actually expect people in Internet conversations to cite sources, then everyone on the Internet has to stop talking about anything but pictures of babies and kittens. A standard troll maneuver is to simply dismiss anything anyone says that is inconvenient by asking for "the proof." Well, would you prefer I use MLA or AP with my citations? And how many sources do you require, professor? Do they have to be hard-cover, from the library only, or can I use web sources as long as they are from a .gov or .edu site? Etc.
Here's another fact I don't have a source for: You have no interest in the real problem if you dismiss points like that. You make zero attempt to see someone's point if it is inconvenient, and you resort to equivocation as a means to stave off genuine communication. A very sad tactic, and a very sad commentary on the real reason little gets fixed. Too many want to grandstand and preach loftily from soap boxes, acting the saint to appease the PC crows who all want to feel good about themselves by saying the right things all the time. It's certainly easier than thinking and becoming genuinely engaged, I'll give you that.
Wilderness - thank you for your very constructive thoughts. Many kinks would need to be ironed out - even if anything like this was a possibility. A team of people - donations - pulling together of many - this is what is necessary to bring these people who have fallen through the cracks of society into the stream of life. Are they worth it? You bet ya. A life is a life.
It's an excellent idea. Tax payers are maintaining these facilities already. I always thought empty government facilities would also make good locations for child care for working parents during the day. To let these buildings set idle is of no value to anyone.
I had another idea for those bases: When disaster strikes, what do we do with the refugees? I mean, like Hurricane Katrina, where thousands of citizens were totally displaced from their destroyed homes.. Put them up in facilities that will give them privacy, security, and dignity. Instead they shove them in football stadiums across the country.
What is wrong with this country that they are unable to use the resources that are left to abandonment?
Your idea is good. VERY good.
kateperez - Your idea as a shelter for major disasters is excellent better than what all these people were given. The government was probably in shock and dismay at the time and never thought of abandoned military bases. Thank you. I have printed out all your responses for my brother - and he will be able to give me his thoughts on the week-end.
I'm afraid that while this idea may seem good on the surface; I can't help but feel the government would turn this idea on it's head into the darkness of corruption. Those converted military bases would soon turn into converted "welfare camps" for the homeless and poor.
It's funny, because I'm actually writing a science fiction book on this concept. Basically, the government finally puts an end to the wars and decides to use the now abandoned military bases as shelter for the homeless. On the surface; this seems like a wonderful idea to save money and help those in need. This is applauded by the population.
Until later it's discovered the camps are actually something that resembles Gitmo; and as more and more Americans become classified as unemployed and poor; the membership in these camps increases. Eventually we reach a two tier society where half the population is employed and the other half are living in these "sanctuaries." The government argues this is necessary in part because due to technological advancement; only half of the population can remain employed. They then argue the jobless are helped by the camps.
Needless to say, later on in the book you know what hits the fan. . . Be careful what you wish for; many homeless actually choose that lifestyle as a lesser of two evils. They would rather be free than having to work all their lives at Wal-Mart for a 200-300 sq ft. apartment box.
Don - your book sounds very interesting. The idea of using abandoned military bases for the homeless and people down on their luck - falling through the cracks of society or even in cases of shelter for disaster situations is getting misconstrued. These bases if they were ever used for this project - there would be set rules put into place and it would take a long time to get it all together even if was approved. This was only a hypothetical question and it could most definately be a possibility, of course.
The best solution I've concluded is laid out in my homeless hub. Anything else can be used or manipulated. And it has absolutely nothing to do with military bases being used. However, the land itself could be an excellent location for my solution.
A place for a few homeless could be found in your home... but are YOU willing to pay for a Homeless person to live with you?
No - because you are not doing so already.
But, you have no problem with stealing money from others to pay for them to do so?
It's a nice idea. (One of the bases not far from me is now being used for companies/corporations).
Something else, though, is that it can be the government that creates a lot of the homelessness in the first place (in one way or another). Better than using old bases for homeless people would be if people addresses homelessness from the "government-caused" end of things.
Where does this notion of government causing a lot of homelessness come from?
The notion that government causes a lot of homelessness is directly related to how the government controls the funding provided to the educational system which is faulty due to their actions.
Secondly, the Economy and the government ineffectiveness and inefficient methods for handling it, are not helping.
Not to mention that when the government spend more on military than education, which is related to my first statement, should point anyone who has a little bit of common sense to see the nastiness of their actions.
Edit: I've written several hubs on the topic- What Are Politicians Hiding About Economy? - My Homeless hub also shows the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of government.
I meant to write where do you get a lot from. In other words, what statistics are used to give this measurement?
I was in a hurry to a doctors appointment.
Homelessness is a by product of the Economy and lack of education. This has been known and pointed out by Ben Franklin himself, when America was formed.
While I agree with what you say, I'm asking for statistics behind it. I'm just curious as to what percentage the government is held responsible.
I'm sure there are some statistics out there with regards to the percentages, however, as per usual, statistics themselves are mostly made up approximately 60%+ of the time, usually to suit someone's agenda.
A prime example of that can be seen when you actually check into Homeless statistics.
I agree with Wilderness on this. Simply asking for grants for everything is not an answer either. The money for grants comes from government who get it from'.. well , let's see I would say tax dollars but they've overspent that already... hey, they can just print it and add it to the already 15 Trillion with a Capital T debt and really force this country into bankruptcy and turmoil.
I say put 'em to work on a large farm with a beaurcratic leader in charge and let them live off the land. However if a rightist says this it's called slavery.
If a leftist says it, it's called co-op. Therefore you can't win in an argument because they get to twist the term to their own liking.
Where does the government get involved outside of a 1$ a year lease on the land?
Why do people keep saying the government is running this.
We have shelters already.
It's just a building not occupied that can used.
Everybody keeps inserting all these weird scenarios and figures into it.
Not a commune, a shelter with perhaps better facilities to maybe help them to get on their feet or educate the children.
To reiterate this more clearly.
We have places like this now.
They already exist.
Just not on unused bases.
That's the only variable.
Stop inserting agenda.
Grants exist and will always exist.
Charitable foundations exist and will always exist.
I think we already had one of these similar military bases in the Civil War. It was called... Andersonville Prison ! ... and that's what it would turn into; similar to what was starting to happen in the SuperDome after Katrina !... most homeless would be better off begging on the streets of a clean productive city rather than grouped into an area like that. A co-op is the only way because Socialism only works for the poor but is no good in a free society. They might feel like slaves for awhile but it would be better than the way they are living and they would eventually see it as a means of living and accept the word co-op instead of slavery in the end.
@ Looking for Walden... My point is that these 'grants' are always attached to 'unproductiveness'... in my co-op scenario they would 'earn the right to their shelter by being productive. Not a never ending grant process. A one Time process to the right to their means of producing. A sort of Marxist co-op for the poor because it suits there needs opposite of middle to higher class needs who favor Capitalism because its freer(?) These poor are locked in so its easy to see even being on the side of Capitalism that A socialist atmosphere in the form of a co-op would work for these people... I'm not sure what you mean by having an agenda because I'll bet i'm the only Capitalist on here who will admit a marxist socialist co-op would work here in this particular situation, it's just that you're approach favors a never ending grant, grant , grant , grant , grant program whereas I'm calling for a one time grant of buy them a tractor ,a shelter house, and land to be productive on their own.
'Give a man a fish... he eats for a day'... 'Teach a man to fish... He eats for a lifetime" - You know, that one saying by Ralph Waldo Emerson or Jesus Christ-
... i can't remeber which...LOL
@LFW, you stated -'Where does the government get involved outside of a 1$ a year lease on the land?
Why do people keep saying the government is running this.'- then in the same argument claim 'using grants' which are......GOVERNMENT?....
or did you thinks grants were from the Magic Mushroom?
setting up people in abandoned buildings would be illegal due to alll the regulations so of course the gov't would get involved with forcing water, electricity, and other necessities to be turned on.
You seem to be countering your own point!
In a less regulated world it would be a Great idea to 'at least' allow then to be under abandoned shelter, but that's not reality.I think that was the point Wilderness was trying to make.
Grants aren't only from the government.
It's apparent how much you understand about this.
Google private grants from corporations and foundations and educate yourself.
A little learning is a dangerous thing. Pope
educate yourself and understand the point... it matters not who said the quote above, but the message involved...its unknown who said it.. some say Lao Tzu....I thought you would get the joke; the point is grants can't take over every possible dollar needed no matter where its from ;Gov't or corporations( or church charity, etc.)... the point is you seem to be callng for perpetual grant writing to take care of everything. You seem to be the one with an agenda... probably by working as a grant writer and keeping yourself employed... but since we are both just going to resort to insulting each others intelligence over some homeless people i'd rather just leave the thread... i'll even give you the last word... how's that!
Grants and charity run shelters that exist right now.
Like all of them.
How are they ran on your planet?
Looking for Walden: The main idea of using abandoned military bases for housing of homeless meant as a temporary place until they found work. The people would have to agree to temporary housing while looking for work. Yes - their would be costs involved - many of these posts have very good points made. These homeless would need screening in order to be accepted in the first place. People are living on the street, they are living in motel rooms with entire families, by the water's edge in tents, in their cars - because obviously the government does not give enough money for them to even pay rent not to mention other necessary things.
mel22- If they were able to do this - it would involve local government for each location in each state more than likely. If these applicants for temporary housing had bad criminal records or serious mental health problems they would not be considered. The idea is to get these people back on their feet and back to work.
There are already programs to get people who TRULY want help to get back to work. As in, are actually willing to go through the super hard effort to recover and get going again.
What there aren't, is programs that magically generate "jobs" for people with no skills or education who expect the "respect" to be paid a living wage for doing work with such lackadaisical approach that they can't give good service, won't break a sweat beyond the span of two hours, and won't admit they have an attitude problem that prevents them from learning or doing one of the first two. There are no programs for those people. They are big steaming dog piles on the lawn of American prosperity and we have no program to make them valuable to society, so we are forced to find ways to give them just enough pittance to keep them from robbing us or forcing us to violence against them.
That has to be one of the most politically incorrect statements I've ever seen.
Truthful, honest and factual, but not very PC. Well said.
Yes, it was well said. And Yes, it wasn't politically correct. YAY!
I have been helping people like that in my career for the last ten years (so much for someones statement that I had less experience LOL). You are 100% corrent in that so many are not willing to put in a shift.
You find them jobs and without fail at about 10 oclock on Monday morning their employer is on the phone saying 'the ten who started this morning - three never turned up, two are lazy and can get lost and three went off for a smoke and never returned in their break!'
I remember one guy who I found work for. He had been unemployed for ten years. I pointed out to him that as he had a newborn he had responsibilities and needed to work hard to support his family. He worked for a week and then on the Monday of his second week his boss called and told me to drive out and pick up this guys wife and drive her home. When I picked her up (she was stuffed - had only been out of hospital after giving birth a few weeks) she told me that her partner 'needed a holiday' after a hard weeks work and had sent her in his stead. I found him playing the play station with his mobile switched off. Sadly that is the attitude that so many people have. They want you to perform miracles for them but are not willing to 'walk with you' as you help them change. All talk, but unwilling even to take babysteps.
Now Walden is going to tell me I don't know what I am talking about despite ten years experience with homeless and unemployed and bring up some unrelated topic. Which topic now Walden? How about Major League Soccer. Surely you can find something in that topic to use to discredit everything I just said?
The level of ignorance you display is still astounding.
How about a family who lost there house because the father lost his job and the mother became very ill with cancer and racked up tremendous medical bills making it impossible to have credit.
They lived at a shelter while they kept the daughter in school and helped the father get a new job and an apartment.
I can't believe you are lumping all of the homeless people together as lazy.
Please stop trying to call me out I don't feel like making of look bad because you don't possess the mental capacity to think outside the realm of what you see.
If you think all homeless people are lazy or drunks or whatever then either Australia is a really bad place or gravely mistaken.
Also how does the homeless person in your story have a house,play station,mobile ?
Idk anything about soccer as everyone knows American football is the real mans sport.
I'm done here as she said her brother tried I have no more use arguing with ignorance.
Enjoy homeless bashing or whatever else you do for fun.
I ran a Summer student employment program for the state when I was in high school. That's right. I was aged 16 through 18 and working on a special program myself.
I had to refer students who could be trusted to do a good job so the employers would keep hiring our referrals. So I have one question:
What kind of career do you have if you can't observe enough about people to tell if they are mentally ill, sick, abusing substances, have no skills or are otherwise not suited to be sent to work ?
I don't know what employer still trusts your referrals!
Actually that was a major part of my career Xenonlit.
I was employed to find out what a persons needs were, be they referals to health care or counseling or just helping them find employment. I was very good at it and helped many people during those ten years.
There were of course those who were just lazy and knew the system and would take whatever measure they could to avoid employment.
So you would do what needed to be done to help those who needed referrals to health care and you would do what you could to find employment for those who were just avoiding their responsibilities.
You have to remember that Walden is having fun having a go at me, and now my nation apparently. Discovering that I have ten years in health care and finding the homeless accommodation and sources of food and clothing probably made him a bit mad as well since it makes some of his attacks at the top of the page look a bit silly.
The reality is that If I agreed with something Walden said he would still search for something to disagree with and throw in my face. I suspect he is that kind of person.
You watch - Walden will probably try to call me a racist or something similar now. Ho hum.
No, I agree with a lot of what you say actually.
I think somewhere in here we both are misreading what eachother say.
I don't think all homeless are lazy drunks.
It appears you also agree.
You people take advantage of the social programs available.
Somehow you became to feel like I am defending all of the poor and homeless which I am not.
Somehow I began to feel like you are attacking all of the homeless which you are not.
If I gave the sentiment that I think people do not take advantage of the system then that is my error. A lot of my posts on this were done while I was in class so they were hasty and if I used the wrong words to portray my beliefs or experience then that's my fault.
Or if I replied to you in error then I also apologize.
Having said that, in my mind I'm imagining a better place for homeless families with children who could benefit from such a facility.
I strongly believe children should not go hungry or homeless and nothing anyone says will change my mind on this.
I am not saying you do not believe the same thing.
OK. That makes sense. After years of dealing with inter-office emails I know how easy it is for confusion to arise so how about we call a spade a spade and accept that we are both interested in the well being of the homeless and that we have both misunderstood the others statements
@Zenolit - I just noticed your last statement "I don't know what employer still trusts your referrals!" Up until just recently our economy was in a boom period. During that time my personal caseload would lose most of those clients capable of walking right into jobs because they would be working. As a result the percentage of clients who were dealing with a range of issues from homelessness, mental illness along with those who just did not want to work would increase until it was 90% of the caseload.
Now employers would still need staff and there is a type of employer in my area (rural) who just need people in the field harvesting. They have a deadline because food on the ground earns no money for them and rots.
You can do the best you can, but come 10am some people will vanish on their first day and the employer will be on the phone asking for more to replace them. That does not mean you have a bad relationship with the employer because the same happens with their 'walk ins' as well.
Sometimes this type of scenario actually can be a step forward because it might highlight an unknown situation and afterwards you can sit down with the client and say 'whats happening' and they will spill the beans about a situation they are dealing with and you can provide appropriate counselling.
It is a difficult job because you want to help people (the social side of the role) and at the same time you have pressure to get people into work fast so that they are fulfilling their obligations. (the compliance side of the role).
Here in Aus the unemployed receive a benefit every fortnight, however their are certain stipulations attached to it. Working with consultants to either find employment, or be redirected towards a temporary or permanent pension and ongoing care is one of them.
The best clients are those mums who decide to reenter the workforce and volunteer to have a consultant. They work very hard and the employers here have a very high respect for them, particularly in industry. Obviously that is not the rule, both for mums and employers, but I rarely see an exception.
Mining is a classic example. I have dealt with mining companies who only hire mums reentering the workforce for their big diggers and heavy open pit trucks. They say that the vehicles don't have downtime when they are driven by the single mums.
X - I had a few years of working for Temporary Agencies and it paid the bills even though it got stressful. For a couple of years while renting a Townhouse Apt. and just started a new full-time job - I needed help - and I was given a portion in a voucher for rent until I was able to pay everything on my own. I thought that was an excellent idea - and that was back in the early 90's - I have no idea if they still practice such a measure for struggling people going back to work and supporting a family.
It seems to have changed. My daughter-in-law had trouble supporting her 2 children alone while going to school - she asked for help with the rent but was told it wasn't possible. If she would quit her part time job, welfare would then pay for her schooling, housing, utilities and food, but until she did that they wouldn't give her anything but a small amount of food stamps. Insanity stalks the entire welfare system with things like that while at the same time providing total support for generations of dead beats.
wilderness: Everyone is entitled to some type of financial assistance whether for health care, food, housing or child care. That portion would go directly into the project for these people selected for Rehabilitation into a Work Recovery Program while living at the base. They could provide meals at the Mess Hall - but all of these ideas have to be put into motion with political vote to start and that could take more than a year even if it was approved. Thank you for all of your thought provoking comments.
Well, now here we really differ. Previously, I simply felt that the idea of using military bases was not a workable solution, but when you say that everyone is entitled to charity from the pockets of someone else I draw the line.
No one is entitled to any form of support. That we, as a country, choose to provide charity anyway does not make it an entitlement. I speak, of course, from an ethical and moral viewpoint, not a legal one.
The welfare mom continually popping out more kids to raise her welfare payments, the man referenced above that sent his wife to work in his place while he played video games; these kind of people can literally starve to death for all I care. They have absolutely no right to any public charity.
It seems to have been forgotten by millions of our fine citizens, but our US constitution does not contain any provisions at all for the "entitlements" that so many demand as a matter of course.
And that is one of my more major objections to providing total living support to the homeless; it is almost inevitable, in my opinion, that it will become just another "entitlement" to be enjoyed by those unwilling to support themselves. There has to be a way to help those truly trying without making another gigantic entitlement boondoggle supported by public funds withdrawn from our pockets.
You can actually have welfare assistance and tie it in with obligation.
I have had a lot of single men say to me 'I am not going to accept that job working in the fields, I can put computers together. That job is beneath me. I won't do it'. (That is one example, which happens to be true. While they may say something different the theme is generally the same).
I remind them that they have obligations tht they must fulfill in order to receive their welfare payment and they refuse again. Sometimes they can get very angry because they believe that the money they receive belongs to them by right, when legally it is reliant upon compliance to a wide range of activities. Sadly it can end up reaching a point where I just have to tell them that their only other option to accepting the role is to go off employment benefits. Where possible I make it clear that I am not the decision maker and that the ball is in their court. Usually at this point they realise that I am not the enemy and that i am only able to help them according to the rules that i operate in.
I want to make it clear that this is not how the system deals with a homeless person or a person with mental illness. (There are other avenues open that enable other areas of assistance). Rather it is how benefits for unemployed people can be tied to obligation.
Shades - I thought of the Military and what their part in this project could be. A building could be used for Recruitment in all Branches of the military service for those who could fit the bill, also having Civil Service Job Information, Government placement for Internship employment, Computers for job search - telephones available, all sorts of help that is so greatly needed. I can see the military agreeing to a building for this purpose as the need is so great for enlistment.
OH, and there is a huge private prison somewhere that never opened, is empty and has all of the facilities for homeless people to live and work. We are more concerned about locking people up and forcing them to work for nothing than we are about giving people homes and real jobs.
"Job creators" what a disgusting lie. We need to backlash that.
'It's time for mankind to beat our swords into plowshares.'
Unfortunateley, Monsanto will not allow us !
Maybe we should keep our swords and use them on Mansanto.... then afterward we can take the advice of Isaiah and Micah!
- and yet there will be a few who still choose to sit idle-
... but i agree with what you said!
There is plenty of real estate in the US to house several times the entire population.
(The continental US is about as big as China. Yet America's population is over 300 million while the Chinese population is over 1.3 billion. So we have plenty of space.)
And there are plenty of empty buildings in every state and every city that could house homeless people. In New York City, where I live, there are quite simply more beds than humans. So there is plenty of room for the homeless.
The problem with the homeless is twofold:
(1) Many homeless people in this country are simply too proud or unaware of the services available to them. For example, there is plenty of food on offer in soup kitchens or other charitable organizations, yet many continue to beg for money in the street. The obesity epidemic demonstrates that there is--quite literally--more than enough food for everyone here.
(2) Many homeless people are mentally handicapped. They have been left in the cold by people who should have cared for them. This is a shame. But the real problem is not homelessness, but rather the provision and public awareness of mental health resources, so that people who cannot take care of themselves can be taken care of, receive their medication, etc.
Given these facts, I see no reason why beggars cannot be rounded up--against their will if necessary--and placed into housing and care. There is really no reason why anybody should be homeless in the US, the richest country ever.
sec-10: Very well said. I agree with both 1 and 2 - plenty of space, and
obesity. It would be great if the military,local, state, federal governments, charities, and others as well got together and showed they actually cared about the US homeless and put the effort forward to help everyone in that situation. Thanks.
by Leta S8 years ago
I've been in San Francisco this weekend, where the homeless population is pretty high compared to that of other cities. I've noticed that the situation is not as bad as it has been the previous times I've been...
by Mike Russo16 months ago
People are protesting President Elect Trump? Because Hillary won the popular vote by .3% Trump = 47.4%, Hillary = 47.7%, but she lost the electoral college. That means more people voted for Hillary's platform than for...
by Marysaint7 years ago
Is there a section 8 website to go to to look for homes or apartments?
by California Jere6 years ago
I live in Sacramento in a Section 8 Senior apartment and I am originally from San Mateo. I am...74 yrs. old, sound mind and do not look my age and I would like to get back in the Bay area as soon as possible...is...
by Grace Marguerite Williams5 years ago
The homeless situation needs to be resolved. With the escalating socioeconomic and unemployment crises, foreclosures in housing, rising/prohibitive rents, and lack of affordable housing, the homeless...
by Peeples4 years ago
If your family suddenly became homeless and ...there were no shelters in your area that took in families what would you do?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.