Do you believe that everyone deserves housing?

[VaughanJB]

He worked his whole life supporting our family. He lived a long happy life. No PTSD, brokenness, etc., etc. From my life experience, few who fought in WWII and Korea came home damaged. Many were wounded, but they healed as best they could and got on with their lives putting the past behind them.

Your father was lucky. It's estimated 10% of soldiers in World War II came back with PTSD. Those wounded had horrific injuries. I think it's difficult to simply say "got on with their lives putting the past behind them" when you've no idea of what's going on inside their heads.

Of course, we accept and talk about this type of thing a whole lot more. But the fact is, stats show that since 9/11, 7000 or so armed forces personnel have been killed in combat. The number of suicides for armed personnel in the same period? 30,000.

 

[ElCastor]

I don't get this desire to demonize the homeless, suggesting they're lazy, weak, and an inconvenience. Who the heck demonizes people at the very lowest rung of the ladder? Who takes the time to pour scorn on people with nothing, in the throes of an illness? Heck, I see people who proclaim to be good Christians attacking these people and belittling them. It sure is a sick world.

Once again, California had a series of institutions housing the mentally ill and addicted. Those institutions were sued into oblivion, so the state set up a series of halfway houses to house them as they returned to society. Those halfway houses had rules concerning behavior, alcohol, and drugs. The occupants left and moved to the streets and alleys. My son-in-law, a San Francisco cop, was equipped with free housing voutures and was frustrated by his inability to give them away to homeless who preferred a rule free life on the streets and alleys.

Today the effort to house and care for these homeless continues In a highly complicated and frequently failing struggle. The presence of more than 2.7 million illegal immigrants in California certainly aggravates the homeless problem.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/CA

 

[Timewise 60+]

I think you need to do some serious thinking about this. Correct me if I'm wrong in the following assumptions please...



...People that became successful in life "all on their own" are very, very few compared to the masses that have been helped by many of the things mentioned above. It's the "bootstraps theory." I did it ALL BY MYSELF so everyone else should be able to too. It seems to me the bootstrapers take great offense when perhaps the next guy get's a break, that they didn't get.

Guess you didn't have supportive parents? Many make it without supportive parents and some fail even with supportive parents....it is not as simple as you suggest! It is all much, much, more complex...

 

[rgp]

I think I replied to this point some posts back, so won't repeat myself here.

No, not everyone wants the same thing.
No, not everyone can be saved.
Yes, some of the homeless get by through the proceeds of crime.
Yes, the homeless community is riddled with drugs, and addiction.

But for me, that's the problem to be tackled, not an excuse to not bother, or to point fingers. No-one said it was an easy problem to solve. But as others have intimated, a lot of people are very concerned about money being spent on homeless Americans, but don't seem to create such a big fuss over how the rest of the federal budget is spent.

Why, as a nation, help these people? Because you can.

We cannot help those who do not want to be helped. If the local shelter says put down your cigarette , and toss out your bottle of booze ..... and they refuse ... we cannot help these folks.

If those are the rules .... comply or sleep on the street.

 

[VaughanJB]

Once again, California had a series of institutions housing the mentally ill and addicted. Those institutions were sued into oblivion, so the state set up a series of halfway houses to house them as they returned to society. Those halfway houses had rules concerning behavior, alcohol, and drugs. The occupants left and moved to the streets and alleys. My son-in-law, a San Francisco cop, was equipped with free housing voutures and was frustrated by his inability to give them away to homeless who preferred a rule free life on the streets and alleys.

Today the effort to house and care for these homeless continues In a highly complicated and frequently failing struggle. The presence of more than 2.7 million illegal immigrants in California certainly aggravates the homeless problem.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/CA

I've visited some homeless shelters in the UK, places where the homeless can get a roof over their heads. Sounds good, free accommodation. But I'll tell you, they're havens of crime, violence, and other issues. I'd not want to sleep in one. People may be turning down places not because of the rules, but because of everything else around those rules. I don't know for sure, of course, when it comes to CA. But it might be worth visiting some of those places offered to really get the full picture.

 

[VaughanJB]

We cannot help those who do not want to be helped. If the local shelter says put down your cigarette , and toss out your bottle of booze ..... and they refuse ... we cannot help these folks.

If those are the rules .... comply of sleep on the street.

As I wrote, "not everyone can be helped". But seriously, how many of these places have you visited? In the UK they're not a good solution. I think I'd rather sleep outside than in the ones I've seen.

 

[JBR]

Again, I see someone lumping "the homeless" into the same human pot - "NONE of them want to abide by any rules."

I think you made some interesting points in your post above. However, you started the post by addressing me, saying "Again, I see someone lumping "the homeless" into the same human pot - 'NONE of them want to abide by any rules.'"

Well, in fact in my post that you were responding to, I'd said: "Some (I won't say all) of the residents of tent encampments will not accept 'rules', for which reason they reject help." So rather than "lumping" as you say I'd done, I had distinctly not lumped all homeless people together.

You've said in the thread's OP you wished to discuss and not argue. Then please be careful when addressing other members' posts. True, we all make mistakes, and you made one there.

 

[Knight]

- every time they say that talking point they are basically admitting, "We're just TOO STUPID to fix it." So then I yell at the , "HIRE some SMART people then. You admit you're very stupid, so hire some smart people."

Addessing America only.

The History of Homelessness in America
September 18, 2022
The term “homelessness” was first used in America in the 1870s. In the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act, homelessness is referred to as the condition where people lack a “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.” According to the Texas Homeless Network, the 1640s “mark the earliest documented instances of unhoused people surviving in America.” Today, there are approximately half a million people facing homelessness across America. Here is a timeline of how homelessness has changed over the years and how American leaders have reacted to the issue of homelessness.
1600-1700s: The Beginning

The earliest cases of homelessness in America were documented in the 1640s. In 1734, the first poor house opened in New York City, serving as homeless shelters as well as mental institutions and jails.
The History of Homelessness in America – HomeMore.

Stupid has been going on for a long time.

Maybe you could position yourself in politics to be the person able to solve this once & for all.

 

[StarSong]

... as they used to say, Pick your rate, pick your fate.
Military service isn't for everyone nor should it be.
The world is a much sadder place because of those whose precious lives were lost in war.
In ways and reasons some may never imagine, I most humbly consider myself very lucky ... blessed if you will.

Please understand, @Naturally, I respect and admire you and others who've served our country and say that with the greatest sincerity.

What I neither respect nor admire is our military machine. I don't have to tell you that Military "Defense" (which includes a whole lot of "Offense") is BIG business with plenty of palms getting greased among upper echelons. (How many middle-income federal legislators, high ranking military officers or military contractors' board members and C-Suite executives can any of us bring to mind? Some may enter those ranks poor but they all manage to wind up wealthy.)

The last thing the Pentagon, most legislators and associated contractors want is peace on earth. In fact, they seem to make damned sure it never arrives.

To replenish the supply of aggressors and cannon fodder, young people are recruited, then all but abandoned when their mental and physical injuries make reintegration to real life difficut or impossible. Far too many end up homeless and/or unable to function without the blunting effect of drugs or alcohol. The VA is overwhelmed, underfunded and tasked with the gargantuan chore of setting these veterans aright.

I have no resentment for people in our military service, only sympathy that our system fails to support those who entered in healthy condition, then exited less than whole in body or spirit. If the military provided up to ten years of housing, counseling and other assistance for those who needed it after exiting the service, my opinion would change.

 

[Remy]

What about the places with no control as far as rent raise hikes? California has some control but 10% is a lot with the costs already.

 

[Timewise 60+]

Your father was lucky. It's estimated 10% of soldiers in World War II came back with PTSD. Those wounded had horrific injuries. I think it's difficult to simply say "got on with their lives putting the past behind them" when you've no idea of what's going on inside their heads.

Of course, we accept and talk about this type of thing a whole lot more. But the fact is, stats show that since 9/11, 7000 or so armed forces personnel have been killed in combat. The number of suicides for armed personnel in the same period? 30,000.

Your sources please...! Especially on the 10%! By the way my father was not "lucky" he was wounded in combat! Obviously, no one knows what is going on in someone's head. But as a person who has studied post WWII and read most books on the subject, I disagree that you somehow think I have "no idea"! I suggest that you have no idea, when it comes to post WWII, based on your comments...

 

[Murrmurr]

Again, I see someone lumping "the homeless" into the same human pot - "NONE of them want to abide by any rules."

That is simply not true. Plenty of homeless Seniors, for example, have no issue with rules.

Then you have homeless addicts who yes, may have an issue with "no drug use" in the home. Ironically, any wealthily person can rent out any AirBNB in the Hollywood Hills, procure $100,000 in illegal drugs easily on the streets of L.A. or via the Dark Web, and they and their buddies can break all the laws of society they want in their party rental home.

Society says to the poor man addict: "We're subsidizing your rent, so no drug use for you!" But society says to the AirBNB party house renter, "Go ahead and feed the drug trade. It's OK. We like you because we're not paying part of your rent."

But the wealthy partier is still causing harm to society. He might be exposing someone to drugs for the first time at his party. Might have called over a few prositutues also (another crime). Might have plenty of underage people there drinking. He might have bought a bad batch of drugs and a few people OD. And he might be disturbing the peace.

But society does NOTHING to him, usually, because he's a good capitalist!

Addicts need treatment and housing. But your first requirement is rules. Not rules for the RICH MAN who rents his AirBNB party house. Just rules for the poor schmuck who dares to ask society for help.

No one is above the law/rules BUT the rich. Everyone knows that's how the system really works - for housing, college, legal cases, etc., etc.

Police don't bother street addicts (who aren't among the wealthy) until they see them break a law or someone reports them breaking a law. Otherwise, they leave them alone. I'm not convinced that a cop wouldn't bother a rich person if the cop saw him/her speeding, breaking into a liquor store, or smacking someone around.

In general, cops don't care what you do inside your home, whether it's a cardboard box or a seaside mansion, until someone dials 911. Then, they don't care who you are, where you live, or how much money you have, they go there, check it out, and do their job.

If it's just a party and no one's ODing or getting hurt, they'll go about their business.

 

[Naturally]

Please understand, @Naturally, I respect and admire you and others who've served our country and say that with the greatest sincerity.

What I neither respect nor admire is our military machine. I don't have to tell you that Military "Defense" (which includes a whole lot of "Offense") is BIG business with plenty of palms getting greased among upper echelons. (How many middle-income federal legislators, high ranking military officers or military contractors' board members and C-Suite executives can any of us bring to mind? Some may enter those ranks poor but they all manage to wind up wealthy.)

The last thing the Pentagon, most legislators and associated contractors want is peace on earth. In fact, they seem to make damned sure it never arrives.

To replenish the supply of aggressors and cannon fodder, young people are recruited, then all but abandoned when their mental and physical injuries make reintegration to real life difficut or impossible. Far too many end up homeless and/or unable to function without the blunting effect of drugs or alcohol. The VA is overwhelmed, underfunded and tasked with the gargantuan chore of setting these veterans aright.

I have no resentment for people in our military service, only sympathy that our system fails to support those who entered in healthy condition, then exited less than whole in body or spirit. If the military provided up to ten years of housing, counseling and other assistance for those who needed it after exiting the service, my opinion would change.

@StarSong ... Perhaps we should agree to disagree. While there is some truth in what you post, I also disagree with some of what you say. But the thing is, I won't go into detail except to say that I've found veteran support to be outstanding. Well, at least as good as and often better than a civilian would find in a similar physical and financial circumstance.

Do I know what I'm even talking about? ... well, take a look at the tag on my dirty old but long paid for Jeep (bought new in 2003) ... Disabled Veteran ... Tag partially covered for online security ...

EDIT: My other car is a Volkswagen

 

[Murrmurr]

I don't have a problem with your priority list. I can agree - house the families with kids FIRST, because the lasting trauma of homelessness some kids' experience can stay with them for a lifetime.

Then the most mentally ill and the physically disabled who will never be able to hold a job. Fine. Then maybe Seniors because so few employers will hire them and because they have put in their 47+ years of working. And then, finally, affordable housing of some kind (FEMA trailers and tiny homes are fine; motel rooms are fine) for the able-bodied. Even addicts, because it's a disease that needs support to cure.

Every alcoholic I have ever known, and I have only known three, has quit because they had a TON of emotional support either from 12 Step Groups, employers, or family. Sometimes all of the above. One of the keys to a cure is SUPPORT - not throwing them out in the streets.

Here's how it works in Calif:

Mothers with children are housed as soon as possible after they report to Social Services that they are homeless. Children are taken from homeless mothers on the streets if they fail to seek housing through Social Services. The children are then housed in foster homes until mom goes to Social Services for housing. No children on the streets, but they can live with mom in a car or van for a limited time as long as they are attending a school. End of that story.

All unemployed persons can feel free to get assistance from Social Services or the Social Security Admin, including free medical care, food stamps, and unemployment checks, or if they've never been employed, a monthly check through the Social Security Admin. It ain't a big check, just enough to keep you alive until you find work. If you are mentally ill, Social Services can only encourage you to seek help from the Social Security Admin, your family, and several outpatient clinics.
The rest is up to you.

The state cannot force a mentally ill person to get a job or force an employer to hire them. Social Services and the Social Security Admin cannot tell people how to live, whether they're alcoholics, drug addicts, or just plain lazy.
Laws prevent that.

 

[Murrmurr]

Please understand, @Naturally, I respect and admire you and others who've served our country and say that with the greatest sincerity.

What I neither respect nor admire is our military machine. I don't have to tell you that Military "Defense" (which includes a whole lot of "Offense") is BIG business with plenty of palms getting greased among upper echelons. (How many middle-income federal legislators, high ranking military officers or military contractors' board members and C-Suite executives can any of us bring to mind? Some may enter those ranks poor but they all manage to wind up wealthy.)

The last thing the Pentagon, most legislators and associated contractors want is peace on earth. In fact, they seem to make damned sure it never arrives.

To replenish the supply of aggressors and cannon fodder, young people are recruited, then all but abandoned when their mental and physical injuries make reintegration to real life difficut or impossible. Far too many end up homeless and/or unable to function without the blunting effect of drugs or alcohol. The VA is overwhelmed, underfunded and tasked with the gargantuan chore of setting these veterans aright.

I have no resentment for people in our military service, only sympathy that our system fails to support those who entered in healthy condition, then exited less than whole in body or spirit. If the military provided up to ten years of housing, counseling and other assistance for those who needed it after exiting the service, my opinion would change.

Focusing on the US, it was originally formed as a neutral country, and it remained that way until 1917, nearly 3 yrs after the start of WWl. The US did not send troops, only supplies and financial support to the UK. In 1918, the US sent about 10,000 military men to the western front, and a short time later, sent many, many more, because Germany was winning, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilian men, women, and children all over the place along the way.

To support our troops and efforts during WWl, the US started shelling out money to start factories that produce military equipment and supplies. Those factories needed experts to run them, so the US appointed some experts to be the bosses and supervisors of these factories. Those experts had to hire many thousands of workers to do the actual producing and run the machines and deliver the goods.

That was the beginning of the military machine. And many businesses grew up around it; restaurants, grocery stores, iron mills, steel factories, etc. Not only did all the bosses make big money, so did countless factory workers, and all the mill, grocery store, and restaurant etc. workers ...and all of them paid taxes, and bought homes and cars and all kind of cool stuff, so then construction companies and car and furniture manufacturers got fat on money... and the entire country became extremely wealthy.

Meanwhile, Germany didn't get to own the world.

 

[Lara]

I believe every child deserves housing. But it takes some grown ups to be taken all the way down to the depths of despair before they can rise up again...becoming stronger and deserving of all life has waiting for them.

 

[David777]

As long as globalist Wallstreet, real estate corporations, financial corporations, and their dominant political puppets use pressures resulting from excessive immigration and endless growth and development to extract wealth from we foolish working class citizens, that is unlikely to happen. The last thing those selfish entities want is to be paying for it and instead just laugh at how we citizens via general taxes do while also having no choice paying for ridiculously excessive inflated residence costs.

 

[ElCastor]

I've visited some homeless shelters in the UK, places where the homeless can get a roof over their heads. Sounds good, free accommodation. But I'll tell you, they're havens of crime, violence, and other issues. I'd not want to sleep in one. People may be turning down places not because of the rules, but because of everything else around those rules. I don't know for sure, of course, when it comes to CA. But it might be worth visiting some of those places offered to really get the full picture.

I am reminded of a (true) story I was once told by a Cambodian refugee. A Cambodian predecessor of his got a job in a donut shop. He soon realized this was a business he could do on his own, but he lacked the funds, so he and his wife decided to live in their car and save their money. Three years were up and he started his own donut business, which soon became a chain. The refugee who told me this story came to this country literally penniless. I never knew him when he wasn‘t taking a night class. He went on to become a big shot with a power company, and last I heard owned two homes.

 

[Murrmurr]

As long as globalist Wallstreet, real estate corporations, financial corporations, and their dominant political puppets use pressures resulting from excessive immigration and endless growth and development to extract wealth from we foolish working class citizens, that is unlikely to happen. The last thing those selfish entities want is to be paying for it and instead just laugh at how we citizens via general taxes do while also having no choice paying for ridiculously excessive inflated residence costs.

It's true big corporations don't want to build housing for the homeless unless that enterprise generates a substantial profit.

My question is, why doesn't it? Why can't a big company make a decent, sustained profit by housing the homeless? Where is the barrier? It has to be somewhere.

 

[VaughanJB]

Your sources please...! Especially on the 10%!

Post-traumatic stress disorder in Australian World War II veterans attending a psychiatric outpatient clinic - PubMed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...78d3b0-46b0-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html
Post-traumatic stress disorder after World War II - Wikipedia

But as a person who has studied post WWII and read most books on the subject, I disagree that you somehow think I have "no idea"! I suggest that you have no idea, when it comes to post WWII, based on your comments...

I don't claim to be an expert in World War II. But if you've read "most books on the subject", then you're correct - I too am baffled about how you've never hit on the topic of what was then called "shell shock, and what is now called PTSD. It's all a terrible shame, and I hate it for anyone. But if you do some simple research you will find, for example, that divorce rates for veterans coming back from WWII were far higher than society in general.

Of course, this isn't WWII research, it's POST-WWII. And no, people back then were not immune to psychiatric damage.

 

[VaughanJB]

It's interesting, because I don't think anyone here thinks homelessness is "solvable" in that it wouldn't exist. It always will. The issue is its prevalence in modern times. Too few realize that we're all a check away from disaster. If property prices are rising, and rents are going through the roof, it may not affect you, but it may well affect your children, your grand children, etc.

What bothers me isn't so much that there's homeless. It the callousness of some toward them. Claims that "oh well, the system isn't fair", or that the homeless should just turn things around, get an education, a job, and go buy a mansion in Beverly Hills. It's mind-boggling. Caring, at the very least showing sympathy, costs nothing at all. Not a single cent. Anyone claiming to have a belief in God and the teachings of the Bible, what are you thinking when you demonize the poor? I'm pretty sure Jesus would have gone among the addicts.

It's this attitude that bothers me the most. The idea that all could be solved if only the addicts accepted some simple rules - it shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem. Have you any idea how difficult, and dangerous, going cold turkey off Fentynal is? Or alcohol if you're a long way down the line? Can you imagine someone you fear, don't trust, and are afraid of offering you a ticket to a roof?

There are no easy answers. And I'm sorry, but the people who don't like the homeless because they mess up the look of the street aren't anywhere near as important as they think they are. But as I say, caring, empathy, sympathy, that's all free to give. If you can't feel it for the lowest, then can you really show it at all?

 

[VaughanJB]

I am reminded of a (true) story I was once told by a Cambodian refugee. A Cambodian predecessor of his got a job in a donut shop. He soon realized this was a business he could do on his own, but he lacked the funds, so he and his wife decided to live in their car and save their money. Three years were up and he started his own donut business, which soon became a chain. The refugee who told me this story came to this country literally penniless. I never knew him when he wasn‘t taking a night class. He went on to become a big shot with a power company, and last I heard owned two homes.

That's the American dream right there.

 

[Naturally]

But if you do some simple research you will find, for example, that divorce rates for veterans coming back from WWII were far higher than society in general.

[off topic]
Not just post WWII or any particular war for that matter. Would seem to a systemic issue with military service in general. Long deployment separations are often not conducive to lasting relationships and long times apart does little to aid bonding as young couples go through that phase.

Once on a six month deployment I began to hear disgruntled discussions concerning circumstances back home. So I did an informal poll of those in just my division who were married or had girlfriends back home. What I found was that sixty percent (60%) of those in relationships were in the process of separation or divorce. It startled me.

It weighs heavily on young men deployed to far flung places away from home and absolutely no resource to personally address the situation. A six month deployment places a huge strain on young married couples and those in girlfriend/boyfriend relationships. Often young military servicemen find that when deployed, their young wife or girlfriend doesn't know exactly how to take care of the things they counted on the man to do and so look to other resources in the service member's long absence.

Some in my division told me they and their spouse had an understanding ... what you do when gone and what I do when you're gone will not be discussed. We will just return to normal when you return from deployment after six months away. That's what worked for them.

I've been retired now for 18yrs so maybe things are slightly different. For much of my service, we didn't have shipboard access to the Internet or email or any cell phone service. The most common way to remain in contact with loved ones back home was via snail mail and might take 3-4 weeks or longer for delivery. And some of those letters received, began ... Dear John. Of course phones were available when visiting a foreign city but the expense of an overseas phone call was daunting and the conversation regardless of length, had no where near the impact of even a simple hug.
[/off topic]

 

[VaughanJB]

[off topic]
Not just post WWII or any particular war for that matter. Would seem to a systemic issue with military service in general. Long deployment separations are often not conducive to lasting relationships and long times apart does little to aid bonding as young couples go through that phase.

Once on a six month deployment I began to hear disgruntled discussions concerning circumstances back home. So I did an informal poll of those in just my division who were married or had girlfriends back home. What I found was that sixty percent (60%) of those in relationships were in the process of separation or divorce. It startled me.

It weighs heavily on young men deployed to far flung places away from home and absolutely no resource to personally address the situation. A six month deployment places a huge strain on young married couples and those in girlfriend/boyfriend relationships. Often young military servicemen find that when deployed, their young wife or girlfriend doesn't know exactly how to take care of the things they counted on the man to do and so look to other resources in the service member's long absence.

Some in my division told me they and their spouse had an understanding ... what you do when gone and what I do when you're gone will not be discussed. We will just return to normal when you return from deployment after six months away. That's what worked for them.

I've been retired now for 18yrs so maybe things are slightly different. For much of my service, we didn't have shipboard access to the Internet or email or any cell phone service. The most common way to remain in contact with loved ones back home was via snail mail and might take 3-4 weeks or longer for delivery. And some of those letters received, began ... Dear John. Of course phones were available when visiting a foreign city but the expense of an overseas phone call was daunting and the conversation regardless of length, had no where near the impact of even a simple hug.
[/off topic]

I hear you, there are many reasons a marriage can fail, especially in those circumstances. That said, how often is the man that returns, the same man that left? Who could see what veterans see, and not be mentally affected?

 

[Harry Le Hermit]

I believe everyone should have the right to a roof over their head. However, a right is not a guarantee... it must be worked for, earned, even fought for.

There are those willing to do that and some that are not willing. Unfortunately, there are also a small subset that cannot fend for themselves... due to a variety of maladies, which may be of not fault of their own. They should be assisted, imho.