Is homelessness OK with you?

[demgurl]

I just read a post that said that 40% of people in Detroit are living BELOW the poverty line. Today, in LBN, I saw where foreclosures have gone up 90%. People are loosing their homes, going to bed hungry and suffering.

If you think this is a choice they are making then stop that line of thinking NOW. Your brain is persuading you to think this way so you can sleep at night but if you do not face it it is still going on and there is still a great deal of suffering in this country.

By the time this roller coaster ride is over we will all know at least one person who has lost their home or it will be us who have lost their home. Like it or not, we are in this together. We are the Democratic party and this means we have empathy for our fellow man. This means we have an obligation.

The question is quite simple really and only requires a yes or no answer. Are you OK with the existence of homelessness? Either you are OK with it or you want to solve it. If the answer is the latter, what are you going to do about it?

[MrCoffee]

1. I accept the fact of homlessness

I don't like it, nor do I advocate in favor of it, but I realize that there will always be those who, due to bad luck or bad actions or whatever, will be homeless.

Should we help them any way we (as a society) can? Absolutely. Can we help them all? I seriously doubt it.

[demgurl]

12. I contend accepting it puts us in a viewpoint of complacency.

We should never accept things that are not OK. We can understand it is there and through understanding act to do something about it. Is that what you mean? You understand it? I would never accept homelessness any more than I would accept rape or murder.

I understand it is a big problem and it seems like we can never conquer it all but we will never know until we try. France, for instance, amended their constitution so that having a home is a right. Until we start making such strides, we will never solve it.

[Marrah_G]

78. We cannot conquer it completely- but we can do alot more.

The reality is that there are those who for mostly mental health reasons, will not accept help, will not accept treatment. Under our laws they cannot be forced.

HOWEVER- There should be a safe place for every American to call home that wants one.

[Political Heretic]

81. actually - yes they can

<-- social worker

[Midlodemocrat]

23. Having worked in homeless shelters, I sadly concur.

There will always be some who choose the streets over help, and IMHO, it is usually due to a trauma that occurred at a shelter or a mental health issue.

Most people do not want to be homeless, obviously, but I remember all too well trying to get certain people into housing, and get them assistance and having them decline.

[Hannah Bell]

25. How old are you?

Serious question.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

36. In terms of pure rationality and logic, you're probably right, "there will always be" poor.....

However, isn't that logical and hopeless, depressive statement kinda like saying: "No matter what we do to fight it, there will always be pedophiles wanting to have sex with infants." To speak in terms that are hopeless serves no purpose but to drown hope. What is far more purposeful is to provide suggestions to fix the problem. For example, wouldn't it be better to say, "tho it might be extremely difficult to eradictate homelessness, we should try and here are some suggestions....."

Just my 2 cents! :toast:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. We should try to reduce and to ameliorate homelessness, not to eradicate it.

Stating one's goals realistically helps to achieve them. A long jumper who practices with the goal of jumping a mile will lose to one who practices with the goal of jumping 9 metres.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

47. I disagree. What you're suggesting.....

... is not unlike someone wanting to go to the Superbowl with the idea in mind of their team getting "a good amount of points", but not to win. Can you IMAGINE a coach telling his players not to worry about winning, but just score some points in the name of their team? The way to motivate people to do their best, is to hold up the highest possible goal. When you set your highest goals up to halfway only, you're going to get only to the halfway point and that's all.

[idovoodoo]

59. When you set your goals at an impossible level,

you won't ever get anywhere close to halfway. Ideal and practical seldom meet each other halfway.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

104. Winning is an impossible level? Oy vey. nt

[bemildred]

2. No. Decent food, adequate shelter, a comfortable place to sleep, and education

should be "entitlements", a right you get virtue of being human. You can sleep in the street if you want, but you should not have to. And it would be cheap to do too. But the ruling class can't stand the idea that ordinary people would not have to live in fear.

[demgurl]

13. Thank you for this view, bemildred.

You are right that it should be an entitlement. Just think of all the good we could have done with that illegal occupation money. Holy cow!

[Ghost Dog]

28. Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

/... http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

69. One of the big UN pushes I disagree with

Is to call something *someone else gives you* a right..

[Ghost Dog]

75. Ah. I always took these as things people have a right and need to fight for. n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

82. Perhaps that might have been what some people meant

But the way most people use it is to say if you dont provide universal health care you are depriving someone of a right. Thats utter crap and thats the attitude to which I was reacting.

You seem to have a good understanding of rights...

Yes there is a right to education but that does not mean its to be provided it means that laws forbidding people the right to learn to read (as was common in the us during the period of slavery) violate our rights.

To be intelletcually honest and not shameless panderers we have to be clear. We support entitlements! we support Social Security, we support Health Care, we support Public Schools!

[Matariki]

39. And is the labor needed to provide those things an 'entitlement'?

Do farmers, builders, makers of 'comfortable places to sleep' have to work gratis in this entitlement plan? On a pro bono basis? You might have a hard time convincing them of that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a culture like Denmark's where basic necessities are available to everyone - but there's a price on that. A Danish friend mentioned that there's a 42% - 68% tax rate in Denmark. That's 42% tax on the lowest paid jobs. At some point it doesn't make sense to actually have a job.

I think the issue is far more complex than simply saying everyone has a right to things that don't produce themselves out of thin air. It really comes down to that old question of who's owning the 'means of production'.

[bemildred]

48. No, anybody that works should be paid for their work.

Why would you think otherwise? Do you think nobody will work if they feel secure? I can assure you that people will do what is necessary to feed, house, and educate themselves and their families. They already are doing that, and there is no reason to think they will quit.

[Matariki]

50. hmmm

If I were taxed 42% on an unpleasant, low skill, minimum wage job, I'd have to ask myself if it makes more sense to just stay home since my basic needs are met. That is what I'm told happens in Denmark to a certain extent. BUT they have a much more civilized society then we do, nobody is starving on the streets - so I'd say it's working.

I think when you use the word 'entitlement' you have to think about the implications of what you mean. SOMEBODY has to produce those things you say everyone is 'entitled' to and you have to be prepared to explain why.

[bemildred]

52. So you don't think we should be like Denmark or what?

I don't see your point. The question was how things ought to be. It's certainly true that if people are not paid well and they don't have to work, then they won't work. But so what? That just means you have to pay them well if you want them to work. What's wrong with that?

[bobbolink]

46. Spoken like a real Democrat... a traditional Democrat.

Thank you!

I cannot believe how many people are willing to sell out.

No wonder I have no hope of having a home.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

68. Thank you so much

For the ray of rationality..

We should not be scared of entitlements but we need to stop calling them rights!

Health Care is not a right, its an entitlement... Public Education is not a right, its an entitlement. Entitlements are *good things* but they are not rights which are *required things*.. Governments cant give you rights!

[slackmaster]

3. Regretably I must answer Yes, and for a very simple reason

There are a few people out there who are homeless BY CHOICE.

Edited for spelling, I think.

[Warpy]

8. Do you think they'd choose it

if a room with a lock on the door was available in a place where nobody would nag them about their lifestyle in any way?

Outside of some tripwire vets out in the woods, most of whom have constructed their own homes, thank you very much, I don't think anybody CHOOSES to be homeless.

[slackmaster]

14. San Diego Union-Tribune had a major article about this a month or so ago

Extensive interviews and ride-alongs with San Diego PD officers and county workers who deal with chronically homeless people.

The jest of it is that it's often fairly easy to get some of the worst off people into shelters, but keeping them there is a different matter. And there are a few who refuse help no matter who is offering it. (Perhaps worth noting here, San Diego has a very mild climate which makes it one of the least uncomfortable places to live outside. Honolulu has milder winters but it rains a lot there.)

Outside of some tripwire vets out in the woods, most of whom have constructed their own homes, thank you very much, I don't think anybody CHOOSES to be homeless.

Those "tripwire vets out in the woods" are some of people I was referring to.

[Warpy]

27. Have you ever spent a night as a "guest" in a shelter?

I have and no one should have to live that way. I don't wonder that people choose makeshift shelters in the woods or under highway bridges over them.

[slackmaster]

30. Well then, what kind of accommodations do you feel people are entitled to?

I'm seriously interested in your opinion.

[Warpy]

32. At minimum? A room with a lock on the door

which is what I've lived in more than once.

[slackmaster]

34. I've known a few people who went jail to get that

I'm glad that you are better off now.

[Warpy]

43. Thanks, so am I.

[demgurl]

40. If I may interrupt, I believe people are entitled to the same as....

France. They amended their constitution so that everyone is entitled to a roof over their head and that is not a shelter roof but a place of their own! The French are some of the most progressive people on earth between health care, education and homelessness.

Some cities here are progressive. There are rules in place, for some cities, that apartment buildings with more than x amount of apartments must put aside so many units for low income housing. We need a lot more rules like that in place to help those that need it most.

[maxsolomon]

90. gist. the GIST of it.

i cannot stop myself, so, sorry for being a grammar nazi.

[Midlodemocrat]

24. I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, unfortunately.

And, it makes me sad 20 years later to recall this gentleman.

He came from a semi-wealthy family in New Canaan, CT, one of the wealthy bedroom communities of NYC. His family desperately tried to get him into a shelter, a home, an apartment, anything. He chose to live outside.

Now obviously, he had issues which were going undiagnosed. But I remember watching him push his shopping cart full of his things past the shelter where I was volunteering and it broke my heart.

I have no idea what became of him. I doubt his family does.

[varelse]

45. I've known a couple of people who did choose it

They wanted to stay "off the grid" I think and free to move around. Most of the homeless people I have known viewed it as a temporary situation that they were working very hard to get out of, though.

[Breeze54]

9. No, they may think it's a choice or the only choice.

But no one ever would honestly choose to be homeless.

If they have mental health issues, then they may be deluded
into that warped thinking and in that case, they need help.

There's no real reason to have anyone homeless, living on the streets.

If this country really cared and wanted to really fix that problem, we could do it.

[MrCoffee]

10. I've been good friends with "homeless by choice"

These were people who, for one reason or another, voluntarily dropped out of society. I knew them from my "homeless not by choice" days.

They weren't victims, they weren't ill, they weren't junkies, drunks, or whores...they saw it as empowerment against all of society. It was purely 100% their choice to do so.

[Breeze54]

11. I've known the same types but as soon as they got a private, safe place...

they changed their tune and moved in. Of course, the meds helped...

[slackmaster]

15. You're saying that some of them are so mentally ill they don't know what's best for them

And of course YOU do.

:eyes:

As I understand the constraints of the question in the OP, I cannot give a negative answer because that would run contrary to the ability of someone to make a conscious, informed decision to remain homeless.

[Breeze54]

31. Yes, some people are so mentally ill, they don't know what's best for them.

You got it.

[slackmaster]

33. OK, I can accept that

And since we don't have a system that provides treatment for everyone who needs it, we will never know for sure whether or not some of them would still choose, after receiving treatment, to go homeless.

[Breeze54]

42. People in the Homeless Coalition keep track...

or they try to....

[demgurl]

17. I am trying to phrase this next sentence...

to be as un-confrontational as possible. I know things may come across not as they were intended and so please take the following in the manner it was intended - in metta (loving kindness). Even if a few people are homeless by choice that means a LOT more people being homeless is acceptable to you?

As mentioned, further up the thread, if people want to be in the streets that is fine but the majority would love to have a safe place to live.

This is kind of like saying that since a few women lie about being raped that all rape is acceptable. As a former rape victim I find that offensive and as someone who knows homeless folks who do NOT want to live on the streets I find it offensive for homelessness to be acceptable. Heck, as a human being I find homelessness to be unacceptable.

I am trying hard to understand your view. Are you saying that the few who are too full of pride to accept help and the few who are too mentally unstable to make a true decision void out the large percentage who do want shelter and safety and those few make homelessness acceptable?

[slackmaster]

21. No, your careful re-phrasing does not reflect my attitude at all

Even if a few people are homeless by choice that means a LOT more people being homeless is acceptable to you?

I'd like to see nobody homeless, but I know that there are a FEW people who wish to be that way, and as long as they aren't committing crimes it would not be right to force them into living in a situation not of their choice.

As a former rape victim I find that offensive and as someone who knows homeless folks who do NOT want to live on the streets I find it offensive for homelessness to be acceptable.

I did not say I accepted it. Do note that the first word of my initial response was "Regretably". Your question did not allow for any gray area. I'm trying to point out that there actually is some.

Are you saying that the few who are too full of pride to accept help and the few who are too mentally unstable to make a true decision void out the large percentage who do want shelter and safety and those few make homelessness acceptable?

No, of course not and that looks like a non-sequitur to me. My opinion is that anyone who wants to get into a shelter should be able to. Anyone who wishes to seek care for mental health issues should have access to it. And people who wish to drop out of society and be left alone should have that option.

[demgurl]

37. Thank you for a respectful response.

You did start your original post by saying homelessness is OK with you but at least we have been able to talk that out a bit. I do believe a small few would rather be out on the streets but quite a few who would say that need medication and are not sure what is best for them.

So do I understand you that if someone wants to be homeless then that is fine but that in general it is not OK to allow people to go without housing if they truly want it? I believe I understand you but want to make sure.

[slackmaster]

83. Let me give you a little more data on my perspective

I live in a city that implemented an "anti-vagrancy" law decades ago, which made it illegal for people to camp out in places like urban parks, canyons, under bridges, etc. So homelessness was not "tolerated" in the sense that someone sleeping on a park bench could be fined $20, and jailed after repeated offenses. It was not "acceptable" for someone to choose to live in the great urban outdoors.

This completely uncompassionate law was challenged in court in a class action suit and ruled unconstituational. My initial answer attempted to consider the perspective of the members of that class.

I am not content with having people who want shelter, medical care, etc. being unable to get them. I would also be uncomfortable with a system that did not allow for someone of sound mind to refuse those things.

[enid602]

4. 40%

Poverty rate in LA and NYC is 15 (which in itself is totally unacceptable); I cannot image what 40% must be like.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. No, it is not OK

There is enough for everyone to share--if they would.

[katty]

6. No & here in LA@the beach lots of homeless-City Hall allows

groups to pass out bagged food to homeless and we have some shelters - generally it is warm so they sleep and hang out on the grass. Not alot of crime in the area-so they feel safe here. Our food bank is very community aware/active.

[Warpy]

7. NO, I most certaily am not.

Been there, done that, would check out before I'd do it again.

[jmondine]

16. Only for Bush, Cheney and Rove

[ShadesOfGrey]

18. Hell NO! It's not OK...

Something is seriously wrong in this land of plenty. We need solutions NOW!!!

[tomreedtoon]

19. Like we have a choice?

They will do to us what they will do to us. All we can do is survive.

My question is, what would YOU have us do, demgurl? Would you have us take up arms and start killing people? Are you for anarchy or revolution? You want us to build scaffolds and hang traitors to democracy like the French did in 1789? What do YOU want us to do? Explain, please. Use complete sentences and paragraphs.

[Two Americas]

44. I don't understand this

Can we imagine nothing in between? Why do you characterize this as a choice between either the current situation, or as the only other alternative that we are to imagine "taking up arms and starting to kill people" and having "anarchy or revolution" and "building scaffolds and hanging traitors to democracy?"

If that wasn't the choice you intended to present, why the talk of violence and revolution?

[tomreedtoon]

87. When you ask open questions, what do you expect?

I have seen this kind of rabble-rousing question on DU far too often. The poster details how bad things are and how hopeless is the chance for change. We can't stop Bush. We can't remove him from office. The megacorporations are putting us on the street and we'll never have jobs, gas or food again. Democrats are frauds and won't reform anything. And then the poster asks, "What are you going to do?"

Well, if a situation is that hopeless, grabbing a gun and eliminating the source of the problem with no rational solution is the obvious choice. Moderate and negotiated choices don't come into question if you raise the specter of terror!!!

In other words, people on the left are reduced to using the responses the right have been handing us. Having been subject to the right's dictatorship for the last eight or sixteen years (if you want to include Bill Clinton), they want to be the dictators now.

When I read the original post, I couldn't help but think of Emma Goldman, the socialist rabble-rouser, who convinced Leon Czolgosz to assassinate President William McKinley. And she isn't alone among the more extreme posters on DU.

To the OP: if you didn't mean this, pay attention to what you post. And don't ask open questions.

[Two Americas]

92. complacency

I think the OP was addressing people's complacency. The rest of it - presidential assassinations, it is all hopeless, etc. - you read into it.

"Extreme posters?" Talking about poverty and homelessness is "extreme?"

[demgurl]

51. I would have us try to elect as many progressives as possible.

I would have people give out food even if it is against the law.

I would have people picket their representatives.

I would have people write to their local newspapers.

I would have more people call their representatives.

I would put pressure on our people to amend our Constitution as the French have.

The most important thing I would do is ask that you, and everyone else, not turn away. When was the last time you looked at a homeless person? I mean truly looking them in the eye and seeing the person behind what we expect. This is why I have Pink Floyd's "On the Turning Away" taped to my computer - to remind myself not to turn away and to see what is truly there.

By the way, I hope it is not the way it came across but asking me to use complete sentences and paragraphs came across a little condescending to say the least.

They want us to believe all we can do is survive. If we buy into that we will not change anything. We can do more, way more. And if the government will not do it then we can defy them and do it ourselves. We are what makes up this country, not our government.

[tomreedtoon]

88. You didn't say that. Read Post #87.

And if you don't like sounding like Emma Goldman, as I suggested in that post, stop raising the specter of terror!!! and begging for the most extreme responses available. You should have put those recommendations in your original post; I shouldn't have had to call you on it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

20. BUSH just announced a veto for the Senate's first plan to help the people.

"asshole" just does not do him justice. assholes are too useful.

[nealmhughes]

22. Miss Rand's readers would tell us that they are practicing the greatest form of self-empowerment by

not accepting altruistic "collectivism" to intrude into their lives -- that feeding the hungry and housing the homeless and treating the wounds of the injured are not our collective concern and that any tax monies going to this endeavour are theft from a "productive" member of society's pockets. Theft! The government as highway man! Stand and deliver!

But Miss Rand's readers are those who do not play well with others. Those who read and spout one thing and then accept as much governmental largesse as possible for their private financial undertakings. Those cultists with wealth that was passed down do not renounce such monies, now do they?

"Rugged individualism" does not work well in climates without a sea full of fish, a tropical climate and breadfruit growing beside the cliff caves for shelter.

As a rule, small children are incredibly selfish: it defines them in one sense. They tend to grow into gregarious creatures, much as do gorillas and chimps. Unfortunately, there are those who wish to resocialize adults and turn them into raving antisocial idealogues who would in theory step over a body dying of hunger to get to the caviar counter at Zabar's, then send them a bill for the cleaning of their shoes for stepping in the bodily fluids of the dying victim.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. No, I don't like it. Are there countries in the who have a better track record in

preventing homelessness? (The Nordic nations maybe??) And if so, why can't we follow their model?

[Ghost Dog]

35. In most countries there are 'shanty towns' at least

(except in the richest/most authoritarian).

[Matariki]

29. What are YOU doing about it? What do you suggest can and should be done?

Other than us all kvetching on DU?

[demgurl]

53. This thread is not about suggestions , at least it originally wasn't meant

to be. I do have suggestions and I have mentioned some of them above. This thread was more about my incredulity at members of a progressive board that keep expressing opinions that are contrary to what I see our party is about. I always thought we were the party of empathy and yet I see people unwilling to see anything except that the homeless/poor are lazy and deserve nothing. (and the comments go on and on) It may not be said outright but the implications are there.

Everyone should read "Nickeled and Dimed" to see the perspective of the poor from someone who has everything they need. Maybe it would change some minds and win some hearts.

I swear there are days when my jaw hangs open in amazement for the callousness expressed here. Just because you (the collective you) are lucky enough to make it (even when you were on the streets) does not mean everyone has that ability or that those who don't make it are lazy or deserve it. If you truly feel that way, why are you a member of the Democratic party? First and foremost our party is about making life fair and good for everyone, for helping those who can not help themselves.

The question is more to wake people up and get past their prejudices. If you are not against homelessness then maybe you should study why you are not. If you are against homelessness then perhaps a lot of people need to change their view of the homeless.

[Matariki]

98. You were the one that asked what we were going to do about it in your OP

I like what you said about how they do it in France, btw. I agree with you that it's an important issue. However I don't think there is simply one single cause of poverty and homelessness.

[caseycoon]

38. Certainly NOT!

In no way should it ever be acceptable. The vast majority of homeless people now are families, men, women & children. The food banks are running short & there are not enough shelters. It's a huge issue & it's getting worse all the time. America, it seems, will not take care of her own. It is truly a disgrace.

[varelse]

49. I accept the homeless who wish to live off the grid and without landlords or property taxes

What I do not accept is the idea that involuntary homelessness is an incurable condition of any human society.

[demgurl]

54. And nor should we ever accept that.

Thanks and a belated welcome to our board.

[yardwork]

55. I think that there are two separate issues here.

Many posters have responded to the question of homelessness by pointing out that there will probably always be some folks who are homeless by choice (more or less) or simply unreachable by any safety network.

The issue you raise is separate, imo. That is the large number of working people who, despite having jobs, are still living below the poverty line. How can supposedly the "greatest and wealthiest nation in the world" let down so many of its people?

That's the big issue that is staring us all in the face.

[Festivito]

56. No, BUT I don't think it's the Detroit poverty line. It's in cars.

Homes are cheap in Detroit. Many are empty. Nice areas just lost over half their value. Mine did. Other areas are dangerous, but a thousand or two can buy one. Even less if you squat. A dollar if you have a job and apply. People drive inside the city limits without license or insurance. Some live lives only within a few blocks.

It's the cars I see that bothers me. Filled with stuff. One person. Once two persons.

We return to the early 1900's. The people who'd remember are dead.


Have you seen the old girl,
who walks the streets of London,
dirt in her hair,
her clothes all in rags,
she's no time for talking,
just keeps right on walking,
carrying her home,
in two carrier bags.

So how can you tell me that you're lonely,
and say, for you, the sun don't shine,
let me take you by the hand,
and lead you through the streets of London,
I'll show you something that will make you change your mind.

It's back.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

57. Never

Noone ever chooses homelessness. That is a lie.

It completely ignores the constellation of expreiences that go to make up our daily lives and the insitutions and structures that create the conditions that bring about homeless people.

K&R

[idovoodoo]

58. We should immediately buy a house for every homeless person.

With a platform like that, how could we lose?

[demgurl]

62. I try to give respect and I expect it.

The platform does not have to be homes for every homeless person. I am sure that they did not run on that in France and yet they just amended their constitution to say just that. We do need to elect people that show kindness and compassion for those without.

The homeless problem is much more than the homeless. If you look deeper you will see that the problem with homelessness or poverty encompasses lots of issues that effect ALL of us. People do not decide one day that homelessness or poverty is good. A person's way of life dies a slow painful death. All of it caused by laws our representatives have set up. These laws include such things as minimum wages, taxes and many more things. These are things that effect us as well. Changing them not only would make a difference for those who truly need it, it also would make a positive difference in our lives. Everything is interconnected and until we make that connection there will be much suffering and we are responsible for it.

[shireen]

63. Prefer to see my taxes spent on that, instead of a monstrously-bloated military industrial complex!

The spending priorities in this country are frightening. I want my tax money to
- help people lift themselves out of poverty
- become better stewards of our planet,
- heavily invest in basic and applied sciences and engineering
- to challenge ourselves with the joys of exploration on land, sea, and space

I want humanity to start respecting and appreciating itself.

[idovoodoo]

66. I absolutely agree with and am in solidarity with you on this, BUT

we don't have the popular support to make it happen. How much does -that- suck?

[raccoon]

80. self delete nt

[bobbolink]

91. Gotta love your snark.

We'll see how much you like it said to you when YOU'RE the homeless one.

[midnight]

60. No it's not ever alright. End the tax cuts until everyone has

a house.

[knitter4democracy]

61. No. It's time to seriously attack homelessness.

So many problems add up to homelessness that we need a multi-pronged approach.

1. National Health Care. Single payer like the Canada model. That would take care of a lot of the homeless problem itself--many end up homeless due to health care costs and bankruptcy, etc., plus needing health care they can't afford.

2. Living wage. I'm sick and tired of seeing so many work themselves to exhaustion and still not be able to afford the basics. It's time to pay people what they're really worth and not what some penny pusher wants to save.

3. Drastic changes in housing laws. Homes should not be foreclosed on until after everything else has been exhausted--and the court can figure out who owns the debt. Bundling those debts and selling them should be illegal. No one even knows who owns the title anymore. Zoning laws that keep poor people out and keep me from owning chickens (sorry, got mad about that tonight) should be stricken.

4. Community centers. We used to have community centers in most towns. We need them again. No more of this "all for one and leave me alone" crap. It's not going to help us survive.

There were days in our history when neighbors knew each other and helped each other build and maintain their homes. We still have that in some areas, but in too many, no one knows their neighbors or cares. The homeless are our neighbors, our brothers and sisters, and we need to help them and fight alongside them for their rights.

[shireen]

64. homelessness is UNACCEPTABLE. Apathy is UNACCEPTABLE.

No ones wants to live in insecurity and danger, battling the elements and wondering when and where that next meal will come from.

No one lives that way by choice. They are forced into it for reasons that are only known to them. For some of them, it's about maintaining their dignity and independence because the alternatives are intolerable. For some, they are afflicted by mental illness that distorts their reasoning. For all, they have no other place to go.

I get angry and upset when people "compliment" me about my activities. I don't want their damned compliments. I don't want recognition or credit. I take no comfort in doing those things because I know how inadequate it is. All I want to do is scream, why the hell aren't you doing anything? Why the hell aren't you more outraged? Where's your goddamned empathy? I wish they'd just STFU and go do something.... :grr:

[idovoodoo]

67. The trouble with your outrage is simply this: it isn't shared by very many people.

Yeah, you get an amenable audience here on DU but in "mainstream" America? Fergit it, boopsie. Most folks couldn't give a shit less about anybody in need. (Exceptions exist, of course...notably those with a need for tax deductions)

[shireen]

73. that's why i feel so discouraged ....nt

[idovoodoo]

74. And as much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news...it's not ever going to be better.

Now isn't the time to make babies...they will just hate us...if they even survive childhood.

[Oak2004]

101. Check the polls. Attitudes are changing.

Polls show a majority of Americans believe that persons in need should be helped and that everyone should be entitled to the basics in life. The "conservative revolution" is dead as a doornail as far as public opinion goes.

[OwnedByFerrets]

65. I would gladly give 80% of the defense budget to build

houses for the homeless.

[U4ikLefty]

70. self-delete

[KillCapitalism]

71. K&R It's certainly not OK with me.

I know what it's like because I experienced it. I lived out of an old car for about a year until a relative found out what I was doing and took me in. It was a bad, bad, experience that no one should have to go through.

[dajoki]

72. No, it is not OK...

I am in forclosure right now, and am running out of time, but I continue to do my best to keep this subject in the public eye. I have made numerous calls to my reps. and sent many emails. Much of the info I have seen has been right here on DU. I hope to be able to straighten out my own situation and will then be able to devote more time to this issue. Many DUers have been tremendously helpful to me, especially Bobbie, and I thank her and everybody for that!! I will continue to do what I can to keep this subject front and center!!

[Sadie4629]

76. I don't want to rain on your parade,

but:

"By the time this roller coaster ride is over we will all know at least one person who has lost their home or it will be us who have lost their home."

is probably an overstatement.

Things HAVE been bad before. My husband and I purchased our first home in 1983. We had a 12.5% mortgage, and considered ourselves "lucky" to have gotten a fixed rate mortgage at that rate, because we knew people who had opted for a low-rate ARM which refinanced after a few years to MUCH higher than our piddly little 12.5. Just like now, those people could no longer afford their mortgage payments and either lost their homes, or were forced to fire-sale them, just to get out from under the payment. Things were so bad that lots of us thought that the American dream of home ownership was dead, dead, dead.

We probably didn't get a lot of sympathy from people of a previous generation, who had lived through the Great Depression, and knew what hard times actually were.

You know what?? Most of us have done OK in the 30+ years since. There is a cycle, and you just have to grin and bear it through the low points of that cycle.

And be smart. It pays to be smart.

My son is paying an exhorbitant amount of rent for a small apartment in Boston. His landlord wants to unload the apartment, and made what I'm sure he considered a tempting offer to my son. Probably talked about the advantages of home ownership, etc., etc. My son turned him down cold. If the guy sells to someone else, then my son will move, but he's smart enough to know that this too shall pass, and he will be better off for having waited.

As for homelessness, no, it isn't acceptable, but unless you are willing to bring back involuntary commitment to mental institutions, you aren't going to be able to eliminate it entirely.

[blindpig]

84. What arrogance

You're so fucking smart. What of those who could never attempt to own a home in the first place? Just where are those jobs which would allow such?

"There is a cycle"??? Is this some law of nature? No, it is a convention which favors those who own our society, we can surely do better.

So, the homeless are dumb or mentally ill? Hope I'm never as smart as you.

[Sadie4629]

93. Who couldn't "attempt to own a home??"

Work, deny yourself extravagances, shop wisely, use coupons, and save, save, save. Then, when you have a down payment, set your sights on what is known as a "starter home." You know, the kind most young people wouldn't live in if it were given to them. The kind that has a payment you can AFFORD. Take care of it, maybe make a few improvements, then after a few years, sell it and buy something better, or keep it and pay it off. Either way, you're ahead of the game.

And, yes, there is a cycle. Is this the first you've heard of it?

And--if you will read my statement again, I said there is no way to completely eliminate homelessness unless you want involuntary commitment. Unfortunately, many of the mentally ill are incapable of making the kind of decisions that will enable them to take advantage of permanent shelter, no matter what you are willing to do for them.

I don't think you have to worry about ever being as smart as me. JMHO.

[blindpig]

94. oh boy...

Has it occurred to you that some folks, people with minimum wage jobs, with children to feed, can never amass that kind of money?

The cycle is part and parcel of capitalism, it is not a thing of nature, it is in fact grossly unnatural. It is badly in need of disposal.

Decisions, decisions, decisions. You write as though humans are an utterly independent agency, as though the sea is irrelevant to the fishies. You should probably lay off that self help garbage. We are creatures of our environment.

You did imply that persons who can't do well are not 'smart'. That is arrogance.

[Sadie4629]

95. We're all VICTIMS!!!!!!

What 'should be' and what 'is' are two different things. You can sit around and moan and groan about how what 'is' sucks, or you can play the game by the rules.

Minimum wage was never intended to support a family forever. Such jobs are usually an entry point into the work force, and IF!!! one is willing to work hard, go the extra mile, one can count on moving up and getting ahead.

[blindpig]

97. Or

you can work to change the game, change the rules. That is the just and moral thing to do.

"one can count on moving up and getting ahead." What kind of fantasy world do you live in? Every day I talk to working people barely scraping by, one check from having their light cut off, from eviction and this goes on all over the country. These are people who work harder than any white collar worker ever thought about and perform services much more vital to the functioning of society.
You insult them.

[Oak2004]

99. Too bad the facts don't agree with your attitude

And yes, if you haven't been paying attention, there are a hell of a lot of victims of corporatism and oligarchy and empire. Even the earth itself is dying.

What "should be" is the engine of progress, is the very heart and soul of progressivism. What "is" is at the core of conservativism, and the conservative "vision" is never acceptable as an end point, not practically, and not morally. If what "is" was good enough for America, slavery would be alive and well. If "what is" was good enough for humanity, we'd be living in caves and chipping stone axes. If "what is" was good enough for life itself, we'd be a gaggle of anaerobic microbes, fighting it out to see who got to eat some tasty molecule.

[RadiationTherapy]

103. but how do you feel about Ayn Rand?

What percentage of a person's earning potential do you think is the result of a person working hard and following rules?

What are the rules?

[LWolf]

77. No. It's not okay.

What to do about it? Long-term, we restore and reinforce social infrastructure: We make sure that anybody who wants to work can, and anybody who works makes a living wage. We provide universal public pre-school - college, and we fund organizations like the Boys and Girls club, who provide low cost before and after school child care with organized activities.

Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care. Including mental health.

Take real estate off of the market, so to speak. I'm not sure about the best way to accomplish this, but as long as the haves can continue to make money off of rising land and housing prices, keeping prices out of range of the rest, some people will be homeless.

Affordable housing. For all. Not big project buildings for the poor, but affordable, accessible housing in all neighborhoods.

Rent vouchers supplied like food stamps. And yes, safe, clean places for anyone who falls through cracks to get a shower, meals, and a room.

[Romulox]

79. I'm socially liberal and economically conservative

:sarcasm: :puke:

What did you think "economically conservative" means? It means you tolerate inequality and suffering among your fellow Americans. Republican economic policy obviates any "progressive" social policy.

[alphafemale]

85. It's a real difficult question. First. It shouldn't be ILLEGAL.

Because, some people do CHOOSE that style of life.

As hard as it is for some of us to wrap our heads around some perfectly stable people do choose an unfettered lifestyle. The railroad hobo even achieved somewhat of a celebrated status for awhile. There have been other examples in the mass media too.

Harper's magazine, this month has an article about a trip down the Mississippi in a homemade "raft" by some homeless.

But there are some people out their that really need help though. People who are unable to help themselves and who are constantly victimized day after day. The mentally handicapped and the mentally ill, those savaged by their own addictions. I think those people need to be helped rather than continue to turn a blind eye.

What that help would amount to is another story.

I don't think that ongoing enabling (i.e. free room and board without accountability) of someone with an addiction would necessarily be helpful.

For the mentally unstable or handicapped I think going back to times of involuntary commitment of these homeless would be very troubling.

At least they would be clean, warm and fed but....my gawd. We certainly couldn't return to the Mental Asylums of Cuckoo's Nest infamy.

It's not a magic wand issue by any means.

[noonwitch]

86. It should be noted that all those numbers were much lower during the Clinton/Archer years

When Clinton was president and Archer was mayor, the poverty statistics started to drop in Detroit, as did the murder rate and the unemployment rate. There were aspects of welfare reform I didn't like, but I did like the move to get people working at real jobs, with medicaid, childcare and foodstamp assistance to help them get by. It is better to work than get trapped by welfare.

The economy tanked under Bush, coupled with a greedy and corrupt new mayor in 2001, and the city is a mess again, just like it was in the 80s.

[killbotfactory]

100. The numbers dropped because so many people were thrown in prison under Clinton

When you are in prison, you don't count as poor or unemployed.

The 1990s were said to be a time when rising tides finally did lift all boats. Western warns that part of the reason, statistically speaking, is that many poor men have been thrown overboard—the government omits prisoners when calculating unemployment and poverty rates. Add them in, as Western does, and joblessness swells. For young black men it grows by more than a third. For young black dropouts, the jobless rate leaps from 41 percent to 65 percent. "Only by counting the penal population do we see that fully two out of three young black male dropouts were not working at the height of the 1990s economic expansion," Western warns. Count inmates and you also erase three quarters of the apparent progress in closing the wage gap between blacks and whites.

Western is not just tinkering with the numbers. He is rewriting one of the era's major story lines. "This is the first recovery in three decades where everybody got better at the same time," President Clinton said just before leaving office. "I just think that's so important." Punishment and Inequality in America shows that among one vital group of the poor, the opposite was true: as official unemployment hit record lows, joblessness among young black dropouts rose to record highs. The prison expansion reflected inequality. The prison expansion created inequality. The prison expansion hid inequality from view.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20056

[bobbolink]

89. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

I can't understand why a thread about homelessness doesn't get more recs.

I think that's a message in itself.

:cry:

[Oak2004]

96. Homelessness, sure, that was fine

It was hunger that made me really miserable ;)

More seriously -- no one should need to be homeless, and no one should starve.

From my two years homeless I was not as distressed by not having a roof over my head, given that I was young, fairly able-bodied, and clever about finding safe places to sleep and building good shelters low to the ground in wooded areas. In many ways, homelessness became an adventure for me. I learned many things about resourcefulness, and about how little, really, I needed my "stuff". In fact I grew to see things not as an asset but as a burden, as something that literally weighed me down and made my life that much more difficult. It was liberating. I had spent most of my time thinking about stuff, protecting my stuff, earning money to buy stuff and then to buy stuff to accessorize my stuff, and so very little of the stuff that filled my life had actually satisfied any of my needs. If liberation from possessions was all that homelessness entailed, I'd endorse homelessness for everyone.

I swore that never again would I be the slave of my possessions, but regrettably once I returned to the world of home dwellers I relapsed into stuff slavery. Though I do try more than most to pare down and weed out, I still fall for the (fundamentally insane) idea that I "need" to acquire a never ending stream of objects. Writing this part of the tale down is, in fact, inspiring me to yet again go through my possessions and liberate myself from some of them. If only I still had the discernment, fresh in my mind, between what enhances my life and what merely weighs it down.

If I became homeless today, though, given that I'm a wheelchair user with multiple serious health conditions, it would kill me pretty quickly. I wonder how many disabled people die, quickly, of homelessness, their death certificates dutifully describing some complication of disability as their cause of death, and no one keeping count. One thing is certain -- in so many ways in this society, homeless people don't "count".

Hunger was another story. I had reached the point of often passing out from hunger, and when I did find food I became sick from eating it. If you want to know utter misery, be desperately hungry, so desperately hungry every cell in your being is inconsolably obsessed with food, every breath you take and every heartbeat you make whispers and pounds out FOOD, have someone invite you to an all-you-can-eat Chinese restaurant, fill your belly with that life-giving stuff you so desperately need, and then watch all those calories and protein and vitamins and minerals come back up out of your mouth and spill themselves on the curb. I have the dubious honor of once having been diagnosed with clinical starvation. It's the world's least useful diagnosis, given that medical doctors aren't empowered to "treat" it, and neither, apparently, is anyone else.

Desperation should not exist. Every human has a right to shelter, food, and all the other basics of life. If feeding humans means taxes so high that some "poor" person of means is deprived of buying the latest iPod this year (thereby depriving them of another opportunity to be possessed by a possession), so be it, though I suspect all it would take is giving the Pentagon budget and corporate welfare programs a good trimming.

[ourbluenation]

102. some people, ususally w mental health issues, choose to be homeless...

despite their families attempts to find them shelter. Not sure there's anything to be done about that other than forcing them and that's really not an option.

[Jed Dilligan]

105. You need to deconstruct your concept of "home"

The cheapest housing is no "home" at all. I'm not okay with the way housing works in this country period, for the homeless or the housed. The last thirty years, there's been no justice, and no affordable housing. I don't care who you are or what you make, housing has not been affordable. It has existed almost exclusively to create winners and losers, as in, some people became "millionaires" while lying on their barca-loungers in front of Fox news while others went to jail for sleeping on park benches. Now the whole repulsive system is collapsing and I can hardly imagine anything worse being its ultimate replacement. If anti-homeless enforcement stopped tomorrow we would have encampments becoming favelas that would, mortar block by recycled two-by-four, evolve into regular neighborhoods. How that's worse than people sleeping in cardboard boxes on dirty sidewalks and getting arrested every couple of weeks, no one has yet explained to me. But I'll take my cardboard box and the occasional holding tank over some shitbox $600 apartment with bullet holes in the walls and a mafioso landlord and dealers/prostitutes/etc. working on the steps. Where are the truly affordable housing options? Answer, they don't exist, no matter who you are, because if you don't own real estate, you are being ripped off by people who do, and if you do, you are being ripped off by people who own more.

Fuck the entire housing-based economy, there will be chaos but I will be glad to see it go.

~JD
Been there, done that