Right or left why homeless ?

[Coral Rhedd]

Dear all,

 

It seems Pangloss thinks I have been particularly vicious to Tater. In answer to Pangloss more than to Tater (Tater you get to be the example in this case.) allow me to show you how rhetorical truth is established using a concept called close reading.

 

Sorry folks, it's not science. It's a techinique of literary analysis.

 

All of the following in quotes is from Tater in this thread:

 

Post #27

 

People are a little like electricity in that they take the path of least resistance.

 

It is easier to blame someone else than it is to blame the person in the mirror.

 

Looking for a helping hand?

 

Try the ones on the ends of your arms.

 

Sorry, but there is no other way to present a cliche rather than to simply quote it. Does anyone reading the above get the sense that Tater is saying that homeless people are rather passive? In a society that prefers proactive people and rewards them with success -- and Tater especially wants to discuss the U.S. -- Tater seems to be saying that these folks are not go getters. Or am a reading the subtext wrong?

 

In any case, the author himself is available to confirm or deny. He is such a better postion than dead white males authors of yore.

 

 

Post #36

 

It is a fact that most of the problems of homelessness, in a society like we enjoy in America, are, for the most part, self inflicted.

 

Here Tater gives us the unvarnished facts. (We will ignore for a moment that he refuses to substantiate them.) Let us focus on the language, in particular the words "self-inflicted." What do these words mean? What else can they mean but that it is the homeless person's own darn fault for being homeless. Later Tater does offer some exceptions, but in the above quote the language is absolutely unequivocal.

 

Post # 42

 

I think the reason that most of the homeless are homeless is precisely because they do not consider having a home to be worth the effort and inconvienence of holding a regular job.

 

Hmm. What can be the meaning of the above? Can it be that Tater thinks the homeless are lazy? Note again that there is no wiggle room in that statement.

 

Post #51

 

After all, sacrificing 8 hour a day for some 45 years is a significent sacrifice. In short, it is easier for them to drift in the wind like a thistel seed and exist on the handouts of others.

 

I particularly admire the above. Rather nice wording really. Thistle seed is a bit of an annoyance. Sticks in your socks. And the application of the word drift is truly a master stroke. Drift = drifter = bum. Get it? Finally, there is the word handouts. The subtext of this is that Tater would have you believe that the homeless never worked a day in their lives and never paid taxes either.

 

Post# 69

 

I would put someone into a hospital also if he collapsed on the street. But that is a good long ways from providing permanent housing for anyone who is willing to claim that he can't provide for himself.

 

Note the word "claim." The homeless by their very nature cannot be trusted. Rest assured that when the rest of us collapse in the street we are not feigning and should be rushed to the hospital forthwith.

 

Post #70

 

my comments were directed to the so-called "homeless"

 

 

First paragraph, above quote: Words so-called are the equivalent to the word claim mentioned by me in referring to post # 69.

 

Post # 74

 

Do I personally know anyone who is homeless? yes. Most of them have nothing wrong with them, they are living in the land of opportunity and they would simply rather whine about what what someone else is not doing for them rather than doing anything to help themselves.

 

Not only are the homeless dishonest but they are whiney and will not help themselves. Subtext: They are looking for a hand out again.

 

Now Pangloss has made a big deal about me attacking Tater.

 

I think, by looking at the above examples all gathered together, we can conclude that I was correct when I said Tater views the homeless with contempt. If the above quotes don't demonstrate contempt, I don't know what does.

 

But Pangloss was completely wrong when he said my purpose was to attack Tater. My purpose was to gain further information from Tater. When I want to attack someone there will be absolutely no doubt of my purpose.

 

I have nothing but respect for Tater, though I disagree with him. But I have absolutely no respect for someone who will not state his own opinion but instead tries to create a smoke screen by creating a side issue unrelated to the matters at hand.

 

Make no mistake Pangloss; when I am attacked, I know how to defend.

[darth tater]

Dear all' date='

 

It seems Pangloss thinks I have been particularly vicious to Tater. [b']In answer to Pangloss[/b] more than to Tater (Tater you get to be the example in this case.) allow me to show you how rhetorical truth is established using a concept called close reading.

 

Sorry folks, it's not science. It's a techinique of literary analysis.

 

All of the following in quotes is from Tater in this thread:

 

 

 

Sorry, but there is no other way to present a cliche rather than to simply quote it. Does anyone reading the above get the sense that Tater is saying that homeless people are rather passive? In a society that prefers proactive people and rewards them with success -- and Tater especially wants to discuss the U.S. -- Tater seems to be saying that these folks are not go getters. Or am a reading the subtext wrong?

 

In any case, the author himself is available to confirm or deny. He is such a better postion than dead white males authors of yore.

 

 

 

 

Here Tater gives us the unvarnished facts. (We will ignore for a moment that he refuses to substantiate them.) Let us focus on the language, in particular the words "self-inflicted." What do these words mean? What else can they mean but that it is the homeless person's own darn fault for being homeless. Later Tater does offer some exceptions, but in the above quote the language is absolutely unequivocal.

 

 

 

Hmm. What can be the meaning of the above? Can it be that Tater thinks the homeless are lazy? Note again that there is no wiggle room in that statement.

 

 

 

I particularly admire the above. Rather nice wording really. Thistle seed is a bit of an annoyance. Sticks in your socks. And the application of the word drift is truly a master stroke. Drift = drifter = bum. Get it? Finally, there is the word handouts. The subtext of this is that Tater would have you believe that the homeless never worked a day in their lives and never paid taxes either.

 

 

 

Note the word "claim." The homeless by their very nature cannot be trusted. Rest assured that when the rest of us collapse in the street we are not feigning and should be rushed to the hospital forthwith.

 

 

 

First paragraph, above quote: Words so-called are the equivalent to the word claim mentioned by me in referring to post # 69.

 

 

 

Not only are the homeless dishonest but they are whiney and will not help themselves. Subtext: They are looking for a hand out again.

 

Now Pangloss has made a big deal about me attacking Tater.

 

I think, by looking at the above examples all gathered together, we can conclude that I was correct when I said Tater views the homeless with contempt. If the above quotes don't demonstrate contempt, I don't know what does.

 

But Pangloss was completely wrong when he said my purpose was to attack Tater. My purpose was to gain further information from Tater. When I want to attack someone there will be absolutely no doubt of my purpose.

 

I have nothing but respect for Tater, though I disagree with him. But I have absolutely no respect for someone who will not state his own opinion but instead tries to create a smoke screen by creating a side issue unrelated to the matters at hand.

 

Make no mistake Pangloss; when I am attacked, I know how to defend.

 

 

I know that this post was directed at Pangloss, but since I was quoted so extensively, I feel that if I do not respond, it will be viewed as tantamount to an admission of chagrin on my part, and chagrin is not at all what I feel about these quotes.

 

A more careful examination of my thoughts on the homeless will reveal a stipulation that there are some among the homeless who are in that situation because of either bad luck or accident of birth. These poor folks really ought to have a helping hand, and I have said so. The trick is in separating the needy from the liars and the lazy.

 

On the other hand, there are many--perhaps a majority--who are only in the perdiciment that they are in because they choose to live a lifestyle that does not result in their being housed in 4 bedroom ranchers.

 

For the American taxpayer to be asked to assume that all the homeless in America are really anxious to assume the responsibilities of home ownership and that "having a home is a right" as was asserted here, is a gross misappropriation of tax payer funds and is, in my opinion, tantamount to robbery.

 

Tater does not claim that there are no homeless in America who do not deserve better. What Tater says is that many of the homeless in America are homeless simply because they are not willing to take on the responsibilities necessary to provide one for themselves.

 

Tater also does not think that he necessarily has to prove that to the satisfaction of anyone, it is only tater's opinion and if one finds that opinion incredible, or somehow distasteful, then one--or two--is/are free to dismiss it and go on with their life.

 

Tater also does not feel that he necessarily has to prove that he has first hand experience with the homeless. If one does not wish to believe Tater then one is free to doubt whatever Tater claims. That is another of the options left to "one."

 

The Good lord knows that Tater has his doubts about some of the claims made here by other posters, but Tater is smart enough to know that these claims are fundamentally impossible to prove or dis-prove, so he just smiles to himself and says "yeah riiight" when he reads these claims that would take a couple of lifetimes to achieve, were they all true.

 

Coral is right about one thing; I do indeed hold many of the homeless in utter contempt. Too many of them are the type of people who care nothing about their own children or even themselves and they live be making themselves look pitiful enough that people with good intentions will give them a handout and a place to sleep. But do they respect their benificiaries? Not on your life! They consider them to be suckers to be exploited and will rob them blind at the first opportunity.

 

The key words in the above are "many" and "some" and "perhaps." If you read these words--and inderstand them--you will see that I am not painting all homeless with the same brush.

 

To make a long story short, all that I have posted, I stand by, and I have had at the very least as much first hand experience with the homeless as anyone else on this forum. How do I know that? Well I know that because I see so much posted here by people who claim to have knowledge about the homeless that I happen to know is absolute BS to believe otherwise.

 

Can I prove it? no. Would I bother to prove it if I could? Prebably not. Why? Because it is not a matter of any great importance to me.

[Pangloss]

The smoke screen is all yours, Coral -- the debate IS the matter at hand, not your low opinion of someone else's point of view.

 

I see no reason to respond further on this. I've made my point, and see no relevent disputation to it.

[john5746]

Can I prove it? no. Would I bother to prove it if I could? Prebably not. Why? Because it is not a matter of any great importance to me.

 

So, rather than take one person's opinion, I prefer to take the stats as evidence, which show that more than likely, homeless people are not there because they are lazy or want to be in that condition.

 

I agree that it shouldn't be a 'right' and that I am responsible for everyone having a home. But it is always interesting how much money we are willing to spend to create WMD's and go fight overseas, or lower estate taxes, etc. But, if we spend another dime on poor people, we will all go down in the sewer.

 

That being said, help should come in the form of self-reliance whenever possible. Work is the best help to give these people.

[Coral Rhedd]

The smoke screen is all yours' date=' Coral -- the debate IS the matter at hand, not your low opinion of someone else's point of view.

 

I see no reason to respond further on this. I've made my point, and see no relevent disputation to it.[/quote']

 

The relevant disputation is Tater's own post following mine.

[Coral Rhedd]

That being said' date=' help should come in the form of self-reliance whenever possible. Work is the best help to give these people.[/quote']

 

You are absolutely right about that John. Often only modest work place adjustments on the part of employers allow homeless disabled people to become productive. Some of the barriers to work for the homeless are lack of transportation and lack of facilities to clean up to prepare for work.

 

Here are some things rountinely utilized in job searches that most of us take for granted:

 

deoderant - most of us can afford this, but the homeless often can't

a contact telephone

a typewritten resume

recent employment references

interview clothing

a way to get to work

an alarm clock

access to fax machines, computers and newspapers for a job search

childcare

money for lunch

 

Some simple things that can help disabled people to work are:

 

on the job trainers

frequent breaks for schizophrenics or the severely depressed

available part time employment

more understanding about work history gaps that occur with hospitalization

 

Sometimes problems arise that could be resolved in a better way. One young man with very mild mental deficits and a serious bipolar disorder had maintain a job in a school cafeteria for well over a year with no problems. However his medication (a high dosage) soon caused the side effect of shaking hands. The children in the lunch room began to make fun of his shaking hands until one day he lost his temper and yelled at them. A parent complained and the school fired the young man. Rather than promote understanding, the school was worried about the parent's perception that a man with a mental disorder was working around children.

 

Among the problems that make employment placement most difficult are people with tics or utterances, people who hear voices and become frightened, PTSD, and having no teeth. Homelessness makes good dental care very difficult, but employers are most reluctant to hire people with no teeth.

[husmusen]

Ok Darth, since you have stated that you don't feel the need

to prove anything or demonstrate any veracity to your

statements beyond "Oh, I Knooow", I fully expect this to be my

last reply to you in this topic.

 

It took me a little while to penetrate your views but

I think I have it now. Once again I don't expect you to agree

or disagree, the benefit or loss is only yours.

 

In my current work and study I am involved with treating people

suffering from all manner of illnesses.

 

The key is when you said you would 'call for an ambulance', here

you behaved like any decent human being, there is indeed nothing

wrong and everything right with calling an ambulance for a sick

person.

 

But when it comes to helping homeless people you feel this intense

need to make sure they are: The right sort of homeless.

 

Yet you didn't apply this to the collapsed man.

You didn't check his pockets for cigarettes,

You didn't check to see if he was obese, for all you know

he may not have been taking care of himself.

 

So you only apply this higher standard of morality to the homeless

not to others who are ufortunate.

 

When we treat people in hospitals, we do so without questioning

their morality or values. When someone comes into a hospital seeling

some AB's for a sexual infection, we don't quiz them to make sure

they got it in a moral way, but we treat them and tell them how to avoid

such infections.

 

When a person comes in suffering from NID Diabeties, we advise them

how to lose weight, how to eat properly, how to control the disease.

If they don't do these things we don't withdraw treatment(ie.

make the problem worse) because in the end the main person they

are hurting is themselves. If they don't take care of themselves

they will be the one in the coffin. But most people do because

they are rational. The ones that don't often have some obstacle

preventing them, and a few are just arrogant opinionated people

who are quite sure that they, unlike everyone else with NID diabetes,

can eat sugar all the long day long.

 

It's the same with homelessness, if there are a few people who are

unwilling to make use of the programs, let them, the ones

who use the programs will benefit from them, they ones that don't

, or misuse them, won't, it's that simple.

 

So you see it's no different, when the heart attack guy goes and,

ignoring everything we tell him, stuffs himself full of maccas and comes in two months later with only 60% of normal heart function, purple and

gasping for air, even on Oxygen. We don't rub it in, if that condition

doesn't open his eyes, nagging won't. And we don't despise him,

we pity him because he is a twit, and we wouldn't be in his shoes for

love or money.

 

Ditto for the homeless guy, perhaps Darth, you should avoid the

ostentaitious homeless and look for the scared frightened guys

who hide themselves very well and that you never notice normally,

they would perhaps benefit more from your free lunches.

 

Cheers.

 

P.S. No, Darth you're wrong again, my work is not a drag, by and large

I enjoy my job.

[Coral Rhedd]

 

On the other hand' date=' there are many--perhaps a majority--who are only in the perdiciment that they are in because they choose to live a lifestyle that does not result in their being housed in 4 bedroom ranchers.

[/quote']

 

You must live in a rather nice neighborhood. I've known people who worked hard all their lives and never afforded more than two bedrooms.

 

For the American taxpayer to be asked to assume that all the homeless in America are really anxious to assume the responsibilities of home ownership and that "having a home is a right" as was asserted here, is a gross misappropriation of tax payer funds and is, in my opinion, tantamount to robbery.

 

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested simply giving homeless people homes. Most assistance in the U.S. is in the form of rental assistance. There is some mortgage assistance for the disabled and the elderly, but they still have to qualify -- usually by having a steady income and good credit. They still have to make the payments after the government provides some help with the intial downpayment.

 

Tater also does not think that he necessarily has to prove that to the satisfaction of anyone, it is only tater's opinion and if one finds that opinion incredible, or somehow distasteful, then one--or two--is/are free to dismiss it and go on with their life.

 

No, you don't have to prove anything but I suspect your opinion would carry more weight if you did. If I tried to say that I didn't have to provide any evidence for my opinion, I suspect I would be reminded that this is a science forum.

 

Tater also does not feel that he necessarily has to prove that he has first hand experience with the homeless. If one does not wish to believe Tater then one is free to doubt whatever Tater claims. That is another of the options left to "one."

 

Well we all have some experience with the homeless, don't we? I think there are few people who have not encountered them.

 

The Good lord knows that Tater has his doubts about some of the claims made here by other posters, but Tater is smart enough to know that these claims are fundamentally impossible to prove or dis-prove, so he just smiles to himself and says "yeah riiight" when he reads these claims that would take a couple of lifetimes to achieve, were they all true.

 

Tater, if you are referring to me, I have been homeless. I have also worked with people in a homeless shelter. In fact, two of the cases I cited were of people I worked with to help them find employment. My work in Vocational Rehab brings me into contact with many homeless people, most of whom are seeking employment.

 

Coral is right about one thing; I do indeed hold many of the homeless in utter contempt.

 

Thank you for showing Pangloss that I was not misreading. You have nothing but my respect for stating your opinion so forthrightly.

 

The key words in the above are "many" and "some" and "perhaps." If you read these words--and inderstand them--you will see that I am not painting all homeless with the same brush.

 

This is good to know. To see all of a group of people in one particular way is sterotyping.

 

To make a long story short, all that I have posted, I stand by, and I have had at the very least as much first hand experience with the homeless as anyone else on this forum. How do I know that? Well I know that because I see so much posted here by people who claim to have knowledge about the homeless that I happen to know is absolute BS to believe otherwise.

 

I suspect that you and I could look at the same homeless person and see something very different. By training, I look at a person's potential.

 

Can I prove it? no. Would I bother to prove it if I could? Prebably not. Why? Because it is not a matter of any great importance to me.

 

Seemed like it was.

 

Oh BTW, I too love my work. I do not think of it as a drag. I am happy to be making a contribution in the lives to people with disabilites and it is really a thrill to see them improve their circumstances. Since my specialty is helping disabled people start their own businesses, it is real thrill to see their success this area. Owning one's own home may be part of the American dream, but owning one's own business is even better.

[husmusen]

Very nicely put Coral,

 

Another group that suffers from this is people who have cared for

relatives.

 

If you are a 28 year old, who has cared for a relative for

the last ten years.

You have no current employment references.

You have no current employment history.

 

And it doesn't matter how qualified you are, it doesn't matter

how sincere you are, or that you could do the job very well, you

won't get the job.

 

You can have a qualification with wall to wall High Distinctions

in every subject, and you don't get in.

You also don't have a cent to your name, usually, so you can't afford

to get qualified.

 

Infact that vicious circle of, no qualifications means you can't get job,

no money means you can't get qualifications. So we end up with

1.2 Million unskilled unemployed, and 2.5 million skilled vacancies that

can't be filled. Now since business is too constipated to train or pay for

new employees to be trained,(since they could leave tomorrow) I think the government, in the interest of business the unemployed, and the economy

/community in general, has a case to intervene, increase payroll tax by 1%

for a period of years, and train people. Payroll tax is the logical choice

because large comanies hire more people than small companies so it

best matches the benefits to the taxpayers. And if an industry wants to

train it's own new staff that should ofcourse be deductable.

 

Funny however that once you've completed your first placement,

and get a nice reference from the Division 1 Supervising nurse,

suddenly you realise that wow there really is a worker shortage

and all of a sudden everyone wants to know you, because before the

average company would have died before employing you.

 

P.S. I am speaking of South Eastern States of Australia, It's not so bad in Queensland and the Northern Teritory and(I imagine) W.A. As they are less formal in hiring. Obviously I can't speak about other countries, so maybe in the U.S. you don't need qualos and experience to get hired.

 

Cheers

[Coral Rhedd]

Very nicely put Coral' date='

 

Another group that suffers from this is people who have cared for

relatives.

 

If you are a 28 year old, who has cared for a relative for

the last ten years.

You have no current employment references.

You have no current employment history.

 

And it doesn't matter how qualified you are, it doesn't matter

how sincere you are, or that you could do the job very well, you

won't get the job.

 

You can have a qualification with wall to wall High Distinctions

in every subject, and you don't get in.

You also don't have a cent to your name, usually, so you can't afford

to get qualified.

 

Infact that vicious circle of, no qualifications means you can't get job,

no money means you can't get qualifications. So we end up with

1.2 Million unskilled unemployed, and 2.5 million skilled vacancies that

can't be filled. Now since business is too constipated to train or pay for

new employees to be trained,(since they could leave tomorrow) I think the government, in the interest of business the unemployed, and the economy

/community in general, has a case to intervene, increase payroll tax by 1%

for a period of years, and train people. Payroll tax is the logical choice

because large comanies hire more people than small companies so it

best matches the benefits to the taxpayers. And if an industry wants to

train it's own new staff that should ofcourse be deductable.

 

Funny however that once you've completed your first placement,

and get a nice reference from the Division 1 Supervising nurse,

suddenly you realise that wow there really is a worker shortage

and all of a sudden everyone wants to know you, because before the

average company would have died before employing you.

 

P.S. I am speaking of South Eastern States of Australia, It's not so bad in Queensland and the Northern Teritory and(I imagine) W.A. As they are less formal in hiring. Obviously I can't speak about other countries, so maybe in the U.S. you don't need qualos and experience to get hired.

 

Cheers[/quote']

 

Things seem to vary greatly from one part of the U.S. to another. In poor areas there seem to be too many burger flipping jobs and little opportunity for advancement.

 

In many states -- mine being one -- high school graduates can have their tuition fully funded as long as they maintain a good GPA -- among a few other requirements. This is a university town. So we have college graduates flipping burgers. You can hardly turn around without bumping into someone with an MA or MS -- and that person may well be either underemployed or unemployed.

 

It is difficult to get jobs when there are just no jobs available.

 

Some states fund their tuition programs with money from the state lottery.

[darth tater]

 

That being said' date=' help should come in the form of self-reliance whenever possible. [u']Work is the best help to give these people.[/u]

 

And the one least desired by a goodly portion of them.

[darth tater]

Ok Darth' date=' since you have stated that you don't feel the need

to prove anything or demonstrate any veracity to your

statements beyond "Oh, I Knooow", I fully expect this to be my

last reply to you in this topic.

 

It took me a little while to penetrate your views but

I think I have it now. Once again I don't expect you to agree

or disagree, the benefit or loss is only yours.

 

In my current work and study I am involved with treating people

suffering from all manner of illnesses.

 

The key is when you said you would 'call for an ambulance', here

you behaved like any decent human being, there is indeed nothing

wrong and everything right with calling an ambulance for a sick

person.

 

But when it comes to helping homeless people you feel this intense

need to make sure they are: The right sort of homeless.

 

Yet you didn't apply this to the collapsed man.

You didn't check his pockets for cigarettes,

You didn't check to see if he was obese, for all you know

he may not have been taking care of himself.

 

So you only apply this higher standard of morality to the homeless

not to others who are ufortunate.

 

When we treat people in hospitals, we do so without questioning

their morality or values. When someone comes into a hospital seeling

some AB's for a sexual infection, we don't quiz them to make sure

they got it in a moral way, but we treat them and tell them how to avoid

such infections.

 

When a person comes in suffering from NID Diabeties, we advise them

how to lose weight, how to eat properly, how to control the disease.

If they don't do these things we don't withdraw treatment(ie.

make the problem worse) because in the end the main person they

are hurting is themselves. If they don't take care of themselves

they will be the one in the coffin. But most people do because

they are rational. The ones that don't often have some obstacle

preventing them, and a few are just arrogant opinionated people

who are quite sure that they, unlike everyone else with NID diabetes,

can eat sugar all the long day long.

 

It's the same with homelessness, if there are a few people who are

unwilling to make use of the programs, let them, the ones

who use the programs will benefit from them, they ones that don't

, or misuse them, won't, it's that simple.

 

So you see it's no different, when the heart attack guy goes and,

ignoring everything we tell him, stuffs himself full of maccas and comes in two months later with only 60% of normal heart function, purple and

gasping for air, even on Oxygen. We don't rub it in, if that condition

doesn't open his eyes, nagging won't. And we don't despise him,

we pity him because he is a twit, and we wouldn't be in his shoes for

love or money.

 

Ditto for the homeless guy, perhaps Darth, you should avoid the

ostentaitious homeless and look for the scared frightened guys

who hide themselves very well and that you never notice normally,

they would perhaps benefit more from your free lunches.

 

Cheers.

 

P.S. No, Darth you're wrong again, my work is not a drag, by and large

I enjoy my job.[/quote']

 

 

Excuse me? I thought we were discussing homeless people and why they are homeless. How did we arrive at comparing them to someone who is ill? Do you consider lazyness, sloth, and general unwillingness to accept any sort of personal responsibility as a disease?

 

As I have said several times before, I am not opposed to doing something about the plight of the homeless, but I think it is important to at least make an effort to seperate the truely needy from those who simply want to take advantage of the system.

 

And what is that last remark supposed to mean? Did I say that your job was a drag to you?

[darth tater]

You must live in a rather nice neighborhood. I've known people who worked hard all their lives and never afforded more than two bedrooms.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested simply giving homeless people homes. Most assistance in the U.S. is in the form of rental assistance. There is some mortgage assistance for the disabled and the elderly' date=' but they still have to qualify -- usually by having a steady income and good credit. They still have to make the payments after the government provides some help with the intial downpayment.

 

 

 

No, you don't have to prove anything but I suspect your opinion would carry more weight if you did. If I tried to say that I didn't have to provide any evidence for my opinion, I suspect I would be reminded that this is a science forum.

 

 

 

Well we all have some experience with the homeless, don't we? I think there are few people who have not encountered them.

 

 

 

Tater, if you are referring to me, I have been homeless. I have also worked with people in a homeless shelter. In fact, two of the cases I cited were of people I worked with to help them find employment. My work in Vocational Rehab brings me into contact with many homeless people, most of whom are seeking employment.

 

 

 

Thank you for showing Pangloss that I was not misreading. You have nothing but my respect for stating your opinion so forthrightly.

 

 

 

This is good to know. To see all of a group of people in one particular way is sterotyping.

 

 

 

I suspect that you and I could look at the same homeless person and see something very different. By training, I look at a person's potential.

 

 

 

Seemed like it was.

 

Oh BTW, I too love my work. I do not think of it as a drag. I am happy to be making a contribution in the lives to people with disabilites and it is really a thrill to see them improve their circumstances. Since my specialty is helping disabled people start their own businesses, it is real thrill to see their success this area. Owning one's own home may be part of the American dream, but owning one's own business is even better.[/quote']

 

 

There is precious little in this to respond to because it in no way refutes my position--that many people who are homeless are homeless because that is the lifestyle that they haave chosen for themselves and they are not interested in committing themselves to accepting the responsibilities of home ownership.

 

However, that last statement about your job--did I say that you didn't like your job?

 

Edited to add:

 

Also you seem to be saying that quite a lot is already being done for the homeless, at least in the US, so what is to argue about?

[husmusen]

Darth:

And what is that last remark supposed to mean? Did I say that your job was a drag to you?

[/Quote]

 

 

In post #97 Darth wrote:

Going to work every day is a bit of a drag.

 

I really don't think you disagree with that--do you?

[/Quote]

Hence my answer, I suspect this is the same remark coral responded to.

 

Darth:

Excuse me? I thought we were discussing homeless people and why they are homeless. How did we arrive at comparing them to someone who is ill? Do you consider lazyness, sloth, and general unwillingness to accept any sort of personal responsibility as a disease?

 

As I have said several times before, I am not opposed to doing something about the plight of the homeless, but I think it is important to at least make an effort to seperate the truely needy from those who simply want to take advantage of the system.

[/Quote]

 

Ok, lets elaborate

 

1) Many homeless are homeless because they are I'll.

In that case I would certainly consider that their inability to live without

supported accomodation was a symptom of their illness no different to

to a MS sufferer who needs assisted accom because of their muscle

weakness.

 

2) I am pointing out the discrepancy between your concern for a sick

person whose situation may be the consequence of stupid decisions they

made, and your seeming lack of concern for a homeless person whose situation may be the consequence of stupid decisions they made.

 

Does that clarify the matter?

 

Cheers.

[darth tater]

Darth:

 

 

 

In post #97 Darth wrote:

Going to work every day is a bit of a drag.

 

I really don't think you disagree with that--do you?

 

Hence my answer' date=' I suspect this is the same remark coral responded to.[/quote']

 

Well. not quite, actually what I said was:

 

It is my opinion that many people who are homeless are living the sort of lifestyle that they like to live and that many others would perhaps like a little better lifestyle, but are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to change it. Going to work every day is a bit of a drag.

 

I really don't think you disagree with that--do you?

 

As you can see, when I referred to work being a bit of a drag, I was referring to work being a bit of a drag to many of the homeless set.

 

The part where I asked if you disagreed with that, I was asking if you disagreed that that is indeed the case--that the homeless set thinks that work in a bit of a drag.

 

Ok, lets elaborate

 

1) Many homeless are homeless because they are I'll.

In that case I would certainly consider that their inability to live without

supported accomodation was a symptom of their illness no different to

to a MS sufferer who needs assisted accom because of their muscle

weakness.

 

2) I am pointing out the discrepancy between your concern for a sick

person whose situation may be the consequence of stupid decisions they

made, and your seeming lack of concern for a homeless person whose situation may be the consequence of stupid decisions they made.

 

Does that clarify the matter?

 

Cheers.

 

Not entirely.

 

While I would agree that "many" people who are homeless are homeless because of ailments, it is also true that "many" are not. Many are homeless simply because they are too lazy and too indifferent to their surroundings to care enough to make the lifestyle changes required to improve their situation.

 

Now, since these "many" are unwilling to make the effort on their own behalf, why should the tax payer be asked to make the effort for them?

[reverse]

Yea, I gotta agree,

You are really supposed to play the ball not the man.

That’s a sporting saying, meaning that you don’t try and break the other players leg to remove him from the game.

 

Trouble is, some issues are so close to your heart that it’s not a game, and you are quite prepared to consider the opinion and the person expressing it as the same entity.

 

From what I know, the homeless are there for a variety of reasons.

Some addicted, some insane, some with their spirit so crushed for so long, that to them holding down a job would be like asking you to juggle five plates.

Some are there because they like the freedom and will pay price of the discomfort for it.

 

And before anyone takes me to task on this, I’m only talking about the homeless people I have spoken with.

It may vary from location to location.

 

One thing I do know about human nature,

as soon as something is being given out to the needy for free, there are always the selfish and the unscrupulous , waiting to abuse the system.

[Coral Rhedd]

Of course there are people who get benefits dishonestly.

 

Some I actually sympathize with. The welfare mother who works a little off the books is only doing what a responsible person should do to care for her children. Family is supposed to come first. Who can feed a family of four on $128 a month? That's the max here in NM. Or at least it was three years ago, and I haven't heard of any great increase. Also, in this state, work training programs are required but the childcare assistance that is supposed to supplement these low training wages in not similarly funded. What are people supposed to do? Hang their kids on a nail?

 

There is much about "the system" that simply is not workable.

 

Please define what you both mean about "abusing the system."

 

Then maybe we can discuss what works and what does not work. I can tell you this: Smarter people utilize the system better to finally get on their feet and achieve self-sufficiency. This behavior should not be trivialized because it ultimately means producing more, not fewer, taxpayers.

 

Define your terms a little better guys and we may get a very good discussion going -- because I can assure you that I am no apologist for the system. I am a business woman and not a social worker. Overlapping services cost taxpayers millions and support a top heavy system.

 

And to return to the subject of homelessness. Home buyer programs are cheaper and much more effective than rental assistance. Rental assistance simply subsidizes landlords and raises rents.

[john5746]

 

Please define what you both mean about "abusing the system."

 

 

When a CEO drops on a company, cleans house and then parachutes out with millions.

 

When wealthy stock holders buy and sell with insider information, to the detrement of the small fry.

 

When the corporate execs get their healthcare at the same cost as the small fry, get additional percs on top of that and get greater increases in pay, then complain about higher taxes. It really sucks to be rich.

[Coral Rhedd]

When a CEO drops on a company' date=' cleans house and then parachutes out with millions.

 

When wealthy stock holders buy and sell with insider information, to the detrement of the small fry.

 

When the corporate execs get their healthcare at the same cost as the small fry, get additional percs on top of that and get greater increases in pay, then complain about higher taxes. It really sucks to be rich.[/quote']

 

Oh dear. You must have misunderstood me.

 

I meant the welfare system for the poor. I can't even begin to get into the welfare system for the rich. I am not that sophisticated. I just recently found out that there are long term and short term CDs.

 

In fact a friend suggested I look into CDs and I thought she was talking about music.

[john5746]

Coral,

 

I knew what you meant, just wanted to point out some of the people who really 'screw' the system.

[darth tater]

 

Define your terms a little better guys and we may get a very good discussion going -- because I can assure you that I am no apologist for the system. I am a business woman and not a social worker. Overlapping services cost taxpayers millions and support a top heavy system.

 

When someone on welfare refuses work because the paycheck is not more money that he/she would recieve on welfare, that is an abuse of the system. When a welfare Mom buys food with welfare money and sells it to neighbors at a discount to buy drugs, that is another abuse of the system. When a welfare worker counsels a person to stay on welfare rather that seek work on the basis that the job does not provide other benifits, that is an abuse. When a woman actually has more children in order that her check will be increased and then spends the money on alcohol or drugs instead of caring for the kids, that is an abuse and when a welfare worker witnesses this and does not take action, that is an abuse. When a young girl gets pregnant and the fist and most natural thing that she thinks of is getting on welfare, that is a case of the system abusing the recipient. as well as the taxpayer. When a welfare Mom puts her 14 year old daughter on the street as a prostitute to bring in money, that is an abuse.

 

I could go on and on, and I am sure that you would be able to either deny or rationalize it all away, but it is clear that the welfare system does, at the very least, as much harm as good and in my opinion, more. That is precisely the reason that some quite compassionate people have decided to change the system. The problem is that after some 50 years of runaway liberalism it is difficult and even somewhat inhumane to suddenly jerk the plug on this mess.

 

We have created generations of welfare recipients and to simply do a 180 at this point would be a little messy.

 

What we need to do is to gradually make welfare less and less attractive and make that transition to work more attractive and we should fire any social workers caught in the act of recruitment or in case-load building in any way shape or form.

 

Welfare has been a little like bird feeders. It is OK as long as one is willing and able to continue to feed the birds, but when the day comes that the bird feeder is removed, for whatever reason, thousands of birds die because they have lost the ability to fend for themselves.

 

The number of wasted lives in America that is directly attributable to our welfare system in a national disgrace and anyone wanting to perpetuate it ought to be ashamed of him/herself.

[darth tater]

When a CEO drops on a company' date=' cleans house and then parachutes out with millions.

 

When wealthy stock holders buy and sell with insider information, to the detrement of the small fry.

 

When the corporate execs get their healthcare at the same cost as the small fry, get additional percs on top of that and get greater increases in pay, then complain about higher taxes. It really sucks to be rich.[/quote']

 

Of the thousands of companies in the world, the number of them that are run by criminals is low.

 

Avoidance of being cheated this way is dead simple--don't buy the stock.

 

Put your money in a company that you know something about, or put it in CDs or in a pillow case, but you don't have to buy shares of Enron or World com if you don't want to.

[husmusen]

Allright darth lets look at this a bit more closely.

 

When someone on welfare refuses work because the paycheck is not

more money that he/she would recieve on welfare, that is an abuse

of the system.

 

In Australia The Department Of Labour and Employment payment,

or Newstart as it's called now, is less than the minimum wage.

So if I was offered less than benefits I would indeed refuse as

it would be an illegal arrangement.

 

When a welfare Mom buys food with welfare money and sells it to

neighbors at a discount to buy drugs, that is another abuse of

the system.

 

Why wouldn't she just use the money straight? That way she'd

be able to buy more drugs, why give the neighbours discounted

food? You're not making much sense here.

 

When a welfare worker counsels a person to stay on welfare rather

that seek work on the basis that the job does not provide other

benifits.

What other benefits? Could you be more specific.

 

When a woman actually has more children in order that her check

will be increased and then spends the money on alcohol or drugs

instead of caring for the kids, that is an abuse.

 

Funnily enough I have never heard of this being done on welfare

because welfare in Australia just wouldn't pay.

 

When a welfare worker witnesses this and does not take action,

that is an abuse.

 

No that would be negligence.

 

When a young girl gets pregnant and the fist and most natural thing

that she thinks of is getting on welfare, that is a case of the

system abusing the recipient. as well as the taxpayer.

 

Hint: The problem is not the welfare system, it's teenagers getting

pregnant. I see little benefit in starving them to death, and

few job opportunities for 14 year olds that you could raise a

family on.

 

When a welfare Mom puts her 14 year old daughter on the street as a

prostitute to bring in money, that is an abuse.

 

No, in Australia that's criminal, it's very very illegal and the

dear sweet soul would go to jail for child prostitution.

 

But it is clear that the welfare system does, at the very least, as

much harm as good and in my opinion, more.

 

How? Do you think the sort of people who would prostitute their

daughters would suddenly become saints because there is no welfare

system?

 

Drunks magically become sober? I doubt it.

 

I just can't get your link,

If someone prostitutes their son or daughter that's because

they have serious moral flaws, I suspect their moral flaws

would remain even if there was no welfare.

 

Besides this topic is mainly about homelessness not people on

welfare, the average homeless person in Australia can't get welfare

because you need an address and a bank account.

 

Don't conflate the two.

 

Of the thousands of companies in the world, the number of them that are run by criminals is low.

 

And you know this the same way you know most homeless are scum I suppose, that being by the way?

 

Avoidance of being cheated this way is dead simple--don't buy the stock.

 

I see so It's the victims fault for buying the stock based on fraudulent

accounting reports, fraudulently accreditted by a world respected(at that

time) auditor?

 

Anyway, enough off topic chat.

[darth tater]

Allright darth lets look at this a bit more closely.

 

When someone on welfare refuses work because the paycheck is not

more money that he/she would recieve on welfare' date=' that is an abuse

of the system.[/b']

 

In Australia The Department Of Labour and Employment payment,

or Newstart as it's called now, is less than the minimum wage.

So if I was offered less than benefits I would indeed refuse as

it would be an illegal arrangement.

 

That is fine for Autraliia, but as I have said repeatedly, I am talking about the USA.

 

When a welfare Mom buys food with welfare money and sells it to

neighbors at a discount to buy drugs, that is another abuse of

the system.

 

Why wouldn't she just use the money straight? That way she'd

be able to buy more drugs, why give the neighbours discounted

food? You're not making much sense here.

 

Because she buys the food with food stamps and the crack house will not take them (food stamps).

 

 

When a welfare worker counsels a person to stay on welfare rather

that seek work on the basis that the job does not provide other

benifits.

What other benefits? Could you be more specific.

 

Medicaid, subsidized rent, home nursing.

 

 

When a woman actually has more children in order that her check

will be increased and then spends the money on alcohol or drugs

instead of caring for the kids, that is an abuse.

 

Funnily enough I have never heard of this being done on welfare

because welfare in Australia just wouldn't pay.

 

Irrlelvant--I am talking about the US. But, Australia seems to have a better idea on how to handle that one.

 

 

When a welfare worker witnesses this and does not take action,

that is an abuse.

 

No that would be negligence.

 

And neglience is not an abuse of the system?

When a young girl gets pregnant and the fist and most natural thing

that she thinks of is getting on welfare, that is a case of the

system abusing the recipient. as well as the taxpayer.

 

Hint: The problem is not the welfare system, it's teenagers getting

pregnant. I see little benefit in starving them to death, and

few job opportunities for 14 year olds that you could raise a family on.

 

But in the generational welfare environment, getting on welfare is the first, and usually the last option. In working families, the girl is more apt to either get married or go to work herself and support her own child.

When a welfare Mom puts her 14 year old daughter on the street as a

prostitute to bring in money, that is an abuse.

 

No, in Australia that's criminal, it's very very illegal and the

dear sweet soul would go to jail for child prostitution.

 

It is criminal here too, but the numbers of people in this situation is such that it is largely unenforcable.

But it is clear that the welfare system does, at the very least, as

much harm as good and in my opinion, more.

 

How? Do you think the sort of people who would prostitute their

daughters would suddenly become saints because there is no welfare

system?

 

Drunks magically become sober? I doubt it.

 

I just can't get your link,

If someone prostitutes their son or daughter that's because

they have serious moral flaws, I suspect their moral flaws

would remain even if there was no welfare.

 

Besides this topic is mainly about homelessness not people on

welfare, the average homeless person in Australia can't get welfare

because you need an address and a bank account.

 

Don't conflate the two.

 

Of couse they have moral flaws. That is a great contributor to their being on welfare in the first place. They refuse to work, they abuse drugs, they prostitute their own children--and themselves and they have no desire to change any of it. (now, before you respond, don't forget, I am referring to "many" and not "all.")

 

Welfare supports these moral insufficiencies. That is precisely why it needs to be reduced.

 

Of the thousands of companies in the world, the number of them that are run by criminals is low.

 

And you know this the same way you know most homeless are scum I suppose, that being by the way?

 

I know that from experience as an investor who actually takes the time to read my quarterly reports and who actually knows who in on the BOD of the companies in which I own shares.

 

And "most" is your choice of words, I prefer "many." In those cases where I used the term "majority," I also said "perhaps."

 

 

Avoidance of being cheated this way is dead simple--don't buy the stock.

 

I see so It's the victims fault for buying the stock based on fraudulent

accounting reports, fraudulently accreditted by a world respected(at that

time) auditor?

 

Anyway, enough off topic chat.

 

It is the obligation of the investor to know something about the comapny in which he invests. Do you agree to that?

[Coral Rhedd]

Programs that force the poor to work at "training wages" in order to collect welfare should be outlawed. Everyone who works should get the standard minimum wage. There should not be lower wages for the disabled or those in workfare training programs -- but there are. Who do these programs benefit? Employers.

 

The is a great deal of difference between the real world of work and training programs. Let's say that as a person on welfare, you are forced into a training program -- usually set up through Vocational Rehab. When you try to apply for real work and you state that your wages at your last job amounted to $2 an hour on your job applications, what chance is that going to give you to get hired?

 

Training programs often taint people's opportunities and out them as disabled, when that is information they should be able to keep to themselves. In small towns, these programs result in people being labeled.

 

Employers do appreciate these programs however. Many of them are fully government subsidized and the employer doesn't have to pay a dime.

 

Welfare benefits are such poor provision that any work that pays less amounts to a form of slavery.