Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Obamanomics has Created a Lot of Homeless People

It’s hard times in America, with the ranks of the poor increasing...

In a classical political pincers movement, Bush’s piratical banksters busted the economy, and the Obamunists are prolonging the misery. The result is more poor people on the streets.

I have sympathy for those down on their luck, but there is a dedicated core of homeless bums who don’t want to conform to society’s rules while nonetheless mooching off of it. They were bums in the boom times. These are the hardcore drunks who won’t enter a shelter because they can’t bring their hooch with them. They are the odorous hordes lounging in the beautiful Monument Valley Park here in my fair city, conveniently next to the Marian House Soup kitchen. They hoist themselves up and flock to its doors three times a day like crows on a carcass.

Well, some cities are getting fed up…
Philadelphia recently banned outdoor feeding of people in city parks. Denver has begun enforcing a ban on eating and sleeping on property without permission. And this month, lawmakers in Ashland, Ore., will consider strengthening the town's ban on camping and making noise in public.
And the list goes on: Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, Oklahoma City and more than 50 other cities have previously adopted some kind of anti-camping or anti-food-sharing laws, according to the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. (USA Today – Cities Crack Down)
And it’s about damned time. My city passed an anti-camping ordinance back in 2010, and we’re better for it, although the most incorrigible “campers” now lounge tentless in many of the same areas. To the dismay of liberals, not one homeless person died of exposure due to our new law. Many went into shelters, and we bussed others back to their hometowns or to kin who could take care of them, as it should be.

My wife and I donate to charities, and the good ones help willing people get back on the path to self-sufficiency. Bob Kote’s Step 13 is one of the best, helping people clean up and help themselves. They only take in people willing to stay sober and go to work. If you’re not willing to do that, they can’t help you.

For a clear-eyed take on all this, I recommend George Orwell’s short essay, The Spike...
At six, the gates swung open and we shuffled in. An official at the gate entered our names and other particulars in the register and took our bundles away from us. The woman was sent off to the workhouse, and we others into the spike. It was a gloomy, chilly, limewashed place, consisting only of a bathroom and dining-room and about a hundred narrow stone cells. The terrible Tramp Major met us at the door and herded us into the bathroom to be stripped and searched. He was a gruff, soldierly man of forty, who gave the tramps no more ceremony than sheep at the dipping-pond, shoving them this way and that and shouting oaths in their faces... (George Orwell, The Spike)

71 comments:

Ducky's here said...

For a clear-eyed take on all this, I recommend George Orwell’s short essay, The Spike...

--------

I'll take Down and Out in Paris and London .

Have to watch it with Orwell. He doesn't go for the simple answer. He was no Libertarian.

Steve said...

You really are ignorant.
You have no understanding of the problem, just blame it on Obama.
Listen to yourself scream conform, conform!
You would have made a great Hitler youth leader.

Silverfiddle said...

Of course he wasn't a libertarian, Ducky. He was a socialist.

Thank God the socialist of today have only 1/100th of the brains and talent of Orwell, or we'd probably be living in a socialist country right now.

And Steve, I don't just blame Obama. It's just that he's president now, and nobody's gotten richer under his tenure but some of his well-connected corporate cronies.

Wall Street's doing great under Obama, but Mainstreet ain't.

Always On Watch said...

They were bums in the boom times.

The inner city and the crack cocaine epidemic is a huge factor in certain sections of D.C.

That epidemic ran wild downtown under the Clinton administration -- and perhaps before as well.

I'm not referring to the obviously mentally ill, probably schizophrenics.

The drunks in the alleys go way, way back here in the D.C. area and in certain sections of certain suburbs. Back in the day, many of the drunks rode the rails, too.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky:

Your "Have to watch it will Orwell" comment reveals a sickness that has gripped this country.

People like you divide us into camps, and people like you believe in anathematizing anyone who doesn't conform with a particular camp's orthodoxy. So to people like you, it makes no sense that I would read and quote Orwell. You're so narrow-minded.

Orwell knew how to face the truth, even within himself. We need more of that today.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Thank God the socialist of today have only 1/100th of the brains and talent of Orwell, or we'd probably be living in a socialist country right now." --SF

This statement is akin to hearing someone yell "Keep the government out of my Medicare!"

Finntann said...

Steve, we don't care if you conform or not... we just don't wish to pay for your non-conformity or the consequences of it.

skudrunner said...

The American taxpayer, those 51% who pay FIT, have spent trillions on the fight against poverty and we have the same percentage of people in poverty as we did 40 years ago.

The democrats and the LBJ Great Society had been an experiment that has failed. Reminds me of the community organizer who wanted to be President.

For those who think the government is the answer to anything, try to come up with something they have done right.

FreeThinke said...

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless'd;
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, [you],
Though justice be thy plea, consider this—
That in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer, doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much,
To mitigate the justice of thy plea,
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.


~ Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

Submitted by FreeThinke

jez said...

"we have the same percentage of people in poverty as we did 40 years ago."

If that were true (it isn't), it wouldn't be surprising since we measure poverty relatively. Around half of all people have less than average incomes, too!

The Debonair Dudes World said...

And yet these blind, brain-washed people will vote for him in droves because he’s Black and a Liberal.
Obama showed us his true colors when he made that Socialist speech the other day.
Can you imagine if Romney had made that speech, and said that American's can't be successful with help from the Government?
But I still have faith in the American people ( most of them).
This country was made great by the AMERICAN people, and they will continue to do so by throwing this fraud out . We must clean up the mess he has made of our country.

Sam Huntington said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
conservativesonfire said...

Obama wants them on food stamps and other welfaree rolls.

skudrunner said...

Jez

I think you are correct the poverty rate has actually increased since the start of the Great Society. The democrats can take credit for creating more poverty than any other issue. They "why should I work when the government will give me money" takes away any incentive for self improvement and personal responsibility.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"For those who think the government is the answer to anything, try to come up with something they have done right."

World War II

I'll give you another, for good measure:

Landing on the Moon.

[There's much more.]

Jersey McJones said...

How exactly is Obama responsible for this increased homelessness???

JMJ

Z said...

They've even finally got the indigent off the Bluffs in Santa Monica. Amazing because the "People's Republic of SM" used to have food lines there and then the Council would rue the fact that one couldn't walk there at night and feel safe because of the "campers" (I know, we can't use the word BUMS anymore)...
The problem is that many of them will not go into the shelters provided for them downtown because, heck, they'll miss that ocean view and can't bring their drugs/booze with them and, (gasp) they sometimes ask them to do a little labor for the use of their bed.

The better charities ARE the ones who help others help themselves..good job, SF.

Steve said...

So instead I have to pay for your conformity to a fiscal philosophy that has built a multi-trillion dollar debt.
A discussion about chronic homelessness; and why even with government help available, some remain homeless would be great.
But that conversation cannot happen with people who simply blame Obama for homelessness.
Like homelessness will disappear if Romney is elected.
That kind of stupidity cannot be reasoned with.
Orwell wrote about that kind of idiotic thinking and those kind of idiots running society.
The chronic homeless are past qualifying for government help and live off the charity of those who prefer not to see people dying in the streets; and those people understand the multiple kinds of problems that hold some from being productive members of society.
People like SF and you simply call them lazy, which shows how stupid you are about understanding the real problems of chronic homelessness.
So have your hate, but don't expect intelligent people to agree with your stupidity.

Z said...

"hate"? Who hates?
But, to treat the homeless like endangered species, as they do in Berkeley and San Francisco is unhealthy and stupid.
Did anybody say homelessness wasn't there with Bush and will disappear with Romney? I missed that, I guess.

It's the dedicated 'core of homeless bums' as SF puts it which needs to be addressed, or sent to family or back to home towns. We can try to help those who can't work, and we are.

Steve, do you disagree that there ARE the homeless who WON'T help themselves?

Steve said...

CAN'T is the word, and it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand the difference.

The One And Only Me said...

The Socialists, strike that, I meant to say the "Progressives" on this blog are so out of touch that is's sad.

Silverfiddle said...

Steve: Small government libertarianism didn't create this horrendous fiscal crisis: Liberalism did. Progressives statism did.

Jersey: Have you seen the unemployment numbers?

Steve said...

There hasn't been a small government libertarian president, or policies controlling our government.
Republican cut taxes, but not spending fiscal philosophy created the fiscal crisis.
Republicans you have been supporting all along.
I call that kind of thinking and the people who support it, deadbeats.

Silverfiddle said...

We've had a deadbeat government for a long time and it has been a bipartisan effort that got us to the brink of disaster.

Z said...

Steve, do you disagree that there ARE the homeless who WON'T help themselves?

And you don't think the Republicans want to cut spending ??

Steve said...

Deadbeats are people who refuse to pay their bills, like Republicans who refuse to pay for their spending.
And we have been through this before, it's not a 50/50 spending spree. Republicans are much more responsible for debt spending than Democrats.
SS is not causing the debt. The food stamp program has 1% waste. Gee I wonder what the bloated military (Republican) waste is? Last figure I saw was estimated at 10% and I'm sure it is more.
Who started the unnecessary Dept. of Homeland Security? Who passed an unfunded prescription drug program? Who keeps cutting taxes, even though we are trillions in debt? Who refused to put war costs in the budget?
Leave politics out of it, common sense alone shows the deceit of Republican fiscal philosophy.
The philosophy you voted for and still defend.

Z said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

Let's read SF's comment again "We've had a deadbeat government for a long time and it has been a bipartisan effort that got us to the brink of disaster."

And who's against cutting defense so badly that most military brass are warning strongly against it?

Who understands that cutting taxes is cutting success in this country?

Who wants loopholes closed as badly or more than most Democrats?

And who'd like to solve the huge amount of Food Stamp FRAUD while this president has billboards telling how to get ON them?

Who believes security in our country IS important and largely wasn't too much for the BIPARTISAN Homeland SEc.Department ANYWAY?

Ducky's here said...

It's one of the acts of mercy. "When I was a nuisance you pushed me out of view."

Z said...

If you want to talk 'mercy', Ducky, I'd have thought that would include getting the Pakistani doctor who helped us get Bin Laden out of a possible 30 year jail sentence.
What a signal this sends to anybody else who'd help us. And to terrorists, though you don't believe in them.

Ducky's here said...

No z, here's what I'll talk about.

I had the camera out the other day and I saw a homeless guy loitering on a bench. It was a great shot and I really wanted it.
You sense these things and he probably wouldn't react well to being photographed. No way this shot would have demeaned him and I could have zone focused and got ten frames from the hip without him knowing.

Couldn't do it. He's had his dignity spit on so often that taking the photo would have seemed like more taking advantage.

If he had asked for money I would have given it to him and hoped he walked into a respectable place a sent a whiff toward the Ladies Who Lunch.

I'm not in Pakistan. I try to deal with what's in my freaking path.

"When I was a nuisance you pushed me out of view (Matthew 5:13)."

Shaw Kenawe said...

Z: "(I know, we can't use the word BUMS anymore)..."


Oh do go ahead and use it, m'dear. It says so much about you.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, you have never shown me how Obama supposedly wrecked all this havoc on the economy, as you assert, over and over again, without detail.

He kept the Bush tax breaks in place, private employment has grown at a much a greater rate than public employment, such as to create net job gains in the aftermath of the worst recession since the 1930's.

Most economists agree that the creation of job markets in post-recession 'first world' economies has been lagging longer and longer since the 1970's. This particular recession, most economists agreed, would see at least a five year gap between the event and the restoration of 'full employment.'

It's looking more like 7 or 8 or more these days, but maybe that's because we've been doing the same thing for 40 years now and it isn't going anywhere. Maybe, just maybe, we should look more back and towards the great, transformational movements, and presidents, and congresses, and courts of our history.

Maybe all this "conservative" shit is all just a lazy assed waste of time.

JMJ

Steve said...

it's a lie to say you are against those things now, but voted for and supported those actions (ideas) for decades, or should I say hypocritical.
It's like crying, Reagan raised taxes, Reagan raised taxes, yes but, he still left a 2.5 trillion dollar debt.
How are you going to pay off the debt?
I have asked that question for months on this blog, no answer.
The cry is the same, cut taxes, cut taxes.
DEADBEATS

Silverfiddle said...

You sure throw around the pejoratives, Steve...

A democratic congress presided over the explosion of spending and debt.

President Reagan did not spend a dime without their approval. Go look that up in the constitution next time you get a chance.

Now, I'll give you your answer, so open your ears:

Government cuts spending to 17% of GDP. It's that simple.

In good time or bad times, high taxes or low taxes, government revenue always averages around 17% of GDP.

What to cut? Let's consult the constitution and cut anything not mentioned there.

Silverfiddle said...

And another thing> "Off Budget" is an eyewash trick. It still goes against the accumulated debt numbers and the national debt, so Obama putting in back "on budget" and claiming that made debt go up is a cheap trick, but all you lefties fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, I'm really grinning right now...

"What to cut? Let's consult the constitution and cut anything not mentioned there."

With the exception of the Navy, most all the entire military but be cut right off! Right?

LOL!

You conservatives are not the sole possessors of Constitutional knowledge.

All you offer is more militarism, prison systems, separation of classes... Think about it. What you're arguing has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution, but rather just how'd you prefer not to 'fund the bums,' right?

I bet in any room you see a number of bums. I've got news for you, the worst of the worst bums are the least likely to look like one.

JMJ

Steve said...

"and claiming that made debt go up"

I never said that, don't believe it, but thanks for lying about what I did say.
Of course it goes to the debt, but those figures (minus expenses not listed in the debt) are false figures and a deception on the American people, as to what the true figures are, it's a lie.

Look up Reagan's tax policy in the Constitution? Relax man.

Your 17% figure would effect on going yearly spending, it would not balance the books.
It does not address the already 16 trillion we owe.
IF we balance the yearly books, what do we do about the 16 trillion?

Z,

It's laughable to say that this country could not defend itself, without creating one of the biggest waste of money in the whole government, the Dept. of Homeland Security.

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey:

From Article 1, Section 8, enumerated powers:

[...]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress


Yeah, one of us knows the constitution, and it ain't you, apparently.

It's also telling that the libs in the crowd sneer at consulting the constitution.

Silverfiddle said...

Steve:

OK. Easy. Cut the budget to 15% of GDP and dedicate 2% to paying down the debt.

Ya know what? That's what people do in real life!

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, you jackass, I just said the only thing we'd have now would be a navy. You know why? Because we are NOT AT WAR.

You're wiping your ass with that document right now.

JMJ

Steve said...

Thanks for voting for those Republicans that refused to do that and built the debt.
Right, when it's a Democratic President, it his fault. When it's a Republican President, it's the Democratic Congresses fault.
Spare me your diluted partisanship.

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey: Where does it say that?

Steve: You're not listening. I have said repeatedly that is is a bipartisan mess. Everyone is responsible, no one escapes blame.

Finntann said...

Republicans are much more responsible for debt spending than Democrats. ROFLMAO...put down the Hopium pipe dude.

SS is not causing the debt?

2011 CBO figures:

Social Security = 20% (725B)

Medicare & Medicaid = 23% (835B)

SS&MM = 1570B

Individual Income Tax = 1092B

Are you a frigging idiot or what?

Z said...

Shaw, one for YOU!!
(you sure fight ugly!)

Steve, "It's laughable to say that this country could not defend itself, without creating one of the biggest waste of money in the whole government, the Dept. of Homeland Security"
Who said that? I said this was bipartisan.

Jersey McJones said...

Right here, Silver;

""To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress""

Right there, Silver. There is no constitutional excuse for our military empire. Period.

It's stupid. We should think about building up our nation, not ridiculously fussing over others.

JMJ

Finntann said...

Jersey, you obviously no nothing of government finances.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

O&M money is appropriated every year. It says no appropriation shall be for a longer TERM than two years, it doesn't say, or even imply, that they can't appropriate every year.

Jersey McJones said...

FT, I can't express to you how much it entertains me to see a "conservative" twist the Constitution through their taint to prove that we're at war even though CONSTITUTIONALLY we're NOT at WAR.

JMJ

Steve said...

The Dept. of Homeland Security was a creation of the Bush administration. Who stated it was necessary for the defense of America. I say not.
Of course Democrats voted for it, they were told mushroom clouds were coming from Iraq. Not to mention in those days you were called a traitor (I was) if you did not back any and all efforts to invade Iraq and prosecute the war.
Fear and lies, that's one way to govern.

Thersites said...

We talked of life on the road. He criticized the system which makes a tramp spend fourteen hours a day in the spike, and the other ten in walking and dodging the police. He spoke of his own case–six months at the public charge for want of three pounds' worth of tools. It was idiotic, he said.

Then I told him about the wastage of food in the workhouse kitchen, and what I thought of it. And at that he changed his tune immediately. I saw that I had awakened the pew-renter who sleeps in every English workman. Though he had been famished, along with the rest, he at once saw reasons why the food should have been thrown away rather than given to the tramps. He admonished me quite severely.

'They have to do it,' he said. 'If they made these places too pleasant you'd have all the scum of the country flocking into them. It's only the bad food as keeps all that scum away. These tramps are too lazy to work, that's all that's wrong with them. You don't want to go encouraging of them. They're scum.'


I produced arguments to prove him wrong, but he would not listen. He kept repeating:

'You don't want to have any pity on these tramps–scum, they are. You don't want to judge them by the same standards as men like you and me. They're scum, just scum.'

It was interesting to see how subtly he disassociated himself from his fellow tramps. He has been on the road six months, but in the sight of God, he seemed to imply, he was not a tramp. His body might be in the spike, but his spirit soared far away, in the pure aether of the middle classes.

Sam Huntington said...

For the record, I do not think Steve is a traitor. I do wonder why he prefers defending the Democratic Party, rather than defending our Constitutional principles. Both Republicans and Democrats have made a shambles of our Constitution. They are destroying our country. They are dividing us up so that we’re easily conquered. It seems to me that defending America is more important than defending a “community organizer” president who likes to pretend he’s a back woods preacher, or another president who thinks of himself as a cowboy, but cannot pronounce his “r’s”. No wonder our country is flushed …

Silverfiddle said...

Thersites: You hit the money quote.



Jersey: Nowhere in the constitution does it say only in time of war.

Now I understand why you liberals are so screwed up. You can't even parse a plain sentence.

We can't have a standing army, but congress can make us buy stuff.

Can't make this stuff up folks! Liberalism is action!

Finntann said...

The Dept. of Homeland Security was a creation of the Bush administration. Who stated it was necessary for the defense of America. I say not.

Well, Steve, I think most of us conservatives and libertarians would agree with you.

Sam, well said.

Thersites said...

More on "the spike"... and not just the wandering hobos consigned to the "casual ward".

Thersites said...

The contemporary American version of the spike...

Z said...

Finntann, I think we ALL agree on that... and it's still a bipartison endeavor to this day..Go figure:

Lawmakers on the House Homeland Security Committee Thursday expressed bipartisan dismay at the prospect of budget cuts at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in fiscal 2011 and 2012, agreeing that they would result in unacceptable losses in border security and cybersecurity in particular.

Washington, DC – Today, the House Committee on Homeland Security passed by a bipartisan vote of 19 to 13 the “Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012” (H.R. 3116) to authorize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to carry out key functions and missions and provide DHS with the necessary tools, guidance, and direction to fulfill its responsibilities.

Ducky's here said...

@Huntington - For the record, I do not think Steve is a traitor.

----
Wow, we're all relieved.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Some cities have meters in which you can donate to the soup kitchens and homeless shelters. They recommend that you do that instead of giving it directly to the homeless person who could readily blow it on booze/drugs.

Z said...

Will...I went to a church in Santa Monica and the cops told us not to give to the homeless but to donate to the shelters...
I don't get the 'meters' thing but I do agree it's better giving to the shelters. Felt odd not to help at our church, but the cops didn't want them around us and they'd line up if we started :-(

jez said...

Agreed, I don't give money to homeless people directly. Either give them non-money like food, or donate to shelters etc.

FreeThinke said...

If George Orwell truly believed himself to be a socialist, he couldn't possibly have been as bright as he obviously was.

I would define Orwell primarily as an anti-Totalitarian.

No more powerful indictment of Marxism and its hideous derivatives than Animal Farm could possibly exist . No more painstakingly detailed, more evocative, more chilling representation of a society ruled by falsely egalitarian doctrines than Nineteen-Eighty-Four.


~ FreeThinke

FreeThinke said...

BTW, haven't y'all figured iut yet the "steve" is the new Bd? Another incarnation of Liberalmann and all that ilk?

He's a Triple-B man.

Blanket Boilerplate Bullshit cranked out in the Poopagagya Mills of CPUSA is all you'll ever get from "him."

"Steve" is a ROBOT commie operative. There's no "there" there.

Believe it, and act accordingly. Mindless partisans are not worth our time.

~ FT

Shaw Kenawe said...

Z, not ugly, just a reminder of who the homeless are:


The Center for American Progress has put together this list showing the unfortunate facts behind veterans’ homelessness, illustrating the struggle that the men and women of the armed forces face when they return home:


50 percent: Rate at which veterans are more likely than other Americans to become homeless. The Obama administration has set a goal of ending veteran homelessness by 2015.

About 75,000: Number of veterans who are homeless on any given night, according to estimates from the Veterans Administration.

About 20,000: Number of veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who were homeless in the past five years according to the Veterans Administration.

5.5 percent: Percentage of homeless vets who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan in the overall homeless population, according to the Veterans Administration.

Silverfiddle said...

FT: I don't think so. Bd was downright slobbery. Steve is much smarter.

Z said...

Shaw, let me remind you that I never said I think our vets should be jobless or homeless... we're talking about people who WILL NOT work here, not those who can't.
Who do you think thinks that homeless, jobless vets is a good idea?
my God.

Z said...

SF and FT...you guys know bd? He hung at my place forever.
And, yes, I figured out Liberalmann is bd when I had Moderation on and a 'bd' and liberalmann accidentally posted the exact same comment.

Steve is NOT/Libmann. SF's right..Steve's smarter by a football field or two! And not quite as nasty, either.

Always On Watch said...

Shaw,
Do you personally know any homeless people?

I do.

Not many, but a few -- both now and over the years.

EVERY SINGLE ONE WHOM I PERSONALLY KNOW HAS A SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEM. Not a single one is a veteran.

Of those whom I personally know or knew, not a one of them knew a single homeless veteran. Furthermore, every single one whom they knew had a substance abuse problem -- either ongoing or just recently "solved." Solutions are typically temporary. AA and the like have built-in relapse provisions.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Not many, but a few -- both now and over the years.

EVERY SINGLE ONE WHOM I PERSONALLY KNOW HAS A SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEM. Not a single one is a veteran."

I would characterize your knowledge of homeless people as anecdotal. You know a few. There are millions of them in this country.

Do I know any personally? Yes. I live in a city where I see homeless people every day.

I don't quite know what you're getting at when you speak about substance abuse.

I also don't know the "tone" in what you are saying about homeless people with substance abuse problems.

Anyway, we probably differ on this subject.

IMO, a country as rich as we are should be able to give help and hope to people who struggle with substance abuse and homelessness.

The wealthy can get all the help they need, the poor and homeless, not so much.

I don't judge people who struggle with demons.

Silverfiddle said...

We do give help and hope. There are thousands of private charities dedicated to getting homeless people on their feet.

Go to the VA website. They have special programs to get homeless vets off the street.

Z said...

AOW , the problem with homeless here is mostly drug abuse, too...and booze.
There are places set up in Downtown LA where they can have beds for only a few hours every week of work, but most won't go.
Lots is being done but it's hard to get them to come in from the cold...
very sad.

Steve said...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/va-100-million-veteran-homelessness_n_1687135.html