Rebecca Twigg is homeless

[Gummee]

Originally Posted by colker

Homelessness is a housing issue: people who don´t have a place to call home.

Um no. Homelessness is a lot more complicated than just a lack of housing.

There are most certainly programs out there. There are as many or more people unwilling (Ms Twigg for example) to participate in those programs for whatever reason.

We keep looping back to 'unless the subject of the help WANTS the help, they won't take it.

How do you make someone do something? The answer is 'you can't.' They have to want to better their position. Without the want, you have nothing.

You can want to be faster on the bike all you want, but if you're sitting on the couch eating bon-bons and watching soap operas, it won't happen. If you want to be faster on the bike and are out doing the miles, the intervals, etc THEN you'll be faster. Fixing the problem takes work. Sometimes suffering. There'll be setbacks. ...but you can't stop.

You get to decide which you'd like to be: couch potato or athlete. ...just like you decide to try working on your situation. Without the 'I'm going to try' there's nothing.

M

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by Gummee

Um no. Homelessness is a lot more complicated than just a lack of housing.

There are most certainly programs out there. There are as many or more people unwilling (Ms Twigg for example) to participate in those programs for whatever reason.

We keep looping back to 'unless the subject of the help WANTS the help, they won't take it.

How do you make someone do something? The answer is 'you can't.' They have to want to better their position. Without the want, you have nothing.

You can want to be faster on the bike all you want, but if you're sitting on the couch eating bon-bons and watching soap operas, it won't happen. If you want to be faster on the bike and are out doing the miles, the intervals, etc THEN you'll be faster. Fixing the problem takes work. Sometimes suffering. There'll be setbacks. ...but you can't stop.

You get to decide which you'd like to be: couch potato or athlete. ...just like you decide to try working on your situation. Without the 'I'm going to try' there's nothing.

M

Your statement is true. However, what percentage of homeless people do you think fit this profile? You seem to hint that it is a large majority.

Also, for those that do fit the profile, perhaps they are in need of intervention that will lead them to a state of mind in which they will be able to make more rational choices. Robust mental health services come to mind here. Expecting those that have severe mental health issues to bootstrap is akin to asking a cancer patient to sort out their own treatment. Most people will help themselves if they are able to do so; the point is that they can not help themselves and that can present as an unwillingness to do so.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Gummee

I'll agree with that statement, but not how to fix the problem.

IMO more cheap housing is just going to get you the projects of NYC where like begets like. More crime. More drugs. More people on welfare. That's not the answer.

What the answer IS is another question.

M

If a program is administered poorly the answer is to fix it(HUD sec that doesn’t have his head up and locked), not can it. The basic premise of ‘government’ housing is sound as are things like food stamps and training programs. But, like the VA, it is run by IDIOT appointees who are being rewarded for kissing somebody’s butt, not for their expertise.

[Mikej]

[QUOTE=colker;2530621]Who said anything about controlling prices?

I guess I mistook the term "rent controlled" which implies that at some point the government said this is how much rent costs.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Climb01742

You raise a crucial point. And you're reflective of who_can_raise the point.

As a nation, we discuss government spending a lot, but rarely the priorities behind the spending. Huge military spending is just a given. But why?

It feels like, as a nation, we're long over due for a real debate about how our tax dollars are spent, and ask people if unlimited military dollars might be better spent on, say, infrastructure, education, healthcare, environment...the list is long.

To me, perhaps the most fascinating part of this would be who could raise this debate without being, in an empty way, called unAmerican and soft and not understanding what's_really_at stake? OldSpud, you can raise the DOD budget and folks can't say you're a tree-hugging commie pinko rat.

The ironic thing is, the only political figure who could really and truly and deeply debate a radical reordering of our priorities and budgets is a man or woman who served. The messenger of the message matters enormously. Only a soldier could argue effectively, politically, that the military should do what 90% of families and businesses have done since 2008: do more with less. Funny, uh?

I’m all for making military service a requirement to run for POTUS, along with gems like publishing tax returns...’treason’, ‘unamerican’, ‘unpatriotic’ terms thrown around way too easily these days, particularly when you consider the ‘sources’...

DOD budget is like a huge dinosaur which is getting harder and harder to ‘feed’, but you are right, point out the obscenity of the present DOD budget and get labeled ‘unamerican’ at best, ‘traitor’ at worst. Complete BS.

[David Kirk]

If government isn't supposed to look after those that most need help with food and shelter who is?

dave

[GregL]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

DOD budget is like a huge dinosaur which is getting harder and harder to ‘feed’, but you are right, point out the obscenity of the present DOD budget and get labeled ‘unamerican’ at best, ‘traitor’ at worst. Complete BS.

How times have changed. In WWII, Harry Truman first rose to prominence in the Senate as a fiscal watchdog. His committee examined and publicized waste in wartime spending. Truman was lauded as a protector of the taxpayers' money. As a result, he was asked to be Roosevelt's running mate in 1944. The rest is history...

Greg

[makoti]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

If government isn't supposed to look after those that most need help with food and shelter who is?

dave

I always heard that the measure of a society was how it cared for its neediest members. It would seem, since the government is supposed to be "us", that it is supposed to.

[David Kirk]

Originally Posted by makoti

I always heard that the measure of a society was how it cared for its neediest members. It would seem, since the government is supposed to be "us", that it is supposed to.

I couldn't agree more.

dave

[Gummee]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

If government isn't supposed to look after those that most need help with food and shelter who is?

dave

In order: family, churches or other local organizations, & charities. IOW it shouldn't be the government's responsibility to be a 'first responder' in the situation

M

[Gummee]

Originally Posted by makoti

I always heard that the measure of a society was how it cared for its neediest members. It would seem, since the government is supposed to be "us", that it is supposed to.

Y'all need to do some research on how the government was seen right up until FDR

Since then it's been a monster that devours everything it sees

M

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Gummee

Y'all need to do some research on how the government was seen right up until FDR

Since then it's been a monster that devours everything it sees

M

Or, it's been evolving towards meeting the needs of a more modern society. (See comments earlier about how society has changed since the founding fathers time.)

[Hawker]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

If government isn't supposed to look after those that most need help with food and shelter who is?

dave

Ideally the church and other local community programs. Not sure it was ever supposed to be the role of the federal government to do this. Not trying to be hard-hearted...I just don't think big government does this kind of thing well and when it does there is seldom effective follow-up and certainly no real compassion or concern. When there are local people involved there is a better chance of long-term follow-up, concern, equipping and "teaching a man to fish".

By the way, based on the number of responses here (yes I know some have responded more than once), if each of us would have sent her $20, she'd have close to $3,500. Not suggesting it...just an observation. I pray she does get some long term emotional and mental assistance.

[joosttx]

............

[HenryA]

Don’t expect gubmint to do much very well, especially when saddled with a big dose of NIMBY. Gubmint has become a a huge octopus with tentacles in places never meant to be while ignoring its real work. It would be the same government that supported widespread institutionalization of the mentally ill and then whipsawed back the other way. Doing badly both times. Apparently no citizens were paying attention.

And the latest:

https://www.apnews.com/3a5aaa8ed10d46ba9fd84fe8242ada49

Of course these folks aren’t riled up about the family of four who needs shelter because both parents lost their jobs the same week. They are worried about finding a big ole dump on their front porch every other morning.

Don’t worry though, someone else will fix it for you.