What are we going to do about the homeless?

And how does one dodge that, should the inevitable happen? If they've lost everything, how do they then get back on their feet so as to not be breaking the law?

 

That's true. We can thank the do-gooders (and budget conscious Govts) for that massive blunder.

 

Actually it explains it well.

They deliberately enable dissolution.

 

So you have homeless nutters lose? Sounds fun.

 

I can't tell if you're serious or not. Most of the homeless are drug attics or the mentally ill. But a few are temporarily poor, regular people. For the last group that's why we have bankruptcy laws, so people can build their way out of poverty. For the first two groups, they need medical attention.

 

Funny, but Republicans are more charitable than Democrats.

 

I agree with the sanitation and police presence. These homeless communities are dangerous places.

Can you believe that some people want to build the homeless tiny shelters that don't even have running water and toilets? What are they thinking?

 

They tried this in the Soviet Union and it didn't work.

 

This is its own conversation, but it is starting to be recognized that paying investors to provide affordable housing isn't working.

 

Some might like the lifestyle of homelessness, but not everyone.

As for second chances, there are a few institutions in place. Bankruptcy laws, homeless shelters, and food pantries. There is also Medicaid, and housing assistance in blue states, but I hear that the waiting list is long.

Of course, if the majority of the population becomes homeless, the 3/4's of Americans struggling with their finances, then the system can't support that. Of course, most Americans are go-getters and might just start a revolution here, to reset the system, if the majority of Americans are unable to afford a basic life anymore in the USA. No matter what they do to try and get ahead, after going through all of that and still failing. But, that's a what-if... for now.

I hear the middle class in America is shrinking.

 

Send them to Texas. Its their game, so I am sure they wouldn't mind.

 

The smell of ocean air isn't that clean. Recently, due to global warming, the oceans evaporate during the new heatwaves of summer, and the stink of sea-life **** in the air is suffocating.

 

What is 'affordable' housing?

 

Ah, yes. That's where the Republican idea of work requirements for everything comes from. Stopping dissolution is a Republican argument. Well, there's some truth to that. But, most people lack the discipline and resources to prepare for changes in the economy that would avoid rendering them homeless. And since the majority need medical attention, due to addiction or mental health reasons, most can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." They are basically useless.

 

1) Yes, that was my point. They've been made dissolute, and therefore beyond self-help. Do you think it was a kindness .... to rob them of their capacity for self-reliance, by enabling dependence?

2) Those particular people need to be institutionalised. In just one example of the superiority of institutionalisation - the same people, in the 1970's, would not have ended up in addiction. They remained 'crazy', but they were otherwise well and clean.

 

Oh, em, gee! I was involuntarily admitted to psych wards a few times over my life and forced to stay there.

It's so boring there, and there's nothing really thought-provoking to do. There are no electronics or cell phones allowed. Basically, it's just social activities, arts and crafts, exercise, and meals. And, it's more so they can watch you and evaluate you.

There's a TV, but fights usually break out on what to watch so I avoided that. Forget internet, and posting on a forum like this! One place had a computer, but there was a long wait-list for people to use it and it was only available for like an hour in the rec-room every few days, and everyone had to share it within the time limit. Another place didn't have a computer at all, so that shows you the impact of funding, or lack thereof, on our mental health programs.

I couldn't get out of there fast enough. I hope I never end up there again. I wouldn't want to live in a mental health home and neither would you!

 

A strong-handed approach, but it beats shaping a city's architecture with spikes to get the point across that homelessness is unwelcome.

But we really don't have the social infrastructure in place to implement this plan. Such things as job programs and support/housing infrastructure have been eroded away with welfare reform that started under Clinton. As well as recently, government funding of real estate investment in affordable housing has totally failed to produce the actual affordable housing that would provide a safe space for the homeless.

 

And then Texas can bus them to California, Washington D.C., and New York! But at some point it reaches the end point and someone'll have to deal with the homeless then and there.

 

It depends on the situation and area. But generally, affordable housing means cheap housing, in large numbers, in an area with access to a grocery store and medical care.

 

you should probably go on a real boat and come back with a report. It’s quite nice.

 

If it weren't for the use of the term 'self-reliance' it would seem like you sound like a Democrat, because in this thread you can see the usual suspects actually taking a hard-line on the subject topic of homelessness. Make homelessness illegal why don't we?

What was that like in the 1970s? I would hate to be stuck in a 'prison' as much as the next person. What were the social structures that were supposed to replace institutionalization? I don't recall what was promised but never materialized in our society to replace institutionalization.

 

So the entire area would be cheap? Or just some of the housing? IOW one person has to pay more than another person in the same street? And who qualifies for the privilege of heavily discounted housing? What did they do to earn that privilege? And why did the other guy fail to earn that privilege? And what about all those honourable people who believe that affordable means THEY can afford it, so they live wherever that happens to be .. rather than demanding to live an area they can't afford?

I'm very keen to hear your answers to all these questions.

 

1) Self-reliance is very much a collectivist thing. It's technically Left, though I'm no Progressive. Progressives favour the model of ye olde medieval dayes. Where everyone's a 'tenant farmer', except a handful of elites.

2) Nothing was promised to replace institutionalisation. That's the problem. The family/community structures which backed up the system, have now disintegrated, so these people end up on the streets. As for what is was like ... it was much better. People who couldn't properly care for themselves were committed by law. No choice. The problem is that that was eventually seen as too primitive for the fancy First Worlder, so it was dismantled. As always, the consequences were never considered. Locking crazies up was deemed 'mean', and that was it. It didn't hurt that Govts thought they were saving money, either. Of course that never panned out, and they now pay far more for the consquences they didn't consider.

 

I was being sarcastic.

 

Well the current Democrat plan seems to be to make sure they starve...