Truth Bringer wrote:
...and you of me.

How do you know whether they go or not? If they do go, isn't it possible that a family member may have helped them get there???No one said it was anyone's fault. Is it America's responsibility to help the mentally ill? I think so, that's what makes America great; We do help those who can't help themselves. We agree hereWell, I would think that it should be decided on a case by case basis. Well, since I once worked with low income families; I did see abuse of the system, but I also saw people that were in desperate need of help. There are some people that aren't even in the "system"

Personally, I don't need proof, my life experience with working with the poor is enough for me. Like I said before, I saw people that took advantage of the system and I saw people that probably should have been in a mental institution. I saw people that eventually did get back on their feet. One size doesn't fit all.At one time, I worked for the city and helped the homeless.The bottom line Truth Bringer - There ARE poor people and SOME of those poor people did not choose to be poor as you suggest.

BTW, To get into "low income housing" (the projects) you have to get on a list and there is a wait. You can't just walk in the door and be placed. Of course it's been a long time since I've dealt with this, things can change.

You're a funny one to demand that people use unbiased sources, T-B.

Does the U.S. Conference of Mayors count? Their 2005 survey (pdf) came to the conclusion that requests for food assistance was increasing -- 12 percent overall. Requests exceeded resources; 18 percent of requests went unmet. This was the latest in a string of annual increases in need.

According to HHS, about 1 percent of the population -- 2 to 3 million people -- experience at least one night of homelessness per year that has them seeking help from a service organization. This does not count people who do not seek organized assistance.

The percentage among poor persons is much higher, as you might expect -- 4 to 6 percent.

About 200,000 people are considered "chronically homeless".

On any given night, between 400,000 and 600,000 Americans are homeless.

As for "increasing", I'll refer you again to the mayoral report. Request for emergency shelter went up 6 percent, again exceeding supply, again the latest in a string of increases. And the length of time people remained homeless increased, too.

That's just ignorant. The number one cause of bankruptcy is not "living beyond their means" -- it's unexpected, and huge, medical bills.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...tcy_study.html

Other known contributors are divorce or the death of a breadwinner.

The share of people who simply spend themselves into bankruptcy is small, and while such exceptions should be dealt with, they are a poor -- if convenient -- example to build policy on.

Read the program's fact sheet:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/

24 million kids used the program in 1990. 29.6 million use it now. That's an average annual growth rate of 1.41%.
http://www.investopedia.com/calculator/CAGR.aspx

By comparison, the United States' population growth rate is about 0.91%.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications.../print/us.html

By that crude measure, program use has grown significantly faster than the population.

Flood zone, I'll give you. Hurricane zone? Might as well depopulate the entire Eastern Seaboard.

__________________
Man up.

No. I'd say there's a conflict of interest if they're statists. They want a problem that they can demand higher tax revenue for in order to allegedly fix. Mayors: "The welfare roles are increasing, we have to raise taxes and regulate industry or people will starve without our benevolence!!!!"

I'd like to know how they arrived at their conclusions. I'd also like a filter to show which of the people applying were (1) UNABLE to work and (2) that there isn't any type of fraud occuring.

As we've seen, welfare fraud can be rather rampant - costing billions of dollars every year. I wonder if the Mayor's study had all these folks calculated in:

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23910

Anyone who says the government is doing a good job of administering the welfare program is just crazy...and/or gullible.

ONE NIGHT OF HOMELESSNESS? Are you kidding? From 1 percent of the population? And that's a crisis???? Hardly. I was homeless for 3 months - you didn't see me running to the government to come save me. How the hell is someone having to sleep in their car for one night a crisis warranting higher taxes on the rest of the population? Taxes are the cause of this anyway.


LOL. On any given night... Exactly what critieria are they using to determine this? There is no hard evidence. This is just guess work.

The problems that we have COME FROM GOVERNMENT. Repeal the income tax and cut most other taxes and you will see the middle class rise. Get rid of fiat currency and people won't have the value of their savings destroyed.

You gotta skew... Please note what I said again, A LOT OF PEOPLE DECLARING BANKRUPTCY SIMPLY SPENT BEYOND THEIR MEANS. I didn't state these people were the largest percentage of filers. It's true that they are a small percentage of overall filers, however, nationwide, that still equates to what I said - A LOT OF PEOPLE.



Again, I'd want to know the incomes of the parents whose children are applying. I'd also want the whole thing checked for fraud. I know quite a few kids when I was in high school who were on the program that didn't have an actual need. They had nicer cars than I did, yet were on the free lunch program. Go figure...

I would say it's fair for anyone living in a such an area is to have a plan in place in case of a hurricane or flood. If you don't want to deal with it, then don't live there. And don't complain if anything happens and you weren't prepared.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

I've been homeless, my friend. I look down upon no one because of status - but I will criticize those who can take intelligent action and yet do not.

As for my situation, you never saw me stealing from anyone to "fix" my problems. I worked for a way out.

Government cannot truly show mercy to these people because government must first unmercifully steal from all in order to redistribute to these people. And in some cases, a link to which I posted above, government actively participates in a fraud to take more money from innocent people...

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Now you mistrust mayors. Which essentially means you distrust all government, which means you won't accept government statistics. I don't know if any source exists that you would call unbiased. Hence your demand for "unbiased" sources is empty.

Read the link. They describe their methodology. Basically they surveyed their members -- who are, after all, mayors.

You think people would *fraudulently* ask to sleep in a homeless shelter?

As for food shelves, most serve a specific geographic area to avoid overlapping. And they generally require identification and proof of need. So they know their clientele. Besides, food-shelf fraud would be seriously penny-ante stuff.

It is, of course, your right to ignore the "at least" qualifier, or the notation that it only counts those people who sought help from an established assistance provider.

Good for you. Did you have small children at the time?

LOLOL.... So if we didn't have taxes, we wouldn't have homelessness? Is that what you're arguing?

Survey work, actually. About the only feasible way to get a grip on a population that is very hard to measure.

You said it as if that was somehow relevant to addressing the bankruptcy problem, or the significance of rising bankruptcies. It's not.

From the same web site, you can find that free meals are available to those with household incomes of up to 130 percent of poverty level, and reduced price meals are available for those up to 185 percent of poverty level.

The increased use of the program, therefore, suggests that over the last 15 years a higher percentage of family incomes have fallen within that range.

You use this mantra as if that refutes all other claims. Yes, of course, be vigilant for fraud. But like chanting "government waste" when asked how to cut taxes without cutting services, fraud doesn't constitute an actual answer. It's really incumbent upon you to show that fraud exists.

Even if we take your anonymous anecdote at face value, do you know for a fact that they were getting the meals for free or reduced price? Because that's what determines whether you're actually "on the program." When I was in school, anyone could buy the government lunch. And some who didn't "need it" did, because it was cheaper than the other options.

Agreed. But if I live in NYC, what should my plan be? When you're talking about the emergency movement of millions of people, government must necessarily be involved. Your personal plan won't count for much if the government has a poor evacuation plan.

Every (wo)man for h(er)imself!!

__________________
Man up.

Then you should understand that you cannot determine what an intelligent action is relative to a situation based on a generalization of many people with little information on the specifics. While I've never been in a position where I've had to steal and doubt the claims of most who say they have... I can imagine such a situation. I also understand that many people do not make intelligent decisions because they have never been taught how by anyone... and oftentimes they live in environments that teach just the opposite. There is the simple problem of long-term short-term. True, long-term goals and actions taking them into account are usually smarter... but they depend upon a short-term situation that can maintain until the time comes for a plan's fruition. It's at times hard to determine when which type of thinking is correct, especially when your short-term resources are questionable. For every person who succeeds on a wild chance... many fail. Not worth it when you have nothing to gamble with.
Otherwise intelligent people tend to take things for granted. You and I know how to look for a job and what to do to acquire one. This presumes an education in how, whether formal or informal... and an environment where jobs are available.
Most poverty can and should be temporary, but without a way to sustain diminishing resources during that time, there's a lot to make up and depending on the instability of an environment , your age, and your previous experience... it can require more intelligence to pull yourself out than can be expected from a regular human being. And sometimes it may require miracles.
My belief is that we should count our blessingss and our smart moves rather than the flaws and mistakes of others. Because we screw up sometimes too.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I do not agree with "HOW" Truth-Bringer is bringing his argument about poverty but I do understand where he is coming from.
We have the exact same problem here in Canada.

You need to take a look at the reasons "WHY" people are living is supposed poverty.
I see panhandlers on the streets that are there by choice because they can make more than the minimum wage.
They can go to shelters for free housing and food. So, basically their hand outs are free and clear. No rent, no food expenses.
In the warmer weather they can sleep in the parks.
Under US laws, no one can be refused medical service if they have a life threatening condition. Am I right on that point?

Now please tell me on any cases where a homeless person actually starved to death.
There are food banks, soup kitchens, shelters, charities and even family to go to for help.
Look in any local newspaper. There are many "jobs" for people that really do want to work.
Granted they are not the greatest jobs but they are jobs.
That's where to run into the problem of the "poverty" people expecting more without actually doing more to get it.
All I'm all I'm saying is that, in Canada and the USA, the homeless and people living in poverty have resources available to them in order to survive.

Now, let's look at the other side.
You have landlords and property owners squeezing every cent they can out of tenants. They do minimum repairs to keep the properties livable.
You have governments: Federal, State, and Local; over taxing the people to line their own pocket with government pay checks and pensions.
No one can deny that there is government waste on tax money.
The bottom line is that greed is more important than showing human compassion.

Now I will ask the same question that Truth-Bringer ask. show us true poverty?

Maybe you should define the meaning of poverty.

I recently did some personal research on Mexican street children.
I suggest that both sides of this issue do a Google search on those 3 simple words.
Then you will know exactly what true poverty is.
it's the same thing that is happening all over the world to children.
Done bother telling me about drug dealers and crime and corrupt governments in Mexico and say that is the cause.
We have the same crime lords, drug dealers and corrupt governments in Canada and the USA.
The only difference is that our countries have learned to hide those people better.
The topic was poverty. Look at children around the world and then tell me that homeless people or people saying they are living in poverty in Canada and the USA are as bad or worse off than the children in Mexico and other countries around the world.

Put this topic of poverty into a true perspective.
The poor in both our countries still have more resources than any other country.
My perspective:
I have no sympathy for people only wanting hand outs and not a hand up.
I have no sympathy for the "Middle Class" crying the blues because they can not afford a nice house with the two car garage in the suburbs.
The middle class is crying that illegal immigrants are taking their jobs and lowering their wages.
How come they are doing that? Really?
1) Because "LEGAL" Americans are hiring them.
2) Because the middle class will not do the same jobs until they get paid enough to keep there house in the suburbs.

Just spend 5 minutes and do a Google search on street children.
Not homeless adults: CHILDREN.
It's time Canada and the USA to take a serious REALITY check on what poverty REALLY is.

Hardly. I question what you always want to accept at face value. How can a survey of government workers be meaningful when this is happening?:

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23910

If that was so, things like this wouldn't be happening

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23910

No, it wasn't a good experience for me.

No, that's not what I'm arguing. We will ALWAYS have some level of people who do not want to work or who are mentally ill and will not work in any economic system. But with few, and lower, taxes, the incidence of homelessness and joblessness will decrease significantly.

And highly susceptible to bias and error.

It does if fraud is proven to be involved.

Obviously, this isn't happening...

Yes. In one case I know a girl's mother also worked, but she only listed her father's income. She also didn't disclose the fact that she was working a part time job as well. In another case, the kid showed me his card stating he was on the program. He lived with his mom, his parents were divorced, but somehow the child support wasn't calculated in - so he got in the program. I don't know of any kids who specifically CHOSE those meals. It may have happened, but the ones that I saw doing it claimed to be in the program.

If you can't formulate a plan, don't live there. You would really rely on the government to get you out during a disaster in NYC? I'd say that's very gullible. NYC during a disaster will be very similar to New Orleans. They might be a little better prepared, but their logistics are a lot tougher to navigate.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Well there's no satisfactory way for anyone to bring it up. That's why when I make a post on poverty, it's always attacked head on by people who then start claiming I hate the poor, I don't know what I'm talking about, etc., etc.

You can see the examples in this thread.

I post some things mainly for controversy value, and this always generates a controversy. But it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Rayti beat me to it but from the looks of things it would not matter what sources he or I used you would still hold onto your disproven mantra.This being the case the onus falls on you to prove your case that poverty does not exist.....in other words counter with something more then:

"I don't like your sources"