It seems we never learn.

[Farmersfan]

It was stated on the radio this morning that Dallas has decided to build 700 units of free housing for the homeless. The Federal Government will pay for 200 and the City of Dallas will pay for the rest. I have never supported the idea of public funds being spent to enhance the lives of people who have chosen to remove themselves from a productive role in our society but what do you think? If you consider the state of our economy right now this appears to be even more of a bad decision. A spokesman for the project claimed that in the long run this would be the most cost effective way to handle the homeless situation. Once again we are spreading the idea that if you just quit you will be taken care of............

[jockcity33]

I don't think 700 will be enough to house all the people who have chosen to give up trying to earn a living and just let the government take care of them.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
It was stated on the radio this morning that Dallas has decided to build 700 units of free housing for the homeless. The Federal Government will pay for 200 and the City of Dallas will pay for the rest. I have never supported the idea of public funds being spent to enhance the lives of people who have chosen to remove themselves from a productive role in our society but what do you think? If you consider the state of our economy right now this appears to be even more of a bad decision. A spokesman for the project claimed that in the long run this would be the most cost effective way to handle the homeless situation. Once again we are spreading the idea that if you just quit you will be taken care of............

First, let me say I am far from a "bleeding heart liberal". I don't recall ever having voted for a democrat, am a veteran, and have been a productive member of our society for 64 years.

Now that that is out of the way, how did you decide that these 700 units are only for "people who have chosen to remove themselves from a productive role in our society"? How about 60 year old grandmothers who have had their grandchildren left for them to raise? How about single working parents with children but who don't make enough to support a family? How about disabled people who cannot work? How about those folks who want to work, have been working, but now have been laid off and can't find another job?

I deplore the fact that in our country we have homeless people, whatever the reason. I further deplore having "people who have chosen to remove themselves from a productive role in our society" and we know they exist. But to paint every homeless person with one broad brush is not what America is about. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world and we need to be willing to help those who are not fortunate enough to share in the wealth. Especialy children. Did they choose to be "people who have chosen to remove themselves from a productive role in our society"?

[Rocket Dad]

They will destroy the housing over time. There is a 5% window in all societies that do not want jobs, education, etc. They are worthless to the society and must be taken care of by the rest.

[nobogey72]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
First, let me say I am far from a "bleeding heart liberal". I don't recall ever having voted for a democrat, am a veteran, and have been a productive member of our society for 64 years.

Now that that is out of the way, how did you decide that these 700 units are only for "people who have chosen to remove themselves from a productive role in our society"? How about 60 year old grandmothers who have had their grandchildren left for them to raise? How about single working parents with children but who don't make enough to support a family? How about disabled people who cannot work? How about those folks who want to work, have been working, but now have been laid off and can't find another job?

I deplore the fact that in our country we have homeless people, whatever the reason. I further deplore having "people who have chosen to remove themselves from a productive role in our society" and we know they exist. But to paint every homeless person with one broad brush is not what America is about. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world and we need to be willing to help those who are not fortunate enough to share in the wealth. Especialy children. Did they choose to be "people who have chosen to remove themselves from a productive role in our society"?

I agree with this post 100%. Another way to look at it is the old saying that "A country can be judged by how it treats the least fortunate of it's citizens". Obviously there are many who fall back and live off of the system. But I also don't want to see pictures of flies landing on kids in this country like you see in some other nations. I certainly don't have the answer.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
First, let me say I am far from a "bleeding heart liberal". I don't recall ever having voted for a democrat, am a veteran, and have been a productive member of our society for 64 years.

Now that that is out of the way, how did you decide that these 700 units are only for "people who have chosen to remove themselves from a productive role in our society"? How about 60 year old grandmothers who have had their grandchildren left for them to raise? How about single working parents with children but who don't make enough to support a family? How about disabled people who cannot work? How about those folks who want to work, have been working, but now have been laid off and can't find another job?

HOW do people decide these things. Because of steriotypes. They automaticaly assume all or a vast majority of these folks are just bums. Its typical. It prevents many folks who truly need help from getting it.

[pirate4state]

So many people are quick to assume that every homeless person falls into a certain type of person, but that is not always the case!

*sigh*

[I_Do_Care]

have colleague doing interesting work in the case of how many veterans have fallen through the cracks and become homeless. I'm sometimes ashamed of now only how we treat our lowliest citizens but those who served and have been tossed aside.

[jimmyceatworld]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
It was stated on the radio this morning that Dallas has decided to build 700 units of free housing for the homeless. The Federal Government will pay for 200 and the City of Dallas will pay for the rest. I have never supported the idea of public funds being spent to enhance the lives of people who have chosen to remove themselves from a productive role in our society but what do you think? If you consider the state of our economy right now this appears to be even more of a bad decision. A spokesman for the project claimed that in the long run this would be the most cost effective way to handle the homeless situation. Once again we are spreading the idea that if you just quit you will be taken care of............

Like many have stated, I do not believe you can cast all homeless people into the same boat. Many people have tried (and failed) to get out of poverty but it is very difficult. True, there are those that do not make much of an effort to be productive, but that doesn't take away the fact that poverty is of immense importance.

Personally, I believe this plan will not be very successful. History has shown that the government cannot rid people of poverty. This is still the case regardless of the millions and billions of dollars poured into the cause. A novel idea, but not the most productive one.

There is only one way, IMO, that the homeless rate, both nationally and across the globe, will ever greatly decrease. It will be when people realize it is a spiritual concern more that a social, or financial one. When we realize handling "the homeless situation" involves real people with real problems. When their problems become our problems. When they becomes us.

This is the only solution.

[Farmersfan]

I guess I posted the wrong question to the wrong group of people. I didn't see the road sign that said "Bleeding Heart Liberals Ahead"..............
And I do recognize that there are exceptions to every rule but don't be fooled into thinking the problem of homeless people in America comes from caring or hard working Americans who have had bad luck. Most of the problem comes from people who have learned that they can get by without putting out the effort or people who are emotionally or physically unable to provide for themselves but either way we should not be giving them free houses. As a country we need to take a stand and determine who is who. Those who CAN should be required to take care of themselves and those who CAN"T should be put somewhere where they can be taught to. The answers to the question that many of you posted is exactly why we have single moms who continue to have babies in this country. We have become entitled.

[nobogey72]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Farmersfan
[BThose who CAN should be required to take care of themselves and those who CAN"T should be put somewhere where they can be taught to.

And, how will you distinguish between the 2. And, as for those who "CAN'T", how do you propose to teach them to be one of the "CANS"?

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jimmyceatworld
[B]Many people have tried (and failed) to get out of poverty but it is very difficult.



This is true. But that is the nature of our democracy. Some can succeed and some cannot. It has always been that way. The big difference now is that many who cannot have chosen to stop trying and many who CAN have decided that all the rest of us are responsible for them. Our Government spend billions every year on road repair so how about every single able-bodied person who collects welfare or free housing get up at 4.00 am and catch a government bus and goes out and works on the roads?????? Or we build daycares and expect single moms to watch the children of other single moms so they can go to work. Dang what a concept. You actually earn what you get.... I don't where that thought comes from but it could work!!!! My office is next to a Government Wic office and free health clinic. Rarely can I even find a parking spot. People with nicer vehicles than mine are visiting the Wic office or going in for free healthcare. I would bet that 50% of them aren't even Citizens. But that's another issue.

[MN95]

In my opinion, a good first step in the right direction would be to stipulate that Government assistance is TEMPORARY in most cases (disabled veterans would be an example of an exception). So, anyone who is down on their luck could get some help, but we should never have people who live off the Goverment permanently.

This may be controversial, but if I were asked to address this problem I would make implanted birth control mandatory for any man or woman while on Government assistance.

[I_Do_Care]

Pretty well cited as well.

Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility

Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages

Welfare programs have been our country's response to poverty, and everyone agrees that those programs have not solved the problem. Jared Bernstein (1996) of the Economic Policy Institute identifies wage decline as the crucial economic factor that has had the largest impact on poverty rates in the 1980s and 1990s. While hourly rates of pay have fallen for the majority of the workforce since the late 1970s, by far the largest losses have been for the lowest paid workers. According to Bernstein (1996), between 1979 and 1989, the male worker, for example, at the 10th percentile (meaning 90 percent of the male workforce earns more) saw his hourly wage decline 13 percent, and since 1989 he lost another 6 percent. For women workers at the 10th percentile, the decline over the 1980s was 18 percent. The low-wage female worker gained slightly since 1989, but by 1995, her hourly wage rate was $4.84, down from $5.82 in 1979 (all dollars are in 1995 inflation-adjusted terms).

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).

Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support

Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent

A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56 percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These exit rates clearly contradict the widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent. Unfortunately, return rates were also high, with 45 percent of ex-recipients returning to AFDC within 1 year. Persons who were likely to use AFDC longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were under age 24 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These risk factors illustrate the importance of structural barriers, such as inadequate child care, racism, and lack of education.

Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women

Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are White

Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are women (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1995). The majority of the recipients are White (38 percent), followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent other minority groups (Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans) (McLaughlin, 1997). However, African Americans are disproportionately represented on public assistance because they are only 12 percent of the population (O'Hare, Pollard, Mann, & Kent, 1991).

Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families

Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family

The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate, 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children. Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon, 1997).

Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance

Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line

The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as "Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996).

Despite the ready availability of facts, myths about welfare continue to be widespread. The media contributes to this lack of information. The media helps shape public perceptions about welfare recipients. The way in which a topic is reported can turn a neutral reader into an opinionated reader and can greatly influence public opinion. Although in an analysis of articles published in 10 major newspapers from January 1997 to April 1997, the tone was generally sympathetic to the poor, actual research and facts to counter myths were generally lacking (Wyche & Mattern, 1997).

Recommendations

1. Federal and state agencies should provide newspapers and other media with accurate information about welfare recipients and programs, including information on welfare reform.
2. Jobs need to pay better than welfare. Rather than focusing on welfare time limits, policy action at the state and federal levels must address reforming the low-wage labor market by raising wages and increasing the ability of low-wage workers to join unions and bargain collectively.
3. Public and private agencies should collaborate more effectively to promote and increase employment opportunities for women, especially of hard-to-place women.
4. States should provide training for case managers and other appropriate personnel to advocate for, support, and follow up with clients in ways that are not adversarial or punitive during their job search process.
5. States and federal agencies should fund and conduct research on the impact of the transition of mothers to work on the mother and the family and on what strategies best promote most positive outcomes for the mothers and their families.
6. States should require and fund formative and summative evaluations of proposed programs.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by nobogey72
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Farmersfan
[BThose who CAN should be required to take care of themselves and those who CAN"T should be put somewhere where they can be taught to.

And, how will you distinguish between the 2. And, as for those who "CAN'T", how do you propose to teach them to be one of the "CANS"?


I don't have all the answers. But I do strongly believe that if we just continue to GIVE them their daily fish then they have no incentive to learn to fish. The liberal crowd will utter a collective gasp when I say this but a single mom who can't support her children yet continues to have babies should be PROVIDED with elective sterilization by the government. A able-bodied man or woman who has had a handup for a set amount of time and still can't get a job should now work for the government. Or anyone who lives in a area that has no available jobs should be MOVED to a area where there are jobs. Most restaurants in every city are always looking for people. Almost all construction sites are always on the lookout out for help. The problem is that these people are TOO good to work for those wages. Very few Americans will dig a ditch for a living. But this attitude comes from their sense that they are entitled. Being an American guarantees you nothing other than the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it say you will find it.

[MN95]

Originally posted by I_Do_Care
Pretty well cited as well.

I have an issue with calling tax deductions such as mortgage and capital gains "welfare". Big difference is they are letting me keep a little more of the money I ACTUALLY EARNED WORKING versus dollars for no work. Sounds like a pretty liberal spin to me.

[I_Do_Care]

Originally posted by MN95
I have an issue with calling tax deductions such as mortgage and capital gains "welfare". Big difference is they are letting me keep a little more of the money I ACTUALLY EARNED WORKING versus dollars for no work. Sounds like a pretty liberal spin to me. :rolleyes:
when it's a favor afforded one portion of the pop over another it certainly seems to be some form of assistance, in this case less tax. You guys cited almost every stereotype and you claim it's a liberal spin on one statement? lol

[MN95]

Originally posted by I_Do_Care
Pretty well cited as well.

Recommendations

1. Federal and state agencies should provide newspapers and other media with accurate information about welfare recipients and programs, including information on welfare reform.
2. Jobs need to pay better than welfare. Rather than focusing on welfare time limits, policy action at the state and federal levels must address reforming the low-wage labor market by raising wages and increasing the ability of low-wage workers to join unions and bargain collectively.
3. Public and private agencies should collaborate more effectively to promote and increase employment opportunities for women, especially of hard-to-place women.
4. States should provide training for case managers and other appropriate personnel to advocate for, support, and follow up with clients in ways that are not adversarial or punitive during their job search process.
5. States and federal agencies should fund and conduct research on the impact of the transition of mothers to work on the mother and the family and on what strategies best promote most positive outcomes for the mothers and their families.
6. States should require and fund formative and summative evaluations of proposed programs.


May I ask what the source of this is?

See number 2....so in other words, you can't blame someone for not working if you can't earn the same as staying home?

Please.

[I_Do_Care]

I'm done with it, I gave yall some cited resources for your own interest so fallacy will end. This is pointed to the political direction and that has killed many threads. How bout as Americans we just hope for the best, and ACT, one way or another!

[MN95]

Originally posted by I_Do_Care
I'm done with it, I gave yall some cited resources for your own interest so fallacy will end. This is pointed to the political direction and that has killed many threads. How bout as Americans we just hope for the best, and ACT, one way or another!

Please cite your source before you leave?

[I_Do_Care]

Originally posted by MN95

See number 2....so in other words, you can't blame someone for not working if you can't earn the same as staying home?
It's why globalization has killed 3rd world countries through loans that broker deals that can't be paid off as well as demand the elimination of welfare programs and collective bargaining (unions). What occurs is a inexhaustible amount of uneducated, unskilled labor fighting for scraps. no matter how much we drop taxes, paying a Haji to make something will always be cheaper in a nation that evolves from openly free market to market manipulating corporatism! IF not for Unions in the U.S. we may have seen the same thing here eventually. through brokering a better deal, Workers in the US were able to prove Marxian theory wrong because of the maleability of Capitalism, even it needs a check every once in a while! ;)

[MN95]

Originally posted by I_Do_Care
It's why globalization has killed 3rd world countries through loans that broker deals that can't be paid off as well as demand the elimination of welfare programs and collective bargaining (unions). What occurs is a inexhaustible amount of uneducated, unskilled labor fighting for scraps. no matter how much we drop taxes, paying a Haji to make something will always be cheaper in a nation that evolves from openly free market to market manipulating corporatism! IF not for Unions in the U.S. we may have seen the same thing here eventually. through brokering a better deal, Workers in the US were able to prove Marxian theory wrong because of the maleability of Capitalism, even it needs a check every once in a while! ;)

uh, thanks, but why not cite your source for the previous information?

[I_Do_Care]

Originally posted by MN95
Please cite your source before you leave? Well, if you read closely, it's a conglomerate of sources, you have them in front of you, get the names cited and look em up, educate yourself!
it was however displayed by the APA (American Psychological Association)

[MN95]

the fact that all 6 recommendations refer mostly to federal and local governments doing more to solve the problem says it all........

[I_Do_Care]

Originally posted by MN95
the fact that all 6 recommendations refer mostly to federal and local governments doing more to solve the problem says it all........ in the mind of those set in their ways! I hope your children learn better! ;)

[Farmersfan]

Normally if you quote someone you should tell us who you are quoting so we can determine the extend of the validity of the quote. It appears to me to be something written by someone asking for a welfare program.
And I don't think we are actually talking about poverty here. We were talking about homeless people. Even a person classified as poor in todays society has more than millions of Americans had for the first two centuries of this country. It has become common to expect a certain standard of living in this country when in reality if you can feed your family and provide them with shelter then you are not doing too bad. Many, many places around the world can't even do that. I think it's moronic to say "Wages" are responsible for poverty. That's like saying "Water is responsible for drowning"...... Duh!!!
And try comparing the wages of "the poor" now to the wages of "the poor" 100 years ago. Perhaps "the poor" need to stop crying and get a second job.

[MN95]

You and I can disagree on political approaches to our nations issues without you making a condescending judgment that I am raising my children improperly. Your arrogance speaks loudly.

I thought you were leaving?

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by I_Do_Care
in the mind of those set in their ways! I hope your children learn better! ;)



I think we see where you are coming from.

And the thing is: Those people who were set in their ways has served to make this country the greatest country in the world. It's only been recent (perhaps 40 years) that the social mindset in this country has taken us down the destructive path of teaching Americans that they are entitled to better things without actually earning them. Americans showed how far gone they are in this insane idea of entitlement when they elected a President who had NO QUALIFICATIONS or SKILLS other than the ability to talk about how much better they deserve................