• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

More Homeless Under Obama than under Reagan (Remember the media howling then?)

zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are more homeless right now, at this point in Barack Obama's presidency, than there were at this point in Reagan's presidency. That's significant because the homeless, at this point under Reagan, were used by liberals to torpedo Reagan's reelection bid. And yet, today, liberals are completely silent about the homeless under Obama. Liberals have not turned the homeless into a propaganda issue today, as they did in the 1980s.


If they were Ronald Reagan's (or any Republican*), they would not be ignored.



Those of us who lived through it will never forget the left's unceasing campaign blaming Ronald Reagan for the homeless in the 1980s. It was a vicious campaign, replete with the typical name-calling and nasty hyperbole. To this day, liberals haven't let go.



Naturally, the mainstream media jumped on the bandwagon, merrily aiding and abetting the campaign. You couldn't turn on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather -- the worst of all of them -- without getting your regular nightly homeless update. The Big Three of Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw (CBS, ABC, and NBC) sent their camera crews across America for dramatic interviews with these suffering souls victimized by Ronald Reagan's Decade of Greed. In a snap, Phil Donahue would find himself a gorgeous, brilliant, saintly mother of four with a doctorate in astrophysics living in a dumpster in southeast D.C


Of course, once Bill Clinton became president, the tragedy was suddenly over, as the homeless magically disappeared; that is, they disappeared from media attention -- much like how Iraq immediately exited the media's headlines the day George W. Bush was gone.

Here are the facts:

The American Spectator : Obama's Homeless
Click to expand...

The Lib commentary ought to be interesting... if they offer any.

The media, if they did their job as aggressively against Obama as they had against Bush 43 or Reagan, or Bush 41... we would find Obama polling at 25%; just the lunatic base of the Socialists of America Party (SAPs) and a few naive college kids who buy the socialist claptrap because it sounds nice.
 
I like how you spelled out the acronym in there as if though we were unsure as to what you were alluding to and can't understand subtext. Truly you are a diamond in your parties crack jack prize ring.
 
JohnWOlin said:
I like how you spelled out the acronym in there as if though we were unsure as to what you were alluding to and can't understand subtext. Truly you are a diamond in your parties crack jack prize ring.
Click to expand...
ROTFLOL...
Well... you never can underestimate the density of those on the Left.... I mean Socialists of America Party (SAPs).
I understand your frustration John. You have no comment on the article, but an acronym drives you batty.

Remember to wake up really early to go vote on Nov. 7... Obama's counting on you to help the forgotten homeless.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
ROTFLOL...
Well... you never can underestimate the density of those on the Left.... I mean Socialists of America Party (SAPs).
I understand your frustration John. You have no comment on the article, but an acronym drives you batty.

Remember to wake up really early to go vote on Nov. 7... Obama's counting on you to help the forgotten homeless.
Click to expand...

The right like simple things because they are usually simple folk and cater to such. Homelessness is a symptom of many things, a recession didn't help obviously but many of the other major reasons homeless happens:
-substance abuse
-decline in public aassistance
-mental iillness
-lack of affordable healthcare.

Many of these things if are true would mean your caricatures such as the "food stamp president" would be completlely untrue. So pick your poison well con because later on you have one less argument to use.
 
No they wont be howling but instead make excuses and blame the economics of it on the Repubs, and in general, just distract from the numbers.


IMO, for the most part though, homelessness is caused by mental illness, more than anything else.
 
JohnWOlin said:
The right like simple things because they are usually simple folk and cater to such. Homelessness is a symptom of many things, a recession didn't help obviously but many of the other major reasons homeless happens:
-substance abuse
-decline in public aassistance
-mental iillness
-lack of affordable healthcare.

Many of these things if are true would mean your caricatures such as the "food stamp president" would be completlely untrue. So pick your poison well con because later on you have one less argument to use.
Click to expand...
More homeless under Obama than Reagan... and where is the press? Where are the journ-O-lists?
Where are the leftists protesting?
Where is the SAP chatter?

Why have they ignored this?

Why? We have an election for president... you don't think the people ought to know the truth?
Shouldn't this have been reported for a couple years at least?
 
zimmer said:
More homeless under Obama than Reagan... and where is the press? Where are the journ-O-lists?
Where are the leftists protesting?
Where is the SAP chatter?

Why have they ignored this?

Why? We have an election for president... you don't think the people ought to know the truth?
Shouldn't this have been reported for a couple years at least?
Click to expand...
If you want to bring attention to it in an attempt to solve the problem great.
But why bring attention to it in a political sense?
They will just blame the Rebubs for it just like JohnWOlin is attempting to do.
Nothing is ever the liberal's fault. Nothing.

They will ignore that they haven't done anything to help and just play the blame game.
 
Excon said:
If you want to bring attention to it in an attempt to solve the problem great.
But why bring attention to it in a political sense?
They will just blame the Rebubs for it just like JohnWOlin is attempting to do.
Nothing is ever the liberal's fault. Nothing.

They will ignore that they haven't done anything to help and just play the blame game.
Click to expand...

Why do it?
To illustrate further the malpractice, the one-sidedness of the media. It would not bother me in the least if they admitted their bias, but they don't; they try to sell the public a story that they are unbiased.

There just might be one voter who reads stories likes this and has an awakening. Some folks are new to politics. You never know who you might reach.

SAPs like John, AdamT, BooRadley, Muddy Creek are pretty much unreachable. Of the four John is the most thoughtful, shows moments of reflection, but as this post illustrates... he's pretty far gone as far as trying to sway.
 
zimmer said:
Why do it?
To illustrate further the malpractice, the one-sidedness of the media. It would not bother me in the least if they admitted their bias, but they don't; they try to sell the public a story that they are unbiased.

There just might be one voter who reads stories likes this and has an awakening. Some folks are new to politics. You never know who you might reach.

SAPs like John, AdamT, BooRadley, Muddy Creek are pretty much unreachable. Of the four John is the most thoughtful, shows moments of reflection, but as this post illustrates... he's pretty far gone as far as trying to sway.
Click to expand...
Thank you!
Well said!
 
You know... after further reflection... I think I know why the press hasn't covered this.

Most of the homeless are from Occupy Wall Street. And if John's claims are correct about homeless largely being mentally ill*, and have substance abuse problems; this explains Obama's base and why the press has ignored the issue.

*Most homeless are not mentally ill, but you cannot be sure about OWL; I think many are.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
You know... after further reflection... I think I know why the press hasn't covered this.

Most of the homeless are from Occupy Wall Street. And if John's claims are correct about homeless largely being mentally ill*, and have substance abuse problems; this explains Obama's base and why the press has ignored the issue.

*Most homeless are not mentally ill, but you cannot be sure about OWL; I think many are.
Click to expand...

According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, 23 percent of homeless people are reported as chronically homeless. According to HUD's definition, a person who is "chronically homeless" is an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition (e.g., substance abuse, serious mental illness, developmental disability, or chronic physical illness) who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more, or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. In order to be considered chronically homeless, a person must have been sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation and/or in an emergency homeless shelter.
Facts and Figures: The Homeless . NOW on PBS​


Mental Illness and Homelessness
Published by the National Coalition for the Homeless, July 2009

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 20 to 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness. In comparison, only 6% of Americans are severely mentally ill (National Institute of Mental Health, 2009). In a 2008 survey performed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 25 cities were asked for the three largest causes of homelessness in their communities. Mental illness was the third largest cause of homelessness for single adults (mentioned by 48% of cities). For homeless families, mental illness was mentioned by 12% of cities as one of the top 3 causes of homelessness.
[...]
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pdf​



As far as I am concerned, the "chronically homeless" are the true homeless.
The ones who go temporarily homeless have their problems solved by the programs in place, while the true homeless are the ones with mental illness causing the problem.
 
Wow, the USA has increased almost 100m in population since the '80s. Without reading the OP, which I know beforehand is a hack piece, I bet that hasnt been accounted for, but more interesting is the increase, I thought.
 
Panopticon said:
Wow, the USA has increased almost 100m in population since the '80s. Without reading the OP, which I know beforehand is a hack piece, I bet that hasnt been accounted for, but more interesting is the increase, I thought.
Click to expand...
Already looked into it.

Homelessness supposedly has doubled. Population hasn't.

But way to try and deflect and defend.
 
Incorrect. No deflect or defense of anything. (a) Thread title is a hack piece. (b) I was surprised by the related issue of the US pop increasing by 100m and continue to think that is of more interest than hackery. Not surprising if homelessness has increased given the recent little event known as the greatest financial disaster since the great depression and its unique little characteristic of having home foreclosures at its very core.
 
zimmer said:
The Lib commentary ought to be interesting... if they offer any.

The media, if they did their job as aggressively against Obama as they had against Bush 43 or Reagan, or Bush 41... we would find Obama polling at 25%; just the lunatic base of the Socialists of America Party (SAPs) and a few naive college kids who buy the socialist claptrap because it sounds nice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Obama could have done more for the homeless than he did, but Romney is proposing cuts for social programs like those that assist the homeless.

If we're hanging from a cliff by our fingers, should we vote for the guy who's ignored our plight, or for the guy wanting to stomp on our fingers?
 
ChunkySalsa said:
Yeah, Obama could have done more for the homeless than he did, but Romney is proposing cuts for social programs like those that assist the homeless.

If we're hanging from a cliff by our fingers, should we vote for the guy who's ignored our plight, or for the guy wanting to stomp on our fingers?
Click to expand...

Prosperity... jobs, a growing economy helps resolve the issue.

Obama has been adding trillions in weight as we hang by our fingers, he has been hostile to business... it hasn't helped our economy. I offer four years of evidence... and

 
I don't watch youtube videos unless they've got hot chicks or funny animals; sorry if I'm ignoring something that isn't a feculent video slapped together by a frothing at the mouth partisan.

Although I don't attribute all of it to Obama, our economy is doing better at recovery than the rest of the world. No expectations that a second Great Depression is going to go away overnight and I've read that we could be doing much worse. I'd much rather stay with the "meh" we know than someone advocating more deregulation policies like the ones that brought us to this point.

Tax revenues are at an all time percentage low and Romney wants to cut them further, giving nothing more than vague promises of loophole cuts that are highly unlikely to actually pass. He's only gonna add more weight to those trillions while taking away resources that could be used to further ameliorate the situation.
 
JohnWOlin said:
I like how you spelled out the acronym in there as if though we were unsure as to what you were alluding to and can't understand subtext. Truly you are a diamond in your parties crack jack prize ring.
Click to expand...
YOU are a diamond if you were able to draw the meaning of that acronym from that post WITHOUT his spelling it out.
 
The reason that Reagan was blamed for homelessness is that his policies did a lot to exacerbate the problem -- in particular, cutting HUD funding by approximately 75%. He also slashed spending for food stamps, health care, and drug rehabilitiation -- all programs that impact homelessness.

In contrast, the recent rise in homelesness is a result of the real estate and financial crashes that occurred during the Bush administration. Obama has been fighting for policies to limit the damage and Republicans having been resisting his every effort. That, in a nutshell, is why Reagan was blamed and why Obama isn't.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
The reason that Reagan was blamed for homelessness is that his policies did a lot to exacerbate the problem -- in particular, cutting HUD funding by approximately 75%. He also slashed spending for food stamps, health care, and drug rehabilitiation -- all programs that impact homelessness.

In contrast, the recent rise in homelesness is a result of the real estate and financial crashes that occurred during the Bush administration. Obama has been fighting for policies to limit the damage and Republicans having been resisting his every effort. That, in a nutshell, is why Reagan was blamed and why Obama isn't.
Click to expand...


Personal responsibility just doesn't seem to have a place in the democratic party. It's always someone else's fault.

Obama will bring people together? Only in the government cheese lines...
 
We should restart our system of homes for the mentally unfit. Removing this service in the 80s has been a failure.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061072315 said:
Personal responsibility just doesn't seem to have a place in the democratic party. It's always someone else's fault.

Obama will bring people together? Only in the government cheese lines...
Click to expand...

So you think the problem is personal responsibility? People just became less responsible under Reagan and during the Great Recession? Interesting theory.
 
Excon said:
If you want to bring attention to it in an attempt to solve the problem great.
But why bring attention to it in a political sense?
They will just blame the Rebubs for it just like JohnWOlin is attempting to do.
Nothing is ever the liberal's fault. Nothing.

They will ignore that they haven't done anything to help and just play the blame game.
Click to expand...

If you actually look at my post I give reasons as to why homelessness happens. I'm not blaming one party, I'm simply making fun of his because I know he got all this SAP crap and other stuff from a newsletter. He almost never has an actual point nor is rational, he simply states a problem and throws in a couple of insults directed at democrats and Obama. I have simply chosen to not ever take him seriously. Until he can go one thread without peppering it with nonsensical insults I probably never will.
 
Of course there are more homeless people under the Obama administration, the homeless rate has been increasing since Reagan took office.

You don't seriously believe the US president and the entire Congress represent the interests of the people?

The duty of every US president is to his (or her) corporate masters, and to maintain the fascist US imperial corporate war machine that prevents peace, freedom and democracy from flourishing in the world.

The homeless is an expendable item on the corporate balance sheet. Why would a US president or congress senator give a s*i* about the homeless?
 
Certainly sad to see so many struggling. On the other hand, it's somewhat predictable that the gross figure would sit a higher point than in the 80's, given a similar decline in employment, a more severe erosion of personal wealth and an additional 90 million (rough estimate) or so citizens since the beginning of the 80's. Not sure if a percentage metric is available, might be a more relevant comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom