What did it for me was a friend who was a Democrat, and a financial adviser, and intellectually rigorous. We'd debate, and I kept having to ignore actual facts to defend my position. The cognitive dissonance got to be too much, and so was forced to change my political outlook. Made life a lot easier....
I live in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. I did research on my area and there are over a dozen shelters in the vicinity that are mostly operating on donations and volunteer workers to keep the overhead down. So if the major city I live closest to is relying on donations to operate to care for the homeless, how is that effecting taxpayers? I don't see Columbus Ohio being any different than most of the country. Then there are all the local communities with all their charitable work that isn't costing the taxpayers any money either. Their pantries, their housing, their jobs programs, their free clinics etc. So how on earth are the homeless costing taxpayers so much that providing them with apartments on the taxpayers' dime less expensive when shelters for the most part run on donations?
Did they even include what is done through charities? And if so, did they compare how far a dollar can be stretched with donated money versus government money?
Take providing food for the hungry......donated money can buy a couple of bags of groceries for 30 bucks and delivered to the one in need. To provide that same amount of staples through the government it would take $300 because the money allocated goes through a huge bureaucracy paying countless number of government employees, their wages, benefits etc. to process such a claim.
So no I don't believe the homeless are costing taxpayers as much as the OP claims.
How ya feelin? You're sounding better. *hug* And where is SMW?
Our Post Office dropped off huge plastic bags that we can fill with clothes, shoes. etc that we want to donate. Are they doing that in your area too? In years past, I have donated garden produce to the Food Bank and our local Haven of Rest, but our growing season has been so crappy for the past two years that I have had to go to the Farmers Market just to buy what I needed to can and dehydrate for Winter. Fortunately all charities are just as happy to get money, though, so I've done that. They were so happy to get herbs, Vesper, that now I grow more specifically just to give them. I know you said you grow herbs, so you might ask if they might want some if you have an excess. They said nobody thinks of herbs, and the Haven cooks meals every day for the hungry and everyone is welcome. Those volunteers are so darn nice it's a joy to help, but it seems like things are getting worse instead of better, even with food stamps! What is going on in America? Sad...
And it should.
Homeless, or housing deficiency has been an issue in Vancouver for over a decade. What I can tell you is that about every general claim made in here is accurate, both for and against.
As an addictions worker, drug dependency is extremely high, if you will pardon the pun, it is how they became homeless. For the addicted, you give him a home and he has more $ to spend on drugs and will.
It does not cost less to provide free housing, simply cannot happen. Free housing increases homelessness as addicts from regions that don't will move to the one that does in a never ending cycle. It has been proven here as successive "progressive" city councils have tried, the current mayor once promised to abolish homelessness by 2015, guess what?
What we have done is create "shelters" in out of the way areas, in other words swept it under the rug.
What is working? A treatment/housing/incentive program for addicts, where you treat the cause....drug addiction. that works, is the longest and least effective, but is the least costly in the long run.
Will any politicians actually commit in a large way?
"Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt
Pol, I'm not sold on the idea that things are really getting worse all over. I think there is an effort to make it appear that way. After all one must create a crisis because you
"never let a good crisis go to waste". Isn't that what Rahm Emanuel told us? The crisis is needed in order to get folks readily on board for a new government program.
Now there are no doubt pockets of the population where things have gotten worse especially in the inner cities where poverty levels are high due to a number of reasons (addictions, single mother births, poorly educated, and lack of employment opportunities,) and a good percentage of these folks have criminal records which makes them less desirable to be hired for a position.
The number of folks on food stamps gives the appearance that many more folks are struggling but it was Obama and the Democrat Congress between 2008-2010 that lowered the bar allowing more folks to qualify. They did the same thing with disability. They had allocated so much money to the program that the government went to advertising in the media to encourage people to sign up. In order for the government to justify the amount of money they are spending on a program they have to have the numbers to back it up. Today, there are a good number collecting food stamps that really shouldn't be.
Like I stated earlier, there are over a dozen shelters in the Columbus vicinity that operate for the most part on donations. There are three Salvation Army shelters. They address the cause of homelessness. They have drug rehabilitation programs, job training programs to help people to become self-sufficient as do other organizations. But it takes a person wanting to change their ways of living. There are success stories you hear little about. And there are many who are temporarily without a home who need a helping hand. But there are a number of homeless who want to remain homeless by choice. At times you see them pushing their grocery carts with all their belongings. It's their choice.
Last edited by vesper; 06-11-15 at 06:56 AM.
Last edited by JayDubya; 06-11-15 at 07:23 AM.
And the reason the findings are plausible to me is based on other studies about medical costs, mainly. Several studies have shown that a small share of the insureds incur the vast majority of resources, and that devoting extensive resources to that population (more or less personal health coaches who contact them at least weekly, often daily) does save a LOT of money, real expenditures by for profit insurers. The same approach is being used here, and it seems entirely possible that a housing first model would save money over the long term for some share of the chronically homeless.
The main problems with this study are that it was very limited - 85 people in some sense 'cherry picked' from the broader population of homeless. It's not at all clear this can be expanded and have the same results. Second, they did measure medical saving based on billing and that is entirely different than costs, almost surely billing (the sticker) is a multiple of costs.
In our area the 'blueprint' as they called it included multiple approaches, including expanding access to treatment and limited housing first program. And I don't have a problem with identifying the 'hopeless' cases, basically those with multiple risk factors that simply cannot be reasonably expected to ever be self sufficient, and providing some long term housing options to them.What is working? A treatment/housing/incentive program for addicts, where you treat the cause....drug addiction. that works, is the longest and least effective, but is the least costly in the long run.
Will any politicians actually commit in a large way?
If only we'd seen it sooner, that governance by those who just lie all the time - like you seem to think - results in a better standard of living for the population! Brilliant!
“To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn
"...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump