housing for the homeless is great and all... but some of them are teh farking crazy.

in fact, alot of them are teh farking crazy.

Massachusetts to spend waste $10 million addressing homelessness by giving the homeless their own apartments, telling them to wait a week until stripping the wiring and plumbing for bottles of Cisco Red


FTFY, Subby.

Also, this thread requires a link to an awesome website:

www.bumwine.com (new window)

If the homeless have homes then who will we give change to? Riddle me that, scientist.

They never heard of drinking buddiess ?

"The hardest part is living alone - especially when struggling to stay sober," he said.

Because it takes alcoholism to be homeless in Massachusetts.

/Have you seen the housing prices around here?

Programs like these tend to require making a note here about their Huge Success.

ER visits for one hobo can be over 100K per year, giving them a place so they won't get frostbite and have the opportunity to clean up and apply for jobs saves the government assloads of money and improves quality of life for the poorest among us at the same time.

You know that guy at work that spends more time and energy getting out of doing work than it would take to just do the work? Homeless people are that guy taking it to an extreme.

Didn't this work in some other city? San Francisco or Denver or some place? There was a fark article about it. I know it just said projected savings and all but they weren't having a huge homeless problem anymore.

Extractorator: housing for the homeless is great and all... but some of them are teh farking crazy.

in fact, alot of them are teh farking crazy.

That's not a coincidence. Many, many homeless need care and treatment BECAUSE they're farking crazy. During the Reagan administration and his time as governor of CA, he said that the homeless chose to be homeless while emptying the mental hospitals into the streets and cutting the department of housing and urban development MASSIVELY.

66% of American homeless have mental illness or some form of drug or alcohol abuse problem. Do you think they can viably get a job?

Let's not even talk about the humanitarian issue. Let's just be realistic and talk about what we stand to gain by improving homeless care, building more shelters and homeless housing, and basically making this a welfare state for the lowest of the low (yes, I said welfare state).

The question is about keeping the homeless off the street as a benefit, not a moral obligation. They're either on the streets or under our care for some period. If they're under our care, they drain our money but they're off the streets and actually getting help. If we ignore them, then they flood the streets, dropping property values, make neighborhoods (especially urban neighborhoods) much more unpleasant to live in, and basically make our cities worse. It's a cost/benefit question.

Massachusetts to spend waste $10 million

Why, because they're lazy bums who live on the street by choice?

Lehk: Programs like these tend to require making a note here about their Huge Success.

ER visits for one hobo can be over 100K per year, giving them a place so they won't get frostbite and have the opportunity to clean up and apply for jobs saves the government assloads of money and improves quality of life for the poorest among us at the same time.

Same reason we need to overhaul the health care system and not simply make it a further privatized monstrosity that puts profit over actual health care.

Either way, even if you hate all humanity and government and think that welfare is Satanic, you need to realize that your environment WILL IMPROVE with programs to take care of the homeless. Keep saying "Oh, but then they won't want to get jobs!" Do you think they're getting jobs anyway? Do you think they CAN realistically get jobs, get apartments, rebuild their lives without help?


Frankly, we'll see much more benefit much faster by pouring money into homeless programs than we've seen yet in any form from the Iraq war. And sadly, yes, I admit the Iraq war is the new domestic policy Godwin, but it's a comparison for a point. With the money we've sunk there, we could have made America a lot better.

Bloody William: The question is about keeping the homeless off the street as a benefit, not a moral obligation. They're either on the streets or under our care for some period. If they're under our care, they drain our money but they're off the streets and actually getting help. If we ignore them, then they flood the streets, dropping property values, make neighborhoods (especially urban neighborhoods) much more unpleasant to live in, and basically make our cities worse. It's a cost/benefit question.

Homeless shelters also create jobs and opportunities for community service. Put that in the 'plus' column.

Force all the homeless people to work in a bootstrap factory, and pay them in vouchers so they can't buy drugs or alcohol--only buy bootstraps. Then, when they've earned enough bootstraps, they can pull themselves up by them and I think that fixes everything, from what I have heard.

Massachusetts enjoy your wave of bums infesting your area once word of this gets out.

Open back up the mental care units and expand the VA system for long term care of our vets with mental illness. Make it available to those able to work have dibs on basic civil service jobs so they can earn there keep. Cut military budget by 20 % and the billions saved could go to social services and infrastructure to secure America's future at home not abroad. Hell you don't need 4 branches of the military at tops just two would be more then enough. Same goes with the all the branches of intelligence services you just need two. The solution to balancing budget is restructuring federal services not expanding them.

They did this in Seattle and it was a huge success. The cost of ER treatment for the homeless during Boston winters must be astronomical and I bet this well help in a very good way.

Shaggy_C: Bloody William: The question is about keeping the homeless off the street as a benefit, not a moral obligation. They're either on the streets or under our care for some period. If they're under our care, they drain our money but they're off the streets and actually getting help. If we ignore them, then they flood the streets, dropping property values, make neighborhoods (especially urban neighborhoods) much more unpleasant to live in, and basically make our cities worse. It's a cost/benefit question.

Homeless shelters also create jobs and opportunities for community service. Put that in the 'plus' column.

but only jobs for communists, because that's all they hire. and once inside, they train the homeless to be gay abortion doctors.

/or so my republican friends tell me

So if I move to Boston, get myself an addiction & act like a lunatic I'll get a free apartment?

/Throws stuff in a shopping cart.
//Cocaine, I'm comin' back for ya, baby.

Extractorator: housing for the homeless is great and all... but some of them are teh farking crazy.

in fact, alot of them are teh farking crazy.

hence they should be housed in an insane asylum

/fark reagan

BobtheFascist: So if I move to Boston, get myself an addiction & act like a lunatic I'll get a free apartment?

/Throws stuff in a shopping cart.
//Cocaine, I'm comin' back for ya, baby.

Why do I think no one will become homeless and unemployed just to get temporary free housing.

Most are mentally ill. Reagan cut a crap load of institutional funding with some of the Dems and all of the Republicans playing along. This led to a homeless farking explosion.

I was born in 1970 and can remember a time with much less homelessness.

Lehk: Programs like these tend to require making a note here about their Huge Success.

ER visits for one hobo can be over 100K per year, giving them a place so they won't get frostbite and have the opportunity to clean up and apply for jobs saves the government assloads of money and improves quality of life for the poorest among us at the same time.

That's crazy talk. Next thing you're going to say is that needle exchanges, where addicts hand in old needles for an equal number of clean needles, reduces the spread of HIV and keeps parks clean of stray needles.

Arthur Jumbles: Lehk: Programs like these tend to require making a note here about their Huge Success.

ER visits for one hobo can be over 100K per year, giving them a place so they won't get frostbite and have the opportunity to clean up and apply for jobs saves the government assloads of money and improves quality of life for the poorest among us at the same time.

That's crazy talk. Next thing you're going to say is that needle exchanges, where addicts hand in old needles for an equal number of clean needles, reduces the spread of HIV and keeps parks clean of stray needles.

Social programs are communist and make us weak and lazy as a nation! WELFARE STATE! WELFARE STATE!

My girlfriend busts her ass at a stressful job, working for an a-hole doctor all day so she can spend 1/4 of her income on housing. When does she get her free apartment? I spend 1K on rent in cambridge so i can get under a mountain of educational debt. When do I get my free apartment? My best friend does customer service for a farking shoe retailer so he can have a nice place to live and food and some spending money. When does he get his free apartment? When does he get his check?

bartink: Reagan cut a crap load of institutional funding with some of the Dems and all of the Republicans playing along. This led to a homeless farking explosion.

Yay, another round of "when in doubt, piss on Reagan".

Sorry, but the deinstitutionalization fad didn't have much to do with presidents, and began while Reagan was still making movies - in 1955. Here's a 1979 snapshot showing the problem in full bloom.

And here's a handy graph from PBS showing deinstitutionalization slowing somewhat in the late 70's and 80's. Which also makes it pretty easy to see that no president had much of anything to do with the failures of deinstitutionalization.

b...b...b...b... but the gubberment!!!

We tried 20 years of fail, it's time to have a coherent society with single digit poverty rates and 1-2% unemployment like Scandinavian countries. Oh and a farkload better education, health, safety and infrastructure.

So, bug whoop I have to pay more taxes, I've lived with these low American taxes and I'm no farking millionaire yet.

Bring them 40-50% income tax!

Think whatever you like about the reasons for poverty, but it has very little to do with homelessness. I've never spoken to a single street-type homeless person who'd be able to hold down a job. Poor people who just need a hand can usually get one, long term homelessness is a different animal.

I see no reason not to try this, it'll probably be easier and cheaper in the long run. I think the real problem will be that the hardcore homeless won't make the transition even if you give them apartments for no cost.