Some people are saying the jobless are lazy bums. Sleeping and watching TV.

Abner, How many homeless are there in California? (I think that's where you are) Do you have any national numbers? Does your organization track those homeless that have substance abuse problems? Who are the largest population of homeless? Men, Women, Children, Single, Families, Race?

Is there such a thing as person who decides to be homeless? As in maybe a drug user, runaways, etc? What population of the homeless people comprise people who choose it?

 

Thats a not a bad idea. Many collect UI, take day or temp jobs, stop collecting for that period of time, then reopen their claims. In essence they cannot double dip. So it's kind of similar to what you are saying?

Abner

 

We probably have some similarities, even though I am always referred to as a "liberal". I believe welfare needs to be reserved for those that truly deserve it, or those that are truly handicapped. I DO NOT believe people should be rewarded for merely popping out kids knowing they cannot provide for them. I was in favor of Clinton's welfare to work program. Not perfect, but it was a start at least.

I believe we need to take care our citizens FIRST, before continuing to engage in nation buidling. We cannot continue to be the John Wayne of the world.

I also believe we need to look at assistance to people who are here illegally, regardless of were they come from.

So contrary to popular belief, I am not a extreme lefty.

Abner :smile:

 

More shit we agree on, hahaha.

I hope I have never accused you of being an extreme lefty. You are more leaned to the left as I am more leaned to the right. Not better, not worse, not stupid, not wrong, not superior. Different views does not mean one has to be wrong. Just different.

As to your welfare reserved for those who need it. I agree. Help the helples, forget the clueless. When I was in the Marine Corps my wife and my first child recieved WIC while I was delpoyed. It helped a lot and we kept working hard and did not need it anymore. I'm glad its there.

Since you work with a lot of homeless people, I was hoping to find out what you thought about the questions I posed above. All I have to go by, is what I have read in certain studies.

 

I will have to answer your question in generalities, as I am on the road wolfing down a sandwich as of this typing.

Here are the populations that concern me the most due to the ever growing numbers:

***Returning vets suffering from PTSD
***Homeless families with children - In order to fight to hang on to their children (as any parent would), we are seeing people use a friends mailing address to maintain the kids in school, however, the number of homeless school age children is of grave concern
***Substance abuse due to being unemployed, depression or previous or existing disorders like bipolarism. Of course, in many cases people are substance abuser for whatever reason. This will be a never ending problem. Contrary to popular belief, the average unemployed person who was working yesterday does not know to go to the ER and receive MSI for a broken bone, etc.
***In my obersvation, it seems like homelessness is more prevalent in men. Why? There are very few programs to help men, or childless women. Most of the programs (welfare or otherwise) are designed to help women with children.

In my observation, I have learned that people expect to see the typical homeless in the personification of a "hobo". However, many of the current homeless blend in quite well, as the still have to look for work and look presentable. Many will go to community college and shower or do body bath from a public restroom. So, in people mind, there are not that many homeless because they have become adept to not looking homeless for survival. Of course, you have the mentally ill who sadly will probabaly die on the streets.

Gotta run,

Abner

 

From my understanding, any employment while the person is on UI is supposed to result in the person not being eligible for UI for that time. Day or temp. labor positions go unfilled by these people because the paperwork hassle of stopping and starting a claim make it just easier to not work.

My thought is that for example someone is qualified based on past wages to earn $400/week and they find a job (any job) that pays them $200/week - they would only receive the difference in UI insurance ($200/week). If they declined the job, because they would make more for NOT working ($400 v. $200/week), they would not receive anything.

This would serve a couple of purposes in my view:
1) Jobs that people on UI are not taking because the wage is too low compared to prior jobs would get filled.
2) People on UI would have to at least do something in order to get UI.
3) It would keep the unemployed in the employed mindset so they could take advantage of opportunities when they came along, build additional skill sets, and reduce large gaps in employment history.
4) It would reduce the burden on unemployment offices that are continually having to deal with people who will not take jobs because they do not pay enough (my mother works at Wa. State Unemployment and processes appeals claims - believe me that dealing with people who will not take jobs is a SIGNIFICANT resource drain).
5) Offset UI payments with job sector contributions.

I fully realize that there are people out there who are on UI and want to work. I also realize that the longer someone gets paid for not working, the tendency to adapt to that condition becomes easier.

 

We finally agree on something! Kind of hard in my mind to justify rebuilding Afghanistan (or some of the other places we have been lately) when there is nothing there to rebuild and they will break it again as soon as we leave.

And we are back to disagreement :beerchug:

For starters - isn't public school education, healthcare in any ER as required by law, and in-state tuition enough? I am for anyone who follows the process, but I cannot extend that consideration to those who willingly choose to break the law in order to live here.

 

I see them every single day at work. Not long ago, I answered a call at a homeless shelter, and there was an unwanted 19 year-old young man who looked to be in good physical shape, but was drunk and the shelter is no-alcohol.

He was complaining about being unemployed and homeless, to which I replied there were 5 places I know that are always hiring; Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. His response was "I don't like people telling me what to do".

Which is exactly why he was an unwanted drunk at a homeless shelter.

 

Actually we are not. My bad for not clarifying. When I said We need to look at benefits for those who are here illegally, I meant looking at cuts. We don't have endless monies to help everybody, that is just the reality of the present.

Abner

 

Cuff him and ship his ass to Iraq!!!! That will cure his drinking problem. He he he!

Abner :smile:

 

I think you are a radical, extreme centrist.

 

I don't know, I think MC might be a Yippie.

Yippe Party


Youth International Party
Also known as Yippies, this organization was founded by infamous activist Abbie Hoffman and his cohorts in order to spread their anarchist and radical ideals. They made their public debut at the 1968 Democratic Convention, offering up a presidential candidate by the name of Pigasus the Immortal (it was a two-hundred-pound pig). The Yippies were anti-war, anti-establishment, and in favor of things like co-ops and alternative media sources. They used public pranks to garner attention and mock society at large. Unfortunately, these efforts didn’t always turn out well—a “Festival of Life” planned during the ’68 convention turned into violent clashes between members and the police. The party isn’t nearly as active today as it was during the ’60s and ’70s, but it still exists; there’s even a museum and café in New York dedicated to upholding its history and principles.

Abner :smile: