Homelessness: A Fringe Issue?
WELCOME!
This semester our focus will revolve around the Town Hall Meeting.
During the Spring 2009 Town Hall Meeting, students from US 101 will facilitate an evening of discussion and awareness-raising on topics pulled from The Soloist. This book explores the nature of interconnectedness amongst joblessness, homelessness, and mental illness.
This discussion will start here! Via “blogging” our students will have the opportunity to discuss similar ideas with students from other US 101sections. The responses will help you reflect upon your own thinking, while examining and responding to your peers’ writing. Through your responses, you will learn how to better articulate your ideas while examining and incorporating multiple perspectives.
Have fun and starting ‘bloggin’…
Giving a negative connotation to the entire homeless population isn’t appropriate. Some homeless people drunkenly act like they’re the street or sidewalk owners; others keep a low profile. Some are a panhandling pest; others hold down one or two jobs. Some use their funds for drugs and alcohol; others use it to support their three-child family.
rebecca.ziegler Reply:
February 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
@spencer.stilwell,
You mentioned some negative aspects of the homeless population (including “panhandling pests” “use funds for drugs and alcohol” etc). I am interested in hearing more about why “a negative connotation” should not be given if you are also admitting that there are many negatives, as well.
Also, other than witnessing homeless people, how do you know what’s going on with them like you described? Are there specific sources you used to come to your conclusions?
Most of all- expand on your point about not giving the homeless population a negative connotation. Why? Prove that homeless people do not deserve to be generalized- evolve an argument from here.
Gladwell’s article, while it brings up homelessness and some of the issues surrounding it, is ineffective in honestly addressing the situation. All the article seems to achieve is exacerbating the situation by condoning another level of generalizations, which are spread throughout article. He uses faulty parallels that oversimplify the issue and represent the homeless population incorrectly. Those who are homeless are so for several different reason, some are like Murray and need supervision to function but others have their own needs. Although society looks down upon homelessness no one has the ability to decide what is or is not the right way to live. Every home and family in our society has its own system, some are full of abuse and addiction. To judge others living conditions without out looking at the person individually is a prejudice towards that person. Sometimes there is no short cuts and no solutions and the issue is still left needing to be solved on a one on one basis. Graph, charts, surveys, and studies can only produce trends of information, but these trends never tell why. Since that is the case and a solution needs a reason trends cannot produce answers. This may be just one problem that cannot be solved only improved.
emily.edwards Reply:
February 16th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
@emily.gilbert,
You mention that every home or family has its own system and also that no one has the ability to decide what is or is not the right way to live.
Are we as a society accountable to one another? Don’t we as a society have our own system? Shouldn’t we be able to determine a way to help our members live a life where they can be healthy and safe? Shouldn’t that be part of our system?
Growing populations of the homeless are families. In 2001, New York City alone had 6,252 families who are homeless. Those families had over twenty thousand individuals. Forty percent of homeless males have served in the military. An estimated twenty-five percent of the adult homeless population is struggling with a chronic mental illness (NYPIRG’s Homeless Outreach Project). Prostitutes use Port-a-Potties as an “office”. Dealers sell dope, knowing that the only way for their customers is down. Babies are delivered on the sidewalk (Lopez, 2005). We are more comfortable just walking past beggars on the street, or rolling up our windows when we are stopped at corners where they stand. Whether we help the homeless by using Mangano’s plan, or ignore them and help the low income people, there is a question of morality. The problem is so severe that something must be done, and soon. Mangano’s ide4a would save a plethora of taxpayers’ money. Those savings could theoretically go towards the low income citizens. We need to end the suffering of these people, and this is a perfect plan.
kaley.parks Reply:
February 16th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
@sarah.stankewitz, Even though Mangano has valid points and a plan that seems logical when it comes to the statistics, would this plan work on a country-wide scale? It seems that when it comes to the homeless, there always seems to be a loser. Who is more in need/deserving of the help when it comes to the families, mentally ill, drug abusers etc.? Is it the economic issue that is more important or the moral issue? From the essay it sounds as though the chronically homeless should be given apartments. How are the rules going to be set when it comes down to who is given an apartment and who is not? Medical bills? Responsibility? The biggest family?
andrew.daigh Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
@sarah.stankewitz, The majority of homeless populations in America are families that have hit a financial rock bottom and are forced to leave their homes. Generally it is these families who receive special benefits after claiming homelessness. Homeless families are invited into shelters and soup kitchens until they can redeem their original lifestyles. Homeless families are often prioritized when receiving government aid because the children of the family are always a main concern. When a mother of four goes homeless, her children are always the most worried about in society. The government sees homeless children who are living within their parent’s mistakes and instantly funds them because their homelessness is not the kids fault.
Although homeless families receive a majority of free hospitalities in America, they are never the main issue when it comes to the national homeless problem. Homeless families are usually honored to get help; they are never nasty or unthankful. However, the homeless that take advantage of the governments funding are the people who need to be watched. In the story Million Dollar Murray, Murray Barr is a homeless belligerent drunk who racks up a hefty hospital bill around 1,000,000 dollars. Murray is extremely disrespectful to the authorities and doctors that treat him daily, and Murray is not in any hurry to change his ways. People like Murray Barr are the ones who need to be cut off from free services, not the poor mother of four who may have hit a few bumps in the road along the way.
emily.edwards Reply:
February 19th, 2009 at 10:46 am
@andrew.daigh,
Based on Gladwell’s essay, I do not see how Murray is a “belligerent drunk . . .extremely disrespectful to the authorities and doctors that treat him daily . . .not in any hurry to change his ways”
Gladwell does say that “Even when he was abusive, we’d say, ‘Murray, you know you love us,’ and he’d say, ‘I know’—and go back to swearing at us.’”
From what we see in this essay, he could have a mean streak when he was drunk. But even more than that, Gladwell paints Murray as a person who struggles with his addiction, makes several attempts at sobriety, manages to hold a job, and makes connections with those emergency care providers to the point that the police department honored Murray with a moment of silence when he died.
It’s true that Murray does not overcome his addiction. But even when someone struggles, even when someone can have a mean streak, should we “cut off” these very human members of our society?
As homelessness continues to bleed out nation, healthy American taxpayers struggle to keep desperate homeless people alive and put food on their very own tables. Moreover, what gives Americans the motive to work so hard when it is proven you will be taken care of even if you so not contribute in out society? Is it that the standard of living has gone up, or is it the fact that people fear the embarrassment and discomfort of going homeless? I have never disagreed or looked down upon homelessness however, it is wrong for homeless people to receive free food, shelter, and especially free medical attention when millions of others have to struggle to pay for the same hospitalities.
Homeless individuals account for roughly one percent(about 3.5 million people)of the population.(www.washprofile.org)With only 3.5 million, it is not out of the question to do away with homelessness completely. However the funding will have to come straight from American taxpayers, and that is not something that everyone can agree on or even afford. Eliminating homelessness in America births an ever evolving problem because if we just give every homeless person a house and food, Americans would cheat the system and try to seek homelessness. Although homelessness is often looked down upon in American culture, if you asked a homeless person for their opinion on ending homelessness they would probably say, “Forget it, I love being homeless, it’s effortless and cheap.”
liberty.stubbs Reply:
February 11th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
@andrew.daigh,
Andrew,
After reading your excerpt on the topic of homelessness as a “fringe issue”, I feel obliged to question and challenge your reasoning and arguments. One of the issues that Gladwell addresses in his essay and your main argument in your excerpt is that giving the homeless “free food, shelter, and especially free medical attention” is morally wrong and unfair to those who work hard and still struggle to pay bills and “put food on their very own tables.” I agree that Americans living in poverty and struggling to get by should not be responsible for ending homelessness. They deserve a helping hand just as much as homeless people. However, America is the wealthiest nation and even though the economy at risk right now, we still have millions of people living in excess luxury. You argue it isn’t fair for those that work hard for their excessive income to contribute some of their money to end the plague of homelessness. But is it fair that some people are more fortunate than others? What you forget to mention in your excerpt is that a large percent of chronically homeless people have mental illnesses and drug and alcohol addictions. You forget to say there are many women out there living on the streets with their children because they have an abusive husband at home, and they don’t have any other place to go. You also overlooked that many of the homeless people grew up homeless or in a dire environment, and they don’t know of anything else. You stereotype homeless people in your concluding sentence, ignorantly stating that all homeless people like to live on the streets because “it’s effortless and cheap.” I’m sure there are homeless people out there that choose that lifestyle, but what about those people I mentioned that fall into the categories where they never had the choice?
As I was reading Million-Dollar Murray, I had the same mentality that you have. I thought it was morally wrong to simply give away free apartments. But as I thought about it more and did some research, it came to me that some people are not as fortunate as I am. Some people didn’t grow up in a pleasant environment as I did and many people don’t get the opportunities that I do. These people that never had the choice deserve to be helped. An article that I read in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle and a topic I talked about in my paper was a girl at Bozeman High School that was living in her car in the high school parking lot. Her mom left her with relatives when she was young and then her relatives abandoned her to the state when she was ten. She lived in a group home for eight years and as soon as she turned 18, she was forced to leave with absolutely nothing but her car and a job at a gas station. Here is a girl that has been abandoned all her life and now she is supposed to support herself without absolutely no one to help her and she hasn’t even graduated yet. Put yourself in her shoes and ask yourself this question: is it wrong for her to receive free food, shelter, and medical attention?
This is not a problem that America or American taxpayers can afford to remedy. The national debt is $10,644,942,356,110.62(brillig.com). All of these funds for building apartments and nonstop care would come straight from the taxpayer’s pocket. We need to prioritize issues in the United States; health care, education, a failing economy, housing markets, and the stock market all need to be adressed before homelessness. I am not numb to the problem and I do believe it is a problem, but the fact is that it cant be fixed yet.
What about the fact that some people want to be homeless in the first place? There are many people that do not want a structered life. They do not want to contribute to society. I viewed a television show on A&E called Intervention a few years ago and it has stuck with me ever since. It was about a young man who had a nice family and enough opportunities to make a great life. The young man had no ambition to do anything with his life except be an alcoholic and live on the streets. He said himself that there was nothing he wanted more than to feed off of society. They sent him to rehab but as soon as he was out he cracked open a beer(aetv). Because of this there will always be a homeless problem.
gwendolyn.dodge Reply:
February 13th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
@taylor.mcdowell,
@taylor.mcdowell
Dear Taylor,
I understand your beliefs about not being able to pay for the homeless problems and the fact that there are “more important issues” that should be addressed first. However, your approach seems to me, to be a little bit off. Homelessness is a problem that Americans and taxpayers cannot afford to not pay attention to. As you said, the national debt is outrageously high ($10,725,814,332,895.52 on February 12, 2009) and all the funds are coming out of taxpayer’s pockets (www.brillig.com). A good portion of our debt is in fact from the taxpayers and governmental officials as much as anybody else. The United States is constantly striving to maintain our world position and is therefore borrowing more and more money from other countries and becoming in debt to those countries (crissinmonblog.blogspot.com). Another factor of our debt, is the picture that has evolved from our own culture, that of a “need to have” culture. Everywhere we turn, we are pushed and harassed into buying different frivolous things that often we do not need. With the invention of the credit card, the national debt became far worse, since people were no longer restrained from buying all of these different things; in fact, we were encouraged more than not. As for the homeless issue, when you say that Americans cannot afford to remedy the problem, I can’t help but think, “That is exactly the reasoning that has helped develop this problem in the first place.” There is already money going into helping the homeless problem, either with the shelters, the meal wagons, or providing the chronically homeless with housing. By providing housing and attempting to target the actual issue of homelessness instead of just trying to put a mask on it, the cost per homeless person can be reduced from $10,000 to $6,000 annually (Million Dollar Murray pg 8). So, if by solving the homeless problem step by step we can help cut back on the national debt, even if just a little bit, then why don’t we?
Gwendolyn
spencer.stilwell Reply:
February 16th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
@taylor.mcdowell,
Hello Taylor,
First off, I agree with your claim that homelessness is not one of the top priorities which the United States needs to fix, but let’s look at it from a different perspective of the American taxpayers. Now, initially, there hasn’t been a lot of work done which has taken a large portion of taxpayers’ money, but yes, a portion of that money ends up helping the homeless. My first question is: how much money really goes to the homeless issue? My point is that tax-money isn’t being spent only on homelessness; not even a relatively large amount. Taxation mainly contributes to expenditures other main issues such as war, law enforcement, economic infrastructure, public works, and public services, to name a few. Homelessness is a very specific and relatively finite issue which gets its funding several bucks at a time from the gratuitous amount of American taxpayers. Yes, it may be another small tax burden, but do Americans complain more about spending their taxes on homelessness or war? I’ll take war. Plus, when it comes to many issues including homelessness, the financial numbers can be deceiving. The entire population of the United States is not going to pay off the 10 trillion dollar debt. Taxes soften the situation a little at a time.
Also, further working off my point of the relatively small amount of taxpayers’ money spent on homelessness. There are some people that spend more money on homelessness by giving away money to panhandlers compared to the money they contribute to homelessness through their tax funds. Their giving is extra, volunteered, ungoverned taxes. My question is how much, specifically, is the average American taxpayer spending on homelessness? Are they spending $100.00 or $10.00 or $0.10?
haakon.johnson Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Dear Taylor,
Is the homelessness issue in the United Sates a problem that needs to be solved promptly? The chronically homeless are truly a strain on taxpayers and the economy in general, but are there more urgent economic threats in the never ending agenda of the U.S. government? Indeed, I agree with you when you say the U.S. has higher priorities. In your article, you express that the issue of homelessness is not something that the taxpayers can afford. You also point out that our country needs to tackle the most urgent issues first, saying, “We need to prioritize issues in the United States; health care, education, a failing economy, housing markets, and the stock market all need to be addressed before homelessness.” This statement is absolutely true. Another article expressed the true problem with housing and wages, by stating, “There are places in every state where someone working full-time for minimum wage, or even above it, will not be able to afford housing”(homlessness.suite101). This statement backs up the fact that the housing market is hurting, and maybe by stabilizing it, the homeless issue will improve. Therefore, the major vices that bind our economy are more urgent than homelessness. Besides, in order to truly help the homeless situation our economy needs to be stable.
Later in your article, a scenario that you watched unfold on a reality television series was discussed. This television show displayed a young man who did not except any help and wanted to leach off of the economy. Also, you express the young man’s stubbornness by stating, “They sent him to rehab but as soon as he was out he cracked open a beer. Because of this there will always be a homeless problem” (Mcdowell). This statement is very appropriate and puts many homeless situations into perspective by making readers realize that not all of the homeless crave intervention or help. In some cases, the homeless that are chemically dependent need freedom in the shelter to accept it as a home. An article in USA Today discussed a shelter called Safe Haven, saying, “At the 2-month-old Safe Haven, the first shelter of its kind in the city, there is no curfew and no requirement that residents give up alcohol or drugs in order to have a bed”(http://www.usatoday.com/ ). Programs like this allow chemically dependant homeless to continue with their destructive habits; homeless like the young man you discussed. This program could help the medical aspect of the homeless problem. Therefore, by keeping the homeless off the streets they are healthier, which means less visits to the doctor, in which taxpayers pick up the bill. The downside to this “Safe Haven”, is the fact that the homeless are not really receiving help, but sometimes allowing them to carry on with their habits is the only way to lure them off the streets. All this raises the question, “What can be done?”
The perception of homeless people that seems to be throughout our society is they are all alcoholics, and they spend all their money on alcohol. That they have no home and get too drunk to hold jobs. So they turn to begging for money on the street corners. In some cases this might be true, but Gladwell explains Dennis Culhane’s theory on homelessness. “”We found that eighty percent of the homeless were in and out really quickly,” he said. “In Philadelphia, the most common length of time that someone is homeless is one day. And the second most common length is two day. And they never come back. Anyone who ever has to stay in shelter involuntarily knows that all you think about is how to make sure you never come back.””(p.3). This statement is proof that not all homeless people are what they call “Chronically homeless”. That in fact some people try very hard to make a good life for themselves and their family. Everyone has troubles, and sometimes people have problems that they can’t control. They end up losing their homes, and are forced to be on the streets. The embarrassment and the shame our society puts on homelessness, makes most people do everything in their power to get back on track in their lives. Our society doesn’t see that part though. We lump every homeless person into the chronically homeless category, which are usually older men who live in the shelters years at a time. Many are mentally ill or physically disable. These are the ones that most people think about when they see people sleeping on the sidewalks, begging for money or drunk on the streets. Actually, this is only 10% of the true homeless population. This 10% is the group that tends to have many health care issues.
There are people in about every single “big city”, as well as some in smaller cities, who habitually reside on the streets that are in constant need of medical attention and other kinds of help. There are the people that end up spending almost all of the money that they manage to acquire mostly on alcohol or drugs, and so they often become addicted and overdose, ending up in the hospital. However, these people make up a very little percentage of all the homeless people out on the streets. Most of the homeless out on the streets are only there for short time periods, generally no more than two to four days. These homeless people end up on the streets for tons of different reasons. Some get laid off from their job or lose their house in the path of nature such as a hurricane or fire. Others may have a mental illness that is not quite severe enough to be put into an institution. Or they could have been in a mental institution and been released when the government decided that they couldn’t hold everybody. Nevertheless, the smallest portions of people are the ones with the most problems. In Gladwell’s essay, he brings attention to the fact that we really need to do something about those problems. He proposes quite often that we go and give the most severe cases a second chance in a way: instead of just leaving the problem alone and ignoring it, he says that we should go out and try to help them, and give them something to work for. One idea he expresses was to give them their own apartment. By paying for them to have their own apartment and trying to get them integrated back into society, it will not only be cheaper in the long run, but give them hopes for a better life. I think that the general idea is really good behind that philosophy, but it is extremely unfair. There are people that are working two to three jobs just to get by. Those people are living in run-down apartments living pay check to pay check. In the Million-Dollar Murray he states that they can either be true to their principles or fix the problem, but not both.
kent.davis Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 9:04 am
@gwendolyn.dodge,
Gwendolyn - How should we address the unfairness that you see here? Is it a question of reallocating funds for the chronically homeless to low income housing for the working poor? What are the implications of such a shift?
You also state that you think that the idea of providing chronically homeless is generally a good idea. How does this jive with your stance that it is unfair? Can those two concepts live side-by-side? if such a program is unfair, shouldn’t we discontinue it in the place of something else that is fair? What would that look like?
At this time in America with the Iraqi war still going on, and with the economy taking one of its largest falls in history, this is no time to be extra lienient with the money that we do have by “giving” it to the homeless. The government should make a strict set of guidelines and restrictions for which the homeless receive benefits. They could start with a no alcoholism/drug abuse rule, in which the homeless were only eligible if they stopped drinking or using drugs, because that is a most likely reason as to how they got there in the first place. Second they could make behavior a major part of it. They could require that the person receiving the benefits was not trashing what was given to them, and if they mess up they are out. Another major point would be to stop helping any alcoholics, who are passed out on the street, with medical care. It was stated by writer Malcolm Gladwell that in one instance an individual had been taken to the hospital for alcohol abuse nearly ninety times in just over a year (Gladwell 4). This is just unacceptable, if a homeless person is not going to learn to lay off the drugs and alcohol after the first ten times of being hospitalized there is absolutely no reason why the government, and in turn the taxpayers of the U.S. should be helping that person. It shows a complete lack of responsibility, and a complete disregard for caring about their situation.
This is an aspect of the homelessness situation that Malcolm doesn’t spend too much time on in his essay, other than to say that its happening, but he should put more of an objection to it in his essay. It’s almost as if he supports the situation which is just mind blowing, and ridiculous. There are hundreds of thousands of college students in the U.S. who would be more than happy to receive some benefits, which granted some and many do, but not to the amount of 29 billion dollars a year and they are actually trying to get somewhere and make a name for themselves. There are also hundreds of thousands of less fortunate families out there, living in poverty, who could use a little extra money. Or for instance cancer patients who can’t afford treatment. There are any numbers of people who are much more deserving of the government aid.
brycen.ek Reply:
February 10th, 2009 at 11:31 am
@keaton.corbitt,
Keanton,
In response to your excerpt regarding homelessness as a “fringe issue,” I am compelled to address some factors of your argument. While your assumptions and ideas are respectable, I want to address items in your argument that could reflect stronger aspects of critical thinking. You stated “it’s almost,” that he agrees on the idea of “giving” out free money and homes to the homeless. Do you feel that “almost” is enough to make full assumptions and call out that Gladwell has a “ridicules” stance on the statistics of his research? Which of his stances are “mind-blowing” the idea that homelessness is an issue which needs to be reevaluated, or that of “giving” “money”? Nonetheless you submit, which I feel is extremely important to question, and that is when is research objective, and is it ever completely unbiased?
Another idea you may want to contract upon is, if the homeless who were eligible to obtain “resources” from the government were to be strictly drug/alcohol free, who would assist in the process and rehabilitation? Are addicted individuals able to complete the steps necessary to situate themselves in an environment needed to obtain “help?”
As you brought up, those who “should not be taken care of by the government or the tax payers because they are either addicted to drugs or alcohol.” Now, we know through scientific research that addictions are not chosen by individuals. To cast away members of society, Americans or not, suffering from a genetic disability brings up multiple problematic questions of who is allowed in society, and to what extent are individuals willing to give to others, based on factions of genetics. No doubt it is difficult to allocate resources to those as you state not “making a name for themselves,” however, students, impoverished families, and the elderly are benefiting from multiple federal, state and local funds. Are individuals who chose or not, rightfully forgotten by the state? Which funds given by the state to individual are “fair?”
Brycen
With the economy where it sits today, and with the many other world problems arising on a daily basis, there are more important things to solve in America today than giving the homeless apartments. For now, things should be kept the way they are, until there is a better, more fair solution to the problem. Our government needs to keep their options open, and not just go all out on one solution that needs so much time and effort. We do not need to fix the homeless solution now, because it is more important to make sure that most of all Americans don’t become homeless in the coming years.
cory.watkins Reply:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
@sean.retmier,
sean,
i agree with you all the way. With the economy failing and the debt that America is in, we as citizens need to focus on bigger and better situations. You explained well but could expand on the issues and let people know what exactly you were talking about. In the long run though, we do need to focus on things such as the money problems, so we don’t end up in a great depression and more than half of America is living on the streets.
Cory
joseph.sweeney Reply:
February 21st, 2009 at 6:28 pm
@sean.retmier, Valid point, but you’re overlooking the fact that the homeless currently leech our health care taxes to a very unhealthy extent. In fact, this may be what we need to focus on in order to insure less people become homeless who aren’t now. In major cities, health care costs between $450,000-750,000 per sick homeless person, per major city, on an annual basis, and that is what is making health care for working Americans such a drag. The simple, ingenious, albeit unfair solution? Make the homeless, not homeless!
It wouldn’t, of course, cure the solution, but bandage it temporarily while saving millions of taxpayers billions of dollars! It seems that maintaining fairness, as well as our dignity, is getting in the way of finding a solution that would help everyone. The homeless would have a roof over their head, and we wouldn’t have to pay 1,500 dollars or so on a daily basis on a single homeless person’s health care (in just ONE city, mind you) but about 23 dollars for their rent. A year’s rent for a single homeless person would end up being about $8,400 versus $500,000 in medical expenses they’ve built up living dangerously and unhealthily in the streets. It seems like a no-brainer.
Once again, this is not to suggest we stamp this as our permanent solution to end homeless by simply giving everyone a home. What really needs to be done is provide this temporary fix so our taxpayers can save some money while a better solution is discovered. With that extra tax money, perhaps we can build more and better shelters? Provide food stamps so they don’t have to eat out of the dumpster? Or, best option yet, let the taxpayers keep their money, as well as their house. If more people were aware of how much money they would save buying homes for the homeless versus paying their medical bills, more would probably jump onto this bandwagon of thought. Not completely fair, sure, but at least the country is saving billions of dollars, right?
paul.sannes Reply:
February 26th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
@sean.retmier,
It’s really hard to riff on something that you are only given a little bit to go on don’t you think?. Um, when you say “There are more important things to solve in America today then giving the homeless apartments”. I can see your reasoning with your statement, but have you looked at the consequences if we don’t do something about it?. What I think you probably didn’t know that there is a program called “Housing First,” that is taking the country by storm and has great success so far. The mythology of this program is to put the homeless in thier own apartments, but they have to pay thirty percent of rent that is due every month. Also, the only other stipulation is that they see a social worker twice a month that’s it, no other strings attached. The program in the east coast has a seventy-nine percent success rate. So, by saying that we don’t have to fix the problem right now, it’s only going to get worse, I fear. Because, we really do as American’s we need to step up and take care of our own, because it can be you or I in their shoes the next time. Since the economy is in dire straits more and more people are going to be living on the streets. Would you want to be the next homeless person living on the street when the government won’t do anything?, not me sir, not me.
Homeless people are not treated like humans they are treated like a problem. Every single homeless individual has their own story of why they are on the streets. Some grew up in that environment and it is the only way of living they know of; some made bad decisions, and others have mental illnesses and other disabilities they cannot afford to treat. There are homeless people out there who do deserve to be helped and need assistance in order to get out of the hole otherwise they will be living on the streets until they die. Twenty-seven percent of the homeless population is children under the age of eighteen; fifty percent of women and children who are homeless are running away from domestic abuse; and twenty to twenty-five percent are mentally ill. These people need help and they deserve the special treatment. The few hard cases that Gladwell discusses in his essay also need help if they are willing to get better. Alcohol and drug abuse are serious addictions and require special treatment (“Not Everyone’s American Dream: Homelessness”). There is no reason why our country cannot help these individuals out. We have millions of people who live in luxury and have excess money. It doesn’t seem fair to spread the wealth from those who work hard to those living on the streets, but at the same time, it isn’t fair that some people are more fortunate than others.
Homelessness is a growing problem plaguing our country. Many of the homeless are persistent and hopeful in making it to a better place while others lose faith and turn to drugs and alcohol. Those few who are constantly in the hospital building up medical bills should not be the only ones receiving help, however. It is time for those who are more fortunate to reach out a helping hand to those at a disadvantage. It shouldn’t be about money. It should be about compassion.
kent.davis Reply:
February 18th, 2009 at 9:12 am
@liberty.stubbs,
Liberty - You state that our response to the homelessness problem should be ethical and not about the money. What are the criteria for an ethical, compassionate response? Is it ethical to take money and resources from those who live in luxury if they are not willing to give it? Also, how do we quantify compassion if not by comparing the amount of money allocated toward the issue?
After World War ll many who came back lived of pensions and whatever cash they could scrounge from simple tasks. They were allowed to bed down in warehouses, boarding houses, and single room hotels. This was called living on skid row (Wasson). Solutions change as society changes. No longer do our police officers go around at night and round up all the homeless and take them to a skid row establishment. In our society we can’t stand on the road and chase off a family walking into town with our torches and pitchforks. We recognize this as a current problem but its’ been there just hiding under the surface because we couldn’t bring ourselves to look at something ugly. In the 1970’s we recognized the problem we discussed it. Politicians rose and fell due to promises of “quick solutions” to the homeless problem. The government even passed the Stewart B. McKinney Act in 1987 which increased the funds to help solve the homeless issue (Hambrick). There are no quick solutions. If there was one then it would have been found in the hundreds if not thousands of years. The difference now is we have the time on our hands to stop and look at it. It’s a crack on our wall of civilization. You don’t notice it when you first move into the house but the longer your there the more you notice and the bigger it gets. Renya Reed Wasson presents us with statistics that in 1994 there was a 13% increase in homeless shelters (Wasson). That’s a lot of new buildings. More importantly they were only building because there was a need to house a growing population.
christopher.sturgill Reply:
February 19th, 2009 at 8:24 am
@michael.thayer,
We as a country see that we have a problem, and have tried quick fixes and yes politicians are famous for the quick fix. What about long term plans? What states have long term plans and how are they suppose to work. What states do not really have long term plans, or plans at all?
In Million Dollar Murray, Malcolm Gladwell mentions that Philip Mangano (executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on homelessness) has discovered a method to prevent homelessness and a way to help these people that are living on the streets. In doing this, others become frustrated that they are not the ones receiving assistance. All I hear the entire time is, “Those people do not deserve our money and the things we have. They deserve what they work for and nothing more.” It makes me sick that our society has resorted to such complete selfishness. People do not want to help others that do not work because they do not think they should have to give someone something they do not “deserve.” I think people have forgotten that men went to Vietnam and fought a war for their country and when they returned home their country was not willing to fight a war for them. What will happen to our soldiers fighting in this war now? Will our country help them or will we turn our backs on them? All they need is psychological help but they are taught that it is weak to ask for a hand so they are left to fend for themselves when in fact, they should be taken care of and loved. Instead of offering them our hearts we offer them a home on the streets; a place in which they fight to survive.
As a country it is our job to keep our citizens safe. A mother living on the streets with her baby is not safe. We will keep telling ourselves that she could have worked harder and we will keep telling ourselves that she did not have to have children she could not support. We will also never know if she chose to have those children or if she was raped. So we can turn our eyes away and pretend those things do not exist. We can also fool ourselves into thinking that everyone on the streets is like the guy at Wal*Mart that will beg for five hours and then walk to his Mercedes. Let’s let ourselves believe that if we give money to someone they are only going to use it to buy drugs or alcohol. This way we can continue leading our naïve, selfish lives. Perhaps that was what Gladwell was crawling towards in mentioning the corrupt cops. The corrupt cops represent the people not willing to lend a helping hand. So are we all going to be the corrupt cops or are some of us willing to stand up for what is right?
kyle.kors Reply:
March 11th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Jordan, I am glad you brought up the Vietnam War veterans because it presents an issue that I believe society needs to understand. Soldiers are sent to war and expected to follow orders, they are not in control of why they were sent there. In the sixties and seventies Americans seemed to shun Vietnam War veterans readily because they did not agree with the war in general. This is what the already mentally distraught soldiers had to come home too, a country who disliked and were not willing to help them. So instead of getting the help they needed, they got pushed further into their mental insecurities. In other words, if you are going to hate a war, hate the war by all means, you are entitled to your opinion, but leave the soldiers alone, they are only doing what they are told, in fact, some would even disagree with it themselves but cannot do anything about it because they are following orders.
Jordan - your assertion that we cannot know the results of giving behavior, so we need to stand up for the homeless is well stated. My question is, “how?” Gladwell’s anecdote about Murray illustrates a system that, one could argue, lends a hand to homeless already through emergency medical care and shelters, as well as other services. Are we offering the wrong kind of hand? Or are you claiming that we’re not doing nearly enough? What would doing enough look like?
@sean.retmier
Valid point, but you’re overlooking the fact that the homeless currently leech our health care taxes to a very unhealthy extent. In fact, this may be what we need to focus on in order to insure less people become homeless who aren’t now. In major cities, health care costs between $450,000-750,000 per sick homeless person, per major city, on an annual basis, and that is what is making health care for working Americans such a drag. The simple, ingenious, albeit unfair solution? Make the homeless, not homeless!
It wouldn’t, of course, cure the solution, but bandage it temporarily while saving millions of taxpayers billions of dollars! It seems that maintaining fairness, as well as our dignity, is getting in the way of finding a solution that would help everyone. The homeless would have a roof over their head, and we wouldn’t have to pay 1,500 dollars or so on a daily basis on a single homeless person’s health care (in just ONE city, mind you) but about 23 dollars for their rent. A year’s rent for a single homeless person would end up being about $8,400 versus $500,000 in medical expenses they’ve built up living dangerously and unhealthily in the streets. It seems like a no-brainer.
Once again, this is not to suggest we stamp this as our permanent solution to end homeless by simply giving everyone a home. What really needs to be done is provide this temporary fix so our taxpayers can save some money while a better solution is discovered. With that extra tax money, perhaps we can build more and better shelters? Provide food stamps so they don’t have to eat out of the dumpster? Or, best option yet, let the taxpayers keep their money, as well as their house. If more people were aware of how much money they would save buying homes for the homeless versus paying their medical bills, more would probably jump onto this bandwagon of thought. Not completely fair, sure, but at least the country is saving billions of dollars, right?
Nathaniel is on the street unable to function in society do to his battle with the mental disease of schizophrenia. “Mental illness is a leading cause of homelessness”( http://homelessness) so Nathanial’s story is like so many of the homeless. He was once on his way to be a solo violinist but now finds himself living under a bridge due to his disease. Under the bridge, Nathaniel can play his two stringed violins in peace. He seems happy without a care in the world, contently playing beautiful music in his head. Lopez is a writer for the local paper, who discovers the violinist and decides to write a piece about Nathaniel. Lopez finds Nathanial’s story one filled with an amazing turn of events. Lopez, after hearing Nathaniel’s story wants to help him, but goes about it all wrong. Lopez uses his newly found friendship with Nathaniel to manipulate him in some ways to help him better his life or what he thinks would be bettering his life. Lopez fails to recognize that Nathaniel is happy living on the streets playing music for an audience of one. Lopez feels that Nathanial would be better off if he were recognized for his musical gifts, so he tries to get him to play in front of a large audience. Lopez fails to realize, that Nathaniel might not be ready for that sort of jump from living alone to playing in front of hundreds of people. Lopez needs to treat Nathaniel like what he is, his friend. He also fails to recognize that “The homeless are as diverse as the colors of a rainbow. The person you meet may be a battered women, an addicted veteran, someone who is lacking job skills…the list goes on.”( Rescue Missions) Lopez needs to recognize that things like recognition that are important to him in his life as a journalist, may not be to his friend, Nathanial.
Million Dollar Murray Blog
For some homeless people it is not a question of being reintroduced into society, but whether they even want to change their lifestyle. For example, Christopher McCandless, the main character of the nonfiction novel Into the Wild written by Jon Krakauer, adopted the homeless vagabond lifestyle in order to escape society and all of its peculiar quarks. When it comes down to it, it depends on whether or not the homeless person even wants to come off the streets. They may, perhaps, enjoy or prefer their lifestyle. In other more extreme cases the homeless person is suffering from a mental illness, hindering them from living a life that is agreeable with society. “ Of the estimated 744,000 people who are homeless on any given night, 40 to 45 percent of them have a serious mental illness”(Nichols). The stereotype associated with all homeless people is really nothing more than a small, noticeable statistic. What makes it a hard to help the populous of homeless people with mental illnesses is a person willing to accept the burden and another to donate the necessary funds to aid the particular person’s illness. It has to be harder to live homeless and have a mental illness tacked onto the situation because it is easier for a ready and willing society to shun them.