This is a quick clip that became one of Rush Limbaugh's most prominent arguments on homelessness. Do you think that the homeless are such because they choose to be, or is it really a problem with society that the government needs to fix? Is there a social mobility for the homeless?
Obviously there are a lot of factors that go into this, but I served a mission in Ottawa, the capital of Canada and let me tell you that the homeless were hooked up! We worked in a soup kitchen with professional chefs providing three 3-course meals a day. And we are talking top notch meals! In between meals the homeless would go up to the tourist section of town and make bank off of all of the visitors who felt sorry for them. When the night came they had a very nice homeless shelter where they have "maids" that make their beds for them in the morning. And not to mention the other government privileges the are receiving for being "homeless." I feel like we just violated the very definition of the word.
The link unfortunately links to a general player, and I found a clip of him playing golf rather than his arguments.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your post, it's certainly a difficult situation. While some may in some way abuse the kindness or generosity of others or a government, the fact is that a person who can buy their own meals, afford their own place, and so on can typically afford other things that make life more desirable than someone who cannot. While people may say that some homeless individuals choose to be such and live off of government cheese, there are some who genuinely need, and I would say deserve, help. Even for those who seek to find work, practical problems face are bounteous. These include the social stigma attached to homeless individuals, problems in a given application process including producing a positive image or contact information (an obvious lack of home address, and phones and internet are obviously less available--even public libraries often require proof of residence for access to internet), and health complications that can prevent an ability to work in traditional jobs.
--trace lund
I also had trouble accessing the video through the link but I believe that you can cut the whole aspect of "homeless" into three categories: misfortune, mental incapacity, and laziness. I do know of some people who just don't have luck in their favor and because of that my family has had to personally assist them with their personal needs. Some of the homeless people that we see on the street, I think, fall into this category. For one reason or another their fortune has gone for a bad turn and before they know it, through a series of bad misfortune, they end up on the streets. Not their fault, but thats just the way it goes. Now for the second, mental incapacity. I think that there are some people who literally cannot take care of themselves because of their lack of mental capacity and because of that they could end up on the streets. The last, laziness. We've all seen those shows on CNN or MSNBC where they follow so called "homeless" to see what their real story is. And at the end of the series we, the audience, find out that the so called "homeless" is just a random guy who has no desire to work and just wants to bum off people. So where am I going with this? Before putting this post up I went into google.com and entered "homeless" into the search bar. After the search was complete there were literally hundreds of websites advertising to help homeless or give aid in many different ways. I believe that there are people who can literally NOT help themselves at all and that is why they are on the street. On the other hand,I believe that there are also many who choose to be homeless or are "sticking it to the man" by acting like they are homeless. As far as the government helping out, I think the government should help out with the those who lack mental incapacity or misfortune. But, then again, the government can't solve all of our problems-nor should they. We should do what we can to assist and help the homeless but most importantly the homeless, at least those who can, should help themselves.
ReplyDeleteI think the movie "secret millionaire" we watched in class was a good example that not all homeless people are homeless because they simply lack ambition or drive. Many people are the victims of misfortune, like the lady that was electrocuted and thrown off of a roof. I think homelessness also comes as a consequence of poor decisions from many years ago. I have a cousin that is really struggling to get of heroin. Was he an idiot for starting to do heroin a few years ago? Of course, but now he's just suffering the consequences. I think we need to try and help people change.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as living the good life, I think that is far from the good life to be homeless. Even if someone provides your 3 meals and makes your bed, I don't think they are living the good life. I think there are some emotional struggles that come with being dependent that we don't really understand. I guess that's just my personal opinion.
Homelessness is a large problem for government to deal with because while they want to fix the issue, many people protest that helping the homeless is just enabling them to be homeless. In an article by Malcolm Gladwell called "Million-Dollar Murray," from the collection What the Dog Saw," Gladwell argues that "homelessness may be easier to solve than to manage." In the article, Gladwell describes a homeless man from Reno name Murray. Murray was a drunk and often created nuisances that required the police to come get him. He also racked up a lot of medical bills because of drunken accidents. In fact, because of his homelessness, he cost the government about one million dollars by himself. However, when he was put into a program, and was monitored by other people, he was productive. He held a job and worked hard, but when the program ended, he went back to drinking.
ReplyDeleteGladwell argues that homelessness is not a conventional problem. Giving money evenly distributed to a lot of people will not fix the problem because the problem is not a normal distribution. It is a "power-law" issue. Meaning that most people who are homeless will be homeless for a while, but eventually, they can pick themselves back up on their feet again and get out. The real problem is with the ones that cannot. Some are "chronically homeless." They need that supervision to make sure that they are being productive. A potential solution to the problem is to find the most serious cases, like Murray, and give them some structure. In Denver, they have a program where they give apartments to people with serious cases, but with some conditions. In total each of these homeless people end up costing only "$15,000, or about a third of what he or she would cost on the street." This program is not always effective because as with everything, there are always exceptions, people who just will not cooperate no matter what, but for many, this program helps them become productive in society. Some people just need the supervision to stay on course.
This solution is not perfect. It's not fair, clearly. Why should these homeless people seemingly be rewarded for not being able to discipline themselves? I'm productive in society, why can't I get a free apartment? Well, fair has nothing to do with it. It's just more efficient to pay $15,000 a year for a productive member of society than $1,000,000 in medical expenses. The government will end up spending money on them either way, but it is more cost effective to take care of them completely than to just pay as they go. This solution is only applicable in cases of "chronic homelessness." It's not the solution for most homeless people, but for some it is the only logical solution.
The Malcolm Gladwell article is also available online: http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html