She chose a different path. by AURaptor

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

She chose a different path.

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Monday, July 1, 2013 14:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11489
PAGE 2 of 2

Monday, May 27, 2013 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
AgentRouka

"1) How can it be possible that a teenager is even forced to BE homeless at all? It seems insane. Is there no safety net for child homelessness?"

This is the republican 'trickle down' economy in all its glory.

Homeless doesn't always mean they don't have a safe place to sleep or enough food to eat,some times it just means they are living in a homeless shelter without a home of their own.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 2:13 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Aw, dang... Looks like much if not all of her education was "on the public dole"...

http://www.clayton.k12.ga.us/facilities/Schools/315.asp

This is exactly what I was going to point out. The RapMoron has again brought up an example that shows the opposite of what he hopes it proves.

This girl has able to pull herself up because the government's education system gave her the opportunity to do so.

QED

' RapMoron ' posted a positive , uplifting story about a girl not only making it, but striving, and all you negative little whiners can do is bitch, name call and focus on the most distorted, inverted aspects of this story, ignoring the true nature of this awesome achievement.

Seriously, the Left are the most joyless, cynical, hate filled lot of losers on the planet.

This is what makes you "RapMoron". YOU brought up the topic. Nobody here has said it's not a positive, uplifting story. In fact, I think we're all agreed that it is exactly that. What makes you a moron - the RapMoron, in fact - is that YOU claim she did it without any government help, all on her own. And you're absolutely wrong about that.

Here's your own words about her achievements:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I guess since it goes against the ' Julia' meme of so many on this board, who are convinced that only BIG GOVT can solve life's problems for us, that when someone goes out and does something so positive, despite so many hurdles, it's best to ignore it,and pretend it doesn't exist.

Please list for me all the people who ignored it and pretended it didn't exist. Also list all of those who didn't notice that she attended a public school. (Be sure to include yourself on that latter list)

Quote:

But you are pissed off that she represents the very thing you say can't happen. Individuals succeeding w/ out the help of BIG GOVT, and actually, in spite of it.

Except, as noted, she DIDN'T succeed without the help of "BIG GOVT", but rather BECAUSE of that help.

Quote:

Many would call her a 'sell out', an oreo, for trying to work hard and 'be white', instead of following the herd and just accept being what The Great Society wants her to be.

I thought "The Great Society" wanted her to be a success. You're the first one I've seen bring race into it. I haven't seen her picture; is she black or Hispanic? Asian? I'm not sure what her race has to do with anything, but apparently you put a great deal of importance on such matters.

Quote:

Who the frak cares about wealth or success ? That should be defined by the individual, not by some arbitrary, collective mind set. Whether it's having a roof over your head, not being in debt, and being able to provide for your family, or it's a house in the Hamptons, hell...that's up to you.

Main thing is... stay off the public dole, don't rely on hand outs to live your life, and you'll be fine. Hell, this idea that , if you're not in the top 0.001%, you're a worthless parasite is stuff the collectivists shovel. That ain't me.

Wait a sec. Didn't YOU post this story about a poor, homeless girl somehow magically achieving great success in her education and finishing at the top of her class?

You now saying that you don't care about success or being at the top rings more than a little bit hollow. Who are you, and what have you done with Rappy?!

Because of your partisan ideological blindness, all you can see is that she made the best of a bad situation. You cannot see that she didn't do it alone; she had help from the public school she attended, she had help from government employees (teachers, principals, counselors, etc.), and she was able to make the best of a bad situation BECAUSE of the help she got from the public sector, not IN SPITE of it.

And because some of us have pointed out your errors of assumption, you jump right to calling every progressive or liberal "the most joyless, cynical, hate filled lot of losers on the planet."

All because we pointed out that when governments give people a chance, sometimes people can indeed rise above their circumstances and do better than most would expect them to do. That's why we don't call it a hand-out, but a hand-UP. You seem to relish in calling any and all forms of government assistance a hand-out.

It really galls you that the public school worked, doesn't it? Or are you now saying you have positive thoughts about public schools and public education because of this girl's amazing story of using the public school system to really lift herself up?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 3:02 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Magons

The problem with little kirk things is that he has changed his criteria for what he's arguing from 'poverty' to 'homelessness', and has a very narrow definition of homelessness. By his posted examples, unless you are male, scruffy, addicted/ alcoholic and/or insane, having lived on the streets for years on end, and living in a homeless 'camp', by definition, you are not homeless.

That's why he didn't offer a definition for temporary homelessness, or VERY temporary homelessness, or cite facts, or figures, or references.

He knows that what he's arguing is not supportable by any evidence.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 3:15 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... some times it just means they are living in a homeless shelter without a home of their own."

Maybe you need to look up the definition.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 3:20 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... some times it just means they are living in a homeless shelter without a home of their own."

Maybe you need to look up the definition.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

If you are saying that even if the US Government put every homeless person in the US in a plush room in the Ritz Carlton with room service they are still technically homeless. In that case I agree with you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 3:40 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Magons

The problem with little kirk things is that he has changed his criteria for what he's arguing from 'poverty' to 'homelessness', and has a very narrow definition of homelessness. By his posted examples, unless you are male, scruffy, addicted/ alcoholic and/or insane, having lived on the streets for years on end, and living in a homeless 'camp', by definition, you are not homeless.

That's why he didn't offer a definition for temporary homelessness, or VERY temporary homelessness, or cite facts, or figures, or references.

He knows that what he's arguing is not supportable by any evidence.

You should have actually read the article I posted you might have learned something. The article states that
"Although news stories often suggest that poverty and homelessness are similar, this is inaccurate. In reality, the gap between the living conditions of a homeless person and the typical poor household is proportionately as great as the gap between the poor household and a middle-class family in the suburbs."
That being said, the statistics greatly exaggerate the homeless problem because although many may be homeless for a week or so during a given year the number that remain homeless is relativity small compared to the total. Homelessness is a transitional state not a permanent one for those that make an effort.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 3:58 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Welcome back Kirkules! Good to see you back in here.

My office is in Ft. Lauderdale and I too see a lot of "homeless" people every day. They mostly seem quite content to drink beer and booze all day, and do all the drugs they can get their hands on. Those are their priorities when they get their welfare check and food stamps. I used to give them money, but now not so much.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 4:09 PM

KWICKO

Reposting this, because apparently Kirk missed it.

Quote:
Originally posted by KIRKULES:

The family unit as a first fall back for people in hard times has been destroyed by out of wedlock marriage...

Please elaborate; I'd love to hear more about this phenomenon of "out of wedlock marriage" you speak of.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 4:11 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Welcome back Kirkules! Good to see you back in here.

Thanks Jongsstraw, I can't believe I resisted posting for over two years. I have lurked some but couldn't bring myself to post when most for the time its just folks on the left patting themselves on the back telling everyone how smart they are. I think it's already time for another break from posting, talk to ya in another couple of years.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 4:16 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Welcome back Kirkules! Good to see you back in here.

My office is in Ft. Lauderdale and I too see a lot of "homeless" people every day. They mostly seem quite content to drink beer and booze all day, and do all the drugs they can get their hands on. Those are their priorities when they get their welfare check and food stamps. I used to give them money, but now not so much.

I take it you've actually talked to them, and they've told you what their "priorities" are "when they get their welfare check and food stamps"?

You're in Florida, right? How can they get welfare and food stamps if they're doing "all the drugs they can get their hands on"? Doesn't your state spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars drug-testing welfare recipients in order to ensure that nobody is doing drugs with welfare money?

A casual observer might conclude that you, like "Domokun1" (who has magically disappeared since you started flooding the site with your wall-o-posts, by the way), are simply pulling your "facts" out of your ass, and you have no empirical evidence to base your conclusions on, but instead are relying solely on anecdotal evidence.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 4:18 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by KIRKULES:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Welcome back Kirkules! Good to see you back in here.

Thanks Jongsstraw, I can't believe I resisted posting for over two years. I have lurked some but couldn't bring myself to post when most for the time its just folks on the left patting themselves on the back telling everyone how smart they are. I think it's already time for another break from posting, talk to ya in another couple of years.

I guess asking for facts and data scares off another lie-bertarian...

What a surprise that isn't.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 4:32 PM

MAL4PREZ

Let's see, Kwicko

- explained why RapMoron is so damned RapMoronic using the RapMoron's own posts

- again stressed Yay For Public Schools!

- called out Kirk for the "out of wedlock marriage" thing (Yes, I noticed that too LOL!)

- pointed out the most recent obvious sock of the RWED RWAs

- bitch slapped Kirk over his post-opinion-and-flee-from-facts tactic

It appears that I have nothing to do here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 5:21 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

little kirk thingies

"You should have actually read the article I posted ..."

I did. And nowhere was there a definition of 'homelessness'. You seem unclear on the concept as well. Perhaps you need to read a definition. *

* A simple thing you've evaded three times already. Seems you're more than willing to yap your mouth without actually - yanno - knowing anything.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 5:40 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Kwickie - SHE built that ! And it pisses you off. If she can do so much, it PROVES that so many others are whiney, lazy, gimmie-gimmie, entitlement minded losers.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 5:52 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kwickie - SHE built that ! And it pisses you off. If she can do so much, it PROVES that so many others are whiney, lazy, gimmie-gimmie, entitlement minded losers.

SHE built that - with a taxpayer-paid education. Since her mom is poor enough to be homeless, one assumes that her family falls into that "47%" class that you like to call moochers, takers, and parasites.

You've yet to show where, how, or why it "pisses me off", though. I guess since I said it was an uplifting story, you understood that to mean that I hated it and it pissed me off.

Or was it when I implied that her story is a victory for the worth of public education and public schools? (I could see how such an assertion would piss YOU off, of course, since you insisted that she did all this with zero help from any government)

Funny how your brain works. Or fails to.

As far as PROVING that "so many others are whiney, lazy, gimmie-gimmie, entitlement minded losers," well, yes, in a way I suppose you're right. Those whiny entitlement-minded losers are commonly known as "the richest 1%", who insist that they cannot do anything unless they are given tax breaks and more handouts from the government. And here's a girl who got little more than a free education from her government, and is sitting at the top of her class. Makes ya wonder what the really privileged could do if they'd quit whining and get to work! (I doubt you'll ever bother to try to find out)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 27, 2013 10:11 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
I agree that homelessness is a problem in the US,I see it every day were I live. The problem is that many of the homeless are homeless by choice and those that are not are sometimes not educated enough to get the help they need to dig their way out. Homelessness in the US is the result of a lack of education, not a lack of compassion buy the US population. You simply can not help those unwilling to help themselves. I'm all for helping those that can't help themselves, but that is not what we are dealing with in the majority of cases I see. When the US government gets involved in the name of helping the homeless what results is the rewarding of bad behavior.

So are you saying that if there are more homeless people in the US than where I live, that Americans are more willing to live on the street than Australians. Are Americans fundamentally more hopeless? I wonder why?

No, I don't actually because your argument doesn't tally with any reality I have observed.

Here are some of the reasons I can see for homelessness where i live, and matey frankly our welfare system shits all over yours.

Mental health issues - since funding was cut for residential services, a lot of mentally ill are unable to function with normal living, and have limited family support. They can fall between the cracks of the welfare system and end up living between shelters and the streets. I don't know how you see things, but chronic mental health is not a choice.

drug and alcohol issues - at some point in dependancy, people become unable to make good choices for themselves. If they are living on the streets, they are probably there already. Drug and alcohol use impairs people's cognitive capacity, sometimes to the point of having brain damage. The homeless people I have come across would definitely have ABI's. So while you can talk about making choices, there comes a chronic stage where addicts simply do not have capacity.

Housing crisis - we have a shortage of affordable housing here. You can probably blame housing investors who have pushed up the price for entry level accomodation. rental prices are skyrocketing for the same reason. I see a lot of middle class homeless over the last couple of years, people who live in their cars or couch surf until they run out of favours. They can struggle to get back into work if they have lost their job because after a few weeks of living in a car, most people stink.

So we have a fairly comprehensive welfare system that most people can access at one stage or another, so we don't get the visible homeless that America does. yes, some people are happy to live off welfare, just as some people steal, some people rort the tax system, some people rip others off. But I'd prefer to live with that, knowing that fewer people will fall through the gaps.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
If she can do so much, it PROVES that so many others are whiney, lazy, gimmie-gimmie, entitlement minded losers.

What can you say? There is no reasoning with people like this, so why even bother?

The fact is, NOBODY knows (I haven't found facts yet), but it's a good bet that, because her mother lost her job, they've been homeless for several years, and they're poor, this family received unemployment, food stamps, maybe school lunches, quite possibly welfare, and who knows how much else from our government's safety net. Unless they can prove otherwise, our righties have just screwed themselves over--this young lady's success appears to be due to her, her mother's and her sister's attitudes, WHILE they lived through difficult times WITH THE HELP OF THE GOVERNMENT. So Rap's essential point is the opposite of what he wishes it were; with the help of the government providing education, keeping them at least eating and sometimes with a roof over their head, despite having lost gainful employment in the capitalist system, this family worked hard, made the most of what the safety net and public education, etc., offered, and the two girls are succeeding.

I think that's fantastic; not a single person here has had any problem whatsoever with her success and we all applaud all three of them heartily. I'm sad she is the exception rather than the rule, but glad our government provides enough to make it POSSIBLE for people like them to succeed if they're willing to work hard to overcome adversity.

I fail to see where anyone here has expressed any anger or resentment at their success; what I see are a lot over very angry righties who keep projecting their anger onto others because the others have pointed out that they DIDN'T "do it alone".

And yes, she's African American, which I'm sure Rap thought made her the perfect example to contrast with "all" those "other" "whiney, lazy, gimmie-gimmie, entitlement minded losers". He actually knows absolutely nothing of her circumstances, but he was happy to leap to a lot of conclusions and try to use her to make a political point.

Sad, but predictable. And a complete, as he likes to say, "fail".

Rap must show that she and her family received no "government handouts" in order to make his point; you can't, because they WERE helped by the government, minimally by access to public education, almost guaranteed, by government-subsidized shelter housing, and most likely by unemployment, food stamps, and other forms of safety-net assistance.

As to homeless children, yes, it's horrible. Young children often end up in Social Services and foster homes; families who manage to stay together do so by living in shelters (tho' those aren't necessarily safe), staying with relatives if possible, or, as this young lady mentioned, living out of their family's car. I see far too many of them these days and, despite Kirk's idiocy, they're not homeless "by choice". That's so much bullshit it's ridiculous. I know homeless people, too, and I knew quite a few when I worked in the City. Not a single one of them was homeless by choice...and most of them WORKED, by the way! I gave them money every time I saw them, some had lost jobs and were unable to get work in the last difficult economic decade (generally the older among them), quite a few were/are vets (far too many), most utilized the shelter system at night (some because in S.F., there are accommodations for their pets--otherwise they would have stayed on the street rather than give up their dog or cat). I knew a few who were mentally ill or did drugs/booze, but they were in the vast minority. Most of those I knew/know never dreamed they'd end up on the streets; they had worked hard, saved money, some had managed to buy homes, but the economic downturn hit and they've never been able to recover. Once you're poor and homeless, it's extremely difficult to recover in this country.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6:59 AM

JONGSSTRAW

The libs love their govt. check. They don't like work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:27 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I saw them, some had lost jobs and were unable to get work in the last difficult economic decade (generally the older among them), quite a few were/are vets (far too many), most utilized the shelter system at night (some because in S.F., there are accommodations for their pets--otherwise they would have stayed on the street rather than give up their dog or cat).

Yeah that's the truth here as well.

Love the responses from Jong and Rap who show the most incredible meanness of spirit I've come across. They'd begrudge their granny a pension, no doubt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:25 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
The libs love their govt. check. They don't like work.

If only you loved your meds more, maybe your upper lobe would be capable of making original and pertinent posts.

But I guess that's too much work for you to handle.

I wonder how much this talented young woman will put back into the system because the system was there when she needed it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:22 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
The libs love their govt. check. They don't like work.

Huh. I must not be a liberal, then. I still had more than nine months of unemployment insurance payments available to me, but I went back to work anyway, making less than unemployment was paying me.

For some odd reason, I have this idea that I'd rather work than not work, and would rather earn a paycheck than take unemployment, even when I've paid for it.

I'm sure my liberal friends will be heartbroken to hear that according to Jongsie I have to turn in my "lib card" now.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:56 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Me too. For a libtard living in a nanny welfare state I've collected about 2 months worth of unemployment benefits in my life.

Some of the jobs I've had to support myself include bar work, waitering, cleaning, photocopying and stabling in a print room, childcare, gardening.

I've studied and worked as an adult. I've never expected anyone to look after me since I have been away from home including my husband. Both of us have worked during our marriage, and shared child care.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:38 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, dear, I must have lost my "lib" privileges, too, dammit. When I was first disabled, both my family doctor and psychiatrist were very much against me getting a job when one of the services I'd signed up for called me for an interview. They wanted me to wait another six months, but I went for the interview anyway, got the job, and worked another three years before I was finally disabled. THEN, after getting Disability, I tried to start a home business and, when that didn't work, ended up getting yet another part-time job and getting off Disability (Jim made enough for us to scrape by). Got fired from that one (for posting my gripes on a mental-health forum board!) and invested the last of my savings in yet another home business.

Just think, as a card-carrying "lib", I could have just sat back and collected Disability all those years!! Damn...

Jong, in my opinion, has turned completely into the definition of a troll. His one-liners, totally unrelated to the thread, and his "cluck cluck cluck" bullshit are the definition of trolling, and absolutely nothing else. It's a real shame to see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 2:59 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

The Forgotten 50,000

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Published: June 16, 2013

More than 50,000 New Yorkers slept in city homeless shelters and on the streets last night. About 21,000 were children. These numbers are huge and appalling, higher than they were in 2002, when Mayor Michael Bloomberg took office, higher than in the dismal days of the fiscal crisis, the Reagan ’80s and the surly administration of Rudolph Giuliani.

New Yorkers who have no permanent place to live form a small city unto themselves — an abandoned one. The shelter population has risen 61 percent while Mr. Bloomberg has been mayor, propelled by a 73 percent increase in homeless families, according to the Coalition for the Homeless, whose relentless advocacy has been provoking mayoral fury since the 1980s. These surging numbers — of families with children, especially — undercut claims that New York is steadily becoming a better place to live, and that its government has gotten better at helping its most vulnerable citizens meet their most basic needs.

The next mayor will have to do better by them than Mr. Bloomberg. He once proposed energetic and aggressive initiatives on behalf of the homeless. Now he speaks of them with resentment: “You can arrive in your private jet at Kennedy Airport,” the mayor said recently, “take a private limousine and go straight to the shelter system and walk in the door and we’ve got to give you shelter.”

He is right that city law grants a right to shelter, the result of a hard-fought legal battle that Mr. Bloomberg has repeatedly tried to undermine. But he is wrong to imply that the greatest strains on the shelter system come from out-of-towners who have no city roots, or that this crisis is somehow the fault of lawyers and judges.

That isn’t true, and it is a diversion from the real problem. His administration is meeting its legal obligation by filling the city’s shelters to bursting. But it has failed to keep its promises to significantly shrink the shelter population by giving people the means to live independently and enough paths to permanent housing.

Previous mayors tackled the problem with the assistance of federal programs, helping families in shelters obtain Section 8 rent vouchers and federal public-housing apartments managed by the New York City Housing Authority. So did the Bloomberg administration, for a while. But it broke with those policies in 2005, substituting short-term rent subsidies, which it then abruptly terminated in 2011. That was when homeless families started returning to shelters at an accelerating rate and at great expense. It costs taxpayers an average of $36,799 a year to shelter a family, according to city data, far more than it would to simply subsidize its rent.

With six months left in Mr. Bloomberg’s 12-year tenure, the crisis will be the next mayor’s to solve. The problems of housing and homelessness are intertwined, fed by many unrelated things: joblessness and the lagging economy, deficiencies in mental-health and addiction care that force vulnerable men and women onto the streets, the simple lack of affordable units and a widening gap between incomes and market rents. The mayoral candidates need to offer solutions that are multifaceted, too, in an era of ever-dwindling federal and state aid.

A coalition of more than a hundred community organizations and advocacy groups, created in April to call attention to the growing crisis, has called for restoring rent subsidies and legal services to protect families from eviction and foreclosure, giving the homeless priority access to low-income housing, and expanding supportive housing for the disabled and mentally ill — all good ideas. Mr. Bloomberg’s Homebase program, begun in 2004 to help residents of some high-poverty neighborhoods avoid eviction, now serves about 11,000 families a year — a worthwhile effort but only a piece of the broader solution.

The Democratic candidates generally agree on some approaches, like getting developers to include affordable housing in their projects. Comptroller John Liu has proposed a rental-voucher program that he says could save the city $237 million annually in shelter costs. The city’s public advocate, Bill de Blasio, has laid out perhaps the most comprehensive housing plan; he wants to create 100,000 and preserve 90,000 affordable housing units in eight years, in various ways, including converting thousands of illegal units into rent-stabilized apartments. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn also wants a new rental subsidy program for homeless families and promises to build 40,000 “middle income” units. William Thompson Jr. has an antipoverty plan that includes more Section 8 vouchers for homeless families. Anthony Weiner talks of cutting red tape to get more affordable units built.

Joseph Lhota and John Catsimatidis, Republican candidates, speak of market solutions. So does the Republican George McDonald, who has spent years aiding homeless New Yorkers through his charity, the Doe Fund, which offers job training as a path to a paycheck and an apartment. He says the Doe Fund’s approach should be vastly scaled up, which is one reason he is running for mayor.

The city looks cleaner, safer and richer in gentrifying neighborhoods, many lined with luxury high-rises and new amenities, like rental bicycles. But it looks vastly different from the intake center for homeless families in the South Bronx, or the shelter for men on East 30th Street, or the other sites where tens of thousands of New Yorkers are languishing, out of sight and out of mind of the larger city.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/opinion/the-forgotten-50000.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE