Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

American Homeless people

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Urzuxo, Nov 19, 2012. | Replies: 103 | Views: 6557

  1. Urzuxo

    Urzuxo IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Hi!

    I see Americans on the internet and on TV shows all feeling sorry for homeless people, cutting him some slack as they say and all that stuff. I'm from Sweden where it's practically impossible to become homeless (because the state helps you so much) and it got me thinking on how easy it is to become homeless in the states. Because I personally (can't speak for all Swedes) kind of think it's his/her own fault if I see a homeless person in Sweden, due to all the help one gets.

    So... how easy can one person spiral into homeless...ness?
  2. stillman

    stillman IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,659
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    467
    I don't know, but there will be yellow text.

    Here's my guess, though (from a Canadian perspective). It's mostly up to the person's psychology. While the system is rigged against us, it is not rigged bad enough to stop a reasonably sane person from affording rent on a 1-bedroom. Of course, not everyone is blessed with the normalcy that we ner--forum goers take for granted. As for affording rent and a kid, that's another story. Unless you have ton of money secured, I'd say screw responsibly.

    I rent, but I think the general process for most is to take a mortgage and pay it off until you're 60; then, the house is yours...for about 2 years the way the obesity epidemic is going. Not my cup of tea. But I imagine a family with kids in a house would be in deep trouble if the income went down for whatever reason. Maybe their mindset after so many years of luxury would be: apartment = "may as well be homeless".

    TLDR:
    singles = impossible to become homeless unless you're mentally ill.
    families = playing with fire. Trashcan fire.
  3. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    13,627
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    469
    Right. You see MEDIA about it, rather than any legitimate information. Homelessness and poverty in the U.S. is a gigantic hoax perpetrated by Progressive (primarily Democrat Socialists) policymakers, and was the most significant contributor to the global crash that all continue feeling the effects of. One of the issues they most definitely don't like to address is that there's a remarkably high rate of mobility out of the "homeless" category, particularly compared to other nations.
    The same is true in the U.S. There <IS> a problem (see bottom of response), but the significance of the problem is parlayed into a supposed ongoing crisis. The most deceitful of the components is that as an example, in theory, I was homeless for all but the past 3 years of my life, as were many of one side of my family, because we lived in short-term rentals and apartments.

    "But... that's not homelessness!" According to many beaters of these drums, it most certainly is. Because shelters and rentals are not as good for a stable society as actual home ownership, the Progressive establishment felt that everyone should own their own home, without actually earning it, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was the solution. That's why the Gov't pressured banks into granting low-consequence mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, programs such as "Section 8" housing, and even today there are people who continue to live in the same homes which were foreclosed upon them - a sweet gig!

    We have perfect examples in my own neighborhood.
    • I bought a foreclosed house that the owner had been trying to sell for $400K, the bank couldn't sell for $300K, and which I bought for $200K. Value is not a static; the wealth that the original owner had poured into the house simply disappeared - nobody "stole" it. He had lived in the property for almost 30 years, gone through a messy divorce and now he and his two boys are "homeless".
    • A young couple next door bought their property despite the decreased pricing - she has two boys from the previous marriage, is still having divorce issues with custody, and the husband works full time.
    • By far the most obnoxious - there's a single woman (fat, white) who has a steady boyfriend (stringy, black) that has (presumably) fathered four children with her. Neither works; their house is paid for primarily by the Gov't - she wants to have lots more kids (there's a cash bonus per head, see). The man keeps his belongings in tubs so that he can evade scrutiny if someone comes for an inspection, because he's doubtless taking in "income" for his own theoretical residence. So they're paying 30% of the actual mortgage, and the male is then re-renting the other property "off the books" to someone else.
    Even a noted Congressman from my state (New York) was criminally exploiting the system - he was essentially doing the same thing, but four (or more) times over. Of COURSE, he's still "serving" his constituency.

    [​IMG]

    Let's not consider the issues I mention above, and actually consider the group you're imagining is so large. To start with, anyone actually sleeping on the street is all but certain to be doing so from choice; claims of a lack of shelter are uniformly overblown because the advocates want to get increased funding.

    First, illegal aliens are counted in the homeless numbers, and some avoid going to Gov't flop houses for fear of being discovered. Neither are they going to be able to live with HUD sponsorship. HUD claimed a sample of 650,000 homeless in the U.S. in 2009 out of a population of 300,000,000 (PDF). In so doing, they simply counted heads one evening (normally an issue with the Census Bureau, where I worked once upon a time) and compared it to Census population numbers. The Census indicated 307,006,556 citizens, 38,517,234 of which are foreign born - but they're NOT actually considering how many illegal aliens are in the homeless population they counted.

    To consider it in your context, if you consider someone from Malmo who is Roma (a gypsy), not an actual Swedish citizen, and likely to be a criminal, do you believe that you owe THEM the free housing that Sweden distributes? Germany went through a bit of this back when I was there with the Eastern Europeans pouring over the border and declaring themselves economic refugees from Communism. Yet the expectation that the U.S. should bend over and beg to be buggered remains a constant expectation by others.

    Second, drug use and mental instability are significant contributors to the problem, even though the pro-homeless agencies pretend that this isn't a major issue. It's hard to convince Candi Crackhead to put money away for the rent, and she may be more interested in getting a fix than getting a good night's sleep. Begging for money on the streets may seem horrific, but it's a very sensible alternative. Hard to get numbers, of course, but I read a 2006 article where the average income of a beggar in Toronto, Canada was around $640 monthly.

    Third, the criminal element thrives in public housing projects, in part because the Gov't solution was to stack these people on top of each other rather than have them fend for themselves - it sounds like it would be a swell solution, but in reality HUD simply established a generational pattern of crime. While this may not seem like it would necessarily generate homelessness, think about some old woman having to live in a house that has been commandeered by a gang. She's counted as homeless if she stays away from her home, even though she theoretically has a residence.

    Worse yet, on top of all the corruption and waste that HUD generates, the damage they have done to minority communities is endemic - there are studies that have been suppressed that basically prove "you can take the thug out of the ghetto but you can't take the ghetto out of the thug". In other words, when relocating the HUD recipients from the Project complexes to small communities, the small communities experience sharp increases in criminal behavior directly correlating to the recipients. People who escape this environment, and actually own homes the "right" way, are some of the most fierce critics OF it.

    The primary and most disturbing category that is legitimate are people like the previous owner of my house. His wife got the lion's share of the settlement (yay for sexism in the courts!), he's still got the kids yet no support or alimony, and without knowing how he's employed I would bet good money on the belief that he'll never be able to escape "homelessness". Add that to the people displaced from natural disasters, and there IS a population that, through no direct fault of their own, will be homeless.

    The bottom line is, are we doing the right thing in trying to remedy it? In my childhood, the concept that one could "go West" was still alive, and children couldn't wait to move out of the house. Those days certainly seem to be gone.
  4. Urzuxo

    Urzuxo IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Wow, a quite hefty post but I read it all. So... yeah. I guess you're saying that technically homelessness isn't so clear and... yeah. Yeah.
  5. BobCox2

    BobCox2 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    11,793
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    482
    Hi back - 1 thing you miss is in many of the welfare states in the West and South of the USA.
    Climate ALONE.
    As well as cultural factors makes homelessness very different than in Sweden or Canada..

    :D
  6. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    13,627
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    469
    Precisely. Always bear in mind the Americanism, "Follow the Money". Homelessness is a sweet gig for non-profiteers to exploit; if you come out speaking the truth as I do, you get labeled all manner of nasty.
    One of my greatest beefs is the way middle and high income people build luxury housing in flood plains and storm areas, are made homeless, get bailed out by the Gov't, and then rebuild on the same feckin' spot. Why in the world should America pay to rebuild New Orleans, or build better storm barrier infrastructure, now that the damage is done?

    EDIT - relevant article.

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  7. Urzuxo

    Urzuxo IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    I hope I'm not alone in this, but I actually don't understand at all what you wrote there :p sorry, could you rephrase it?
  8. BobCox2

    BobCox2 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    11,793
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    482
    Homeless in an area where you can survive outdoors temps 24/7/360 in a light jacket is a bit easier than homeless in Sweden.
  9. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    27,320
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    354
    It was more a problem of illegal workers from there. Our constitution only offers asylum to those who are political refugees. The interesting question obviously is what makes up a political refugee, but e.g. economical reasons aren't accepted at all.

    Another way to be tolerated here is that sending you back would mean death or a serious danger. People can obviously prepare things on purpose to achieve that (e.g. an Islamic Saudi-Arabian converting to a different religion), but that wouldn't be a reason for Germany to deny them because it's about life and death. Don't ask me what would happen if somebody who is sentenced to death in the US esapes from prison and flees to Germany :D.

    Asylum or being tolerated doesn't come with citizenship. It only means that you can stay for now. You will be quartered in in a place which isn't one's own choice with no right to work or to leave the city without asking (and the answer may be "no"), living from something like social welfare. If the situation in your home country improves well enough, you will be sent back, sometimes even after a dozen of years or longer, which led to rather bizarre decisions in a few cases.
  10. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    13,627
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    469
    Right, and I was there during the phase where the system was being badly abused - Ausländer would come in, apply for asylum, get the stipend and housing, eventually be rejected, and then come back across the border. Rinse, wash, repeat.

    Funny how it's ok for Europe to say "feck off", but not the U.S. Neh?
  11. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    27,320
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    354
    I already mentioned this in a previous thread about that matter:

    How would that match the text on the plaque of the Statue of Liberty? It doesn't mention a certain quota of tired and poor to be sent. Without that plaque, it's as fine for the US to do that indeed.
  12. nurman

    nurman IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,327
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    348
    As a finn, I'll second this.

    But yeah, in northern europe, you have to really screw up to end up homeless or be an illegal immigrant.
  13. Stevinator

    Stevinator IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    If you go see it in person there's a space and then it says "JK ;P"


    Doesn't jive with the concept of american exceptionalism. So because europe does something wrong, it's okay for us to do it too. I thought we thought better of ourselves than that.
  14. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    13,627
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    469
    Neither does it say, "Give me your indolent, your freeloaders, your lazy gobshytes yearning to live off of someone else's labour." That's what the modern Left pretends it means, but really it never has - the only reason people accept the twisted interpretation is that it steadily increases the Socialist Democrat voter rolls. For Steve to refer to American exceptionalism in that light is particularly insulting; there was never a belief that "Land of the Free" was intended as "Land of the Handout". Completely open borders, as demanded by the Left, flies in the face of the very concept of a nation.

  15. Urzuxo

    Urzuxo IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Don't you guys feck off mexicans all the time?
  16. Glurin

    Glurin IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Messages:
    931
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Hardly. If anything, they are telling us to feck off in our own country.
  17. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    27,320
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    354
    I will assume that you are exaggerating, not noticing that some people may interpret your words as a kind of racism.

    Logically spoken, it says "if somebody is tired or poor, send him to us" while it doesn't say anything about further requirements. Anyway, the US welcomed a lot of tired and poor people. Besides, the text on the plaque doesn't promise that mooches will be fed or that criminals won't be thrown into jail, just because they are poor and tired. Beibng welcome also doesn't come with citizenship.
  18. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    13,627
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    469
    Me? Or Glurin? Personally, I doubt it; we have as a culture a heck of a lot less racism than Germany or most European states do. Consider German attitudes towards "Turks"? Mexicans are frequently quite racist, as are blacks - one of the main organizations claiming to represent Mexicans is called "La Raza" (The Race) and makes claims that would be familiar coming from the mouth of a Grand Klaxon of the KKK.
    If we want to go full nerd, it's nothing but a poem on a plaque written by a Portugese Jewess in 1883 after hearing about the Russian pogroms, and has no reflection in actual U.S. policy. There's all manner of Christian scripture written in National Monuments, but you never hear the fascist Left demanding those be enforced as statutes.

    If you think about it, the problem is because the Mariel Boatlift set a wonderful precedent for socialist Democrats. We take the worst elements of other populations, and they'll reliably vote Democrat in order to ensure "free stuff". That's no model to follow, as Steyn discussed.
  19. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    27,320
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    354
    I referred to Glurin's last posting, not to German, Mexican or American racists. I guess he was just a bit angry when he wrote it.

    I agree.

    It doesn't matter who made the plaque and I'm aware that its over 100 years old. It doesn't reflect the current US immigration policy anymore, but that's not the point of still having it. It belongs to the statue and it would be silly to remove it.

    We have a couple of monuments here as well which don't match our policy in full and we keep them as they are, just like the US.
  20. Glurin

    Glurin IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Messages:
    931
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Not so much, no. They sneak into the U.S. in droves, get "free" medical care, education, welfare, etc. which the legal citizens have to pay for, then they cry foul (or the people that want votes from that demographic do) if we try to send them back home and tell them that if they want to come here, do it legally. There's even been buzz about allowing them the legal right to vote in some places, with accusations of racism flying wildly when someone says no. (Note that we are supposed to call them "undocumented workers/immigrants" now rather than "illegal aliens".)

    And since you mention it, we often here someone crying racism when we tell them to get out because they are here illegally. Heck, these days it seems like anything you say is racist if you're white. Any other shade of brown and you can say anything you want, including the kind of stuff you'd expect from those guys in pointy, white hoods in the deep south almost a hundred years ago. But if you're pale colored, why you're just "born racist". At this point, I just expect to be called a racist by somebody when discussing immigration or various other subjects.

    I believe it's the result of certain political interests pushing the PC button way too many times to use the appeal to emotion it evokes against their rivals. Look what happened when Arizona tried to actually enforce the law, which the federal government refused to do, because they've got a really bad illegal alien problem there. You'd have thought that Arizona was the new KKK headquarters of the world the way lefties talked about it.

Share This Page