Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

744,313 is a point in time estimate from over 3 years ago. In other words, how many people are homeless on a given day. It does not capture how many people actually went homeless at some point during the year. It also does not count people who manage to find a friend or family member to stay with.

From the National Coalition for the homeless Fact Sheet #2:

It is also important to note that this study was based on a national survey of service providers. Since not all people experiencing homelessness utilize service providers, the actual numbers of people experiencing homelessness are likely higher than those found in the study, Thus, we are estimating on the high end of the study’s numbers: 3.5 million people, 39% of which are children (Urban Institute 2000).

In early 2007, the National Alliance to End Homelessness reported a point-in-time estimate of 744,313 people experiencing homelessness in January 2005.


NCH Fact Sheet # 2


And according to the National Alliance to end Homelessness:

There have been recent proposals to expand the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s definition of homeless to include households that are doubled up for economic reasons.1 To assess the impact of this proposal, this data snapshot looks at how many people would be added to the homeless population if the proposal was adopted. The data show that expanding the definition to include people who are doubled up for economic reasons would increase the current homeless population (744,313 on a given night) by 3.8 million.

NAH Data Snapshot

While staying with a family member or friend is not as bad as living under a bridge, it is still painful to have lost everything you ever worked for and to realize that you are one step away from ending up on the street.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
If one keeps expanding the definition of homeless, most children are homeless because they don't own their own homes. Old leftie trick, keep expanding the base by redefining the terms.


They did not say that owning your own home was the criteria. LIVING in your own home and not as a guest in someone else's is the criteria.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
"There are millions of people in the United States who are houseless."

Uh, NO!

In 2005, 744,000 homeless people in U.S.

A little more than half were living in shelters, and nearly a quarter were chronically homeless, according to the report Wednesday by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, an advocacy group.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16564208/



O.K.,It is 744,000 and not Millions. Does that make the problem any better? If the Government would keep our money in this country we would have the money to help Americans! No American should go hungry and homeless, while they send millions of dollars to help other countries.
quote:
Originally posted by yankeewitch:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Howard Roark:
"There are millions of people in the United States who are houseless."

Uh, NO!

In 2005, 744,000 homeless people in U.S.

A little more than half were living in shelters, and nearly a quarter were chronically homeless, according to the report Wednesday by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, an advocacy group.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16564208/



O.K.,It is 744,000 and not Millions. Does that make the problem any better? QUOTE]

Yes, it does. That means it is a problem that affects less than .002 percent of the US population.
I agree, charity should start at home. I have no problem with organizations that help the homeless.

Also keep in mind that about for about 75% of homeless people, it's a temporary situation. They just need a helping hand to get back on their feet again. Everyone needs a little help sometimes.

It's the other 25% that are on the interstate off ramps holding cardboard signs begging for a free handout that I have a problem with. They aren't looking to get back on their feet, they prefer to sit on their butts.
I agree with the statement "Charity should start at home". I also agree that we shouldn't be spending money on other homeless.

But a large percentage of those 744,000 are homeless because they want to be. I've dealt with homeless people for years. Yep, there are some that way because of fortune. But there's a heck of a lot of them that are that way by choice, too.
I also agree with Charity starts at home,,,, but there are many many homeless people who live on the streets by choice...... I feel for the ones who were thrust there by corporate greed,,, but we have to face reality that some people can be given a house and a job and will be homeless again within 3 months..... there has been many documentaries about this issue.....
Unfortunately, most of the chronically homeless fit the self imposed status:

Lifetime self-reported alcohol, drug and mental health problems
62% Alcohol
58% Drugs
57% Mental health
27% Mental health and alcohol or drug (dual diagnosed)

By law, those with mental health problems can't be housed against their will, unless they are a menace to themselves or others.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Unfortunately, most of the chronically homeless fit the self imposed status:

Lifetime self-reported alcohol, drug and mental health problems
62% Alcohol
58% Drugs
57% Mental health
27% Mental health and alcohol or drug (dual diagnosed)

By law, those with mental health problems can't be housed against their will, unless they are a menace to themselves or others.


If you think about it, they ARE a danger to themselves...But we don't even WANT to get into an ACLU discussion!
The mentally ill on the streets are a result of leftist actions causing unintended consequences. Before, most were housed in state facilities. Releasing some of the inmates was a good idea. But, releasing those who obviously could not care for themselves had atrocious results both for the inmates and those they accost on the streets.
Most of the homeless we have here in Los Angeles County are mentally ill in some fashion. When the state ruled it was illegal to keep them against their will in institutions they were turned out on the streets to fend for themselves. As long as they are supervised and on medication they can take care of themselves but left to their own devices they either can't or won't take their medications which leaves them unable to function in normal society i.e. hold a job, drive a car, own or rent a home, etc. Many are paranoid schizophrenics or severely bi-polar. They are NOT the ones you see standing with a sign at a freeway on ramp. They can't begin to think straight enough to write out a sign much less pander for spare change. These are the people you see alone, shuffling along, carrying on conversations with the voices in their heads, usually swathed in all of their belongings. Now tell me - does ANYONE actually believe these poor souls are better off NOW, not being kept in institutions and off their meds, than they were before the ACLU decided to take up the fight for them????
Only the ACLU believes the suffering are better off on the street, in order to justify their existence. They could have been a good group but they are seriously of the mark most of the time.

My last year in New York, there was a rash of attacks and murders committed by people who stopped taking their meds because they did not like the way they made them feel. They got to plead insanity.

In my book, if you are on meds to make you not insane, and while on those meds you decide that you do not want to take them, then you made a sane choice to become a menace and therefore are not insane but guilty as hell!

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×