Meanwhile... US Homelessness and Poverty rates Skyrocket

www.informationclearinghouse.info...
...
3.5 million people, 39% of them children, currently experience homelessness every year. 60% of all new homeless cases are single mothers with children.

Recent studies suggest that the United States generates homelessness at a much higher rate than previously thought. By its very nature, homelessness is impossible to measure with 100% accuracy. More important than actually knowing the precise number of people who experience homelessness is how to go about ending it.

A growing number of cities, including Los Angeles, Seattle, and Atlanta, are criminalizing activities of the homeless, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless. More than 60 cities are introducing measures to make it illegal to beg or sleep on the streets, to sit in a bus shelter for more than an hour, or to walk across a parking lot if the person doesn't have a car parked there.

In 2002 the US Conference of Mayors reported a 19% increase in shelter requests due to homelessness in 25 surveyed cities. Requests for shelter by families increased by 20%.

On average 30% of all requests for shelter went unmet in 2002, with 38% of requests by families going unmet. In 60% of the reporting cities, emergency shelters had to turn away families due to lack of resources, with 56% reporting they had to turn away other homeless people.

People are remaining homeless for at least 6 months on average with 82% of cities reporting an increase in the length of time people are homeless.

There has been a 40% increase in the Berkeley, California homeless population over the last two years. New York City has reported a 42% increase over the last two years, Boston a 37% increase, Los Angeles, CA a 47% increase, San Diego, CA 41%, Washington, D.C. 39%, Seattle, WA. 43%, Portland, OR 36%, Chicago, IL 47%, St. Louis, MO 34%, Atlanta, GA 40%, Tampa, FL 46%, St. Petersburg, Fl 45%, Miami, FL 49%, New Orleans, LA 41%, Phoenix, AZ a staggering 56%, with most other major cities reporting at least a 25-30% increase over the last two years.

41% of all homeless are single males, 41% families, 13% single females, and 5% being unaccompanied minors. The homeless population is estimated to be 50% African American, 35% white, 12% Hispanic, 2% Native American, and 1% Asian.

...

[Edited on 2-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

more proof the economy is going straight to hell. oh, and something like 60% of homeless people are mentally ill. long-term care facilities are being shut down completely, and it's immensely hard to get insurance companies to okay intensive care (anything more intensive than a therapist and a visit to a psychatrist), if you even have insurance. you have to fight for care at the time when you're least able to fight, and consequently a lot of people just land up getting worse or self-medicating with drugs and alcohol. it's really not hard to land up homeless when you're schizophrenic and alcoholic and have worn out the goodwill of friends and family, know what I mean?

No, look at the economic numbers and you'll see the economy is doing much better. Of course you won't hear about that in the mainstream media. Why? I'm sure you know.

Gee, it's amazing that the homeless all find homes and jobs and the 39% children are all loved and cared for whenever the administration is democratic and all of a sudden the homeless are all over the place when a republican gets in! I mean, my goodness, when Ronnie was in all you heard about was the poor little urchins, I'm surprised the rich old 5th Avenue evil white Republicans could even make it to their limos with all the homeless sprawled in the street. Of course, when Bill got in you never heard another word of it.

No, this article isn't proof of a soured economy, its proof of the ever left-leaning media, using the same tacics it always does. I'd figure the tactics would be too old to use now, but I guess there'll always be a new generation of knee-jerks to buy the lies.

The article indeed describes social realities more than purely speaking economical ones. In my eyes, it amounts to treason towards the own people to spend 450 billion on chasing inexistent WMD's in Iraq while people are starving at home. Only a mentally very sick person could advocate that.

[Edited on 2-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

How about define "treason" for us....in US legal terms.
Btw, regardless of having a good economy or a bad economy, homeless and poverty has always been prevalent. The percentage varies every year. Any US citizen knows this.
Btw....starvation and poverty is prevalent in every country.........
It takes a mentally sick person not to realize this and thus concentrate on taking care of this in their own respective countries.

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 2-8-2003 by Seekerof]

Certainly there has to be more than a grain of truth in Thomas's suggestion that there is a fair degree of media-massage in the timing and wording of these "news" items: given GWB's apparent popularity still, as far as his international policy -for want of a better word -is concerned, there seems little option left other than to attack him on domestic issues.
That said: there are issues that should worry Americans as far as their economy is concerned and while it would be absurd to charge Bush or the GOP as being the "cause' it's not immediately obvious that the current administration has done a great deal to help people ( I refer to political action rather than market-forces which are - to a degree -independent of governments: if OPEC pushes the price of oil up: Dem or Rep you pay more.)
I would be concerned also about the inexorable rise of the US prison population: to be sure it can be seen as "law and order" but there have to be social factors to consider.
It's a very complex matter in the States: in part the divison between States and Central Govt. exacerbates matters: with one exception, the former must balance budgets; the latter blithely ignores the issue despite frequent pledges to address the balance over the years.
Also, historically the US has been a "self-help" culture with little of the history of centralised social services that Europe has long had: spending on the poor, jobless, homeless is, I suspect, far less attractive as a political battle-cry in the US than it is in Britain or Western Europe.
Also -though it may ultimately be largely irrelevant -one needs to consider what the sociologists term "relative" poverty: how poor is an Oklohoman on the "poverty line" compared to your average industrious Peruvian yam-digger: does it just mean an old Buick and a smaller TV?
It's not an issue for slogans but for thought.

[Edited on 2-8-2003 by Estragon]

Then how do you explain so many americans swallowed the "We're going to liberate Iraq from a ruthless rule" line. If that isnt based on concern for fellow human beings, what is it based on ? I just can't believe there would be a unique people on earth (the americans) that do not care for their compatriots.



[Edited on 2-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

I would venture to say that this is a simple matter of historical fact: study the history of pensions, free education, welfare, benefits and free health care at the point of use in the USA: or read a little, for example, about the Depression. ( the aside about Iraq is irrelevant).
I intend this as no slur: in many ways it could be defended: but it is a fact.

I understand that social movements aren't preeminent in the US, as they are being fought by the capitalist financial, industrial and media establishment. But why are misery in Somalia or violent dictatorships in Iraq supposed to move the taxpayer towards spending billions on defence, while poverty, illiteracy and violence two blocks around aren't ? Either it is a profound mental problem of double standards, or , more likely, the cause for the inconsistency lies in media perception ... ? Or to turn the question around .. why arent political dissidents in Iraq viewed under the same light of personal responsibility ?


[Edited on 2-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

And we might add that Medicare and Medicaid are highly restrictive (and a mess) and relatively recent (1966); that it took the New Deal to introduce unemployment benefits, that the history of Trades Unionism in the US is unparalleled in terms of violence and crime in the Western democratic world, that pensions are relative late in the US; there is no National Health system: the US still has a less generous social security system than the Kaiser's Germany had.
I set aside the historical ignorance of the not-right-headed and repeat that this is simply an observation of political priorities in the US: the country has a long tradition of "self-help", of individualism and individual responsibilty, of opportunity for those who work and so forth.

And billions on defence have a habit of staying at home and lining many pockets among the great and good: more to the point it's highly "marketable" politically in terms of self-interest. Spending on the starving Somalis (remember Blackhawk Down) does little in terms of self-interest and can easily be represented as "their own fault".
That's just political pragmatism: a single relatively-transparent standard.

Moku, your an intelligent individual. I really believe this.
But I think you kinda remind me of Colonel....no offense.
In Colonel's hatred of Bush and the Republicans, he sometimes fails to discern between fact and fiction.
In your anger and/or hatred of Bush or perhaps America and what it has done of late.....you are now delving into US poverty and homeless percentages and thus, using this to justify your stance against the US for doing what it did in Iraq, etc., etc.

Poverty and homelessness in America has always remained a problem. Why? Dunno....maybe its just a fact of civilization or a fact of society. The problem is being addressed and will continue to be addressed. It equates to what Estragon mentioned. Its a matter of a nations priorities. Yep, your correct, we have percentages of homeless and poverty....but you leave out that the US is a major contributor of food programs, medical, etc. throughout the whole world. Take India and Africa for example. This is done alot by contributions from those very same people that are in the poverty percentages.
Your basically saying that instead of going to liberate Iraq, that the US could have spent the money to help the poor, homeless, etc. in our own country. Good point....perhaps if this same principle appliedm perchance we wouldn't have gotten involved in alot of the worlds problems. (ie: WW2, etc.) Its a matter of seeking a balance and its a hard balance to maintain.....for any country.
Do you not agree that poverty, hunger, the poor, etc. is prevalent evrywhere in this world? Would you not agree that if the "world" worked together that it could confront and conquer poverty, hunger, etc. throughout the world in relative short order? Couldn't we, the world, prevent the 40,000+ kids that die every DAY throughout this world from hunger and starvation?
Singling out one nations problem only serves the one doing the "singling out".......when in truth, the problem you are singling out, exists everywhere.

regards
seekerof

Ok, it's political pragmatism that uses the good sentiments of the taxpaying population to further the ends of the ruling class if i get you right. As the USA are, formally speaking, a democracy that would imply that the people are being manipulated by the administration and the media in order to support these defense expenditures. But that doesnt mean that the people don't have the capacity of embracing social responsibility, imo.

[Edited on 2-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

Ok, Seekerof,

Then tell me .. if poverty , violence and starvation are "just facts" and if you dont want to spend money relieving these problems, why are you willing to spend hundreds of billions on like problems of the iraqi people, that are on the other side of the globe ?

BTW, if you want to refine your writing style, just let comments like your introduction out and get to the beef more quickly



[Edited on 2-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

And I would agree, somewhat, but yes....I agree. I think its a problem that has always existed in various degrees.
Please don't misunderstand me....I agree with your premise...."we" most certainly could have used that money for the better here in the US! But poverty, hunger, and the homeless situations are prevalent everywhere. Each country or nation address's this based on priorities and priorities in the US, as of late, or matter of factly, have been considerably screwed.
I was not wholely bent on saying you were wrong but just pointing out that its prevalence is a world wide problem, just not solely restricted to the US.

regards
seekerof

How right you are. Nevertheless it is the US and UK, who have by very far the biggest poverty problems in the western world that choose to spend billions on the destruction of other countries, not anyone else. That's why the situation is not symmetrical

Indeed, it amounts to being realistic about one’s nation’s political priorities and one’s own. Good grief: Miller wrote “Death of a salesman” half a century ago. It does no good to beat one’s breast about the American dream if one is happily enjoying it.
The “poor” are a strange issue - one almost recalls Christ’s words when his feet were anointed and he pointed out that the poor are always among us. They are- always and forever. I’ve seen them in Switzerland, and in Japan!
Except they aren’t. Most us now live very much according to economic criteria –where we can afford to live, in short, and - if we’re working and doing OK, the poor –except on TV- are the unsolicited washers of windscreens, sellers of magazines, beggars for change who interrupt our daily travels and annoy us.
Also, there is often that sense of “it’s their fault”. I take no credit for it, but I admit to having thought at times of the fact that –apart from military service –my father worked every day of his life (and still does); Estragon had a paper-round at 13, worked part-time through the Sixth form, worked part-time through six years of university, and has worked every day since for almost twenty years.

As I say, I am not particularly proud of it; but I suggest that it is a common enough response and that often we find ourselves thinking: Why don’t they just get off their a**es and get a job?”.
And one can state this mutatis mutandur in other cases: delinquents, single mothers, junkies, alkies, those who don’t save, credit-card buffoons, etc.. ad lib..blah aarrgghh.
We do not always truly say "there but for the grace of God", rather we say (if only to ourselves) "thank God I'm not like that"
Many of us do not –if we are truthful –have a wholly charitable view of the “poor” –or other “unfortunates” and this is not restricted to any one country - perhaps the US is simply more honest or less "guilt-ridden".

Moku.......your again using this in direct relation to Iraq. We all know that you and many others, hell, even myself, don't agree with alot of what is happening in Iraq and the "whys" related to it. But I maintain, that what you are pointing out is a fact of life and a matter of a nations priorities. Why does India or China or Russia or many nations in Africa, spends oddles of money on defense programs and ignore the very same problems that you claim the US is ignoring? I can't answer that, nor can I answer that in relation to what the US is doing. I think it comes down to national priorities and historical fact. And I do believe that NO nation is excempt from this.....would you not agree?

regards
seekerof

" Posted by Seekerof : Why does India or China or Russia or many nations in Africa, spends oddles of money on defense programs and ignore the very same problems that you claim the US is ignoring? I can't answer that, nor can I answer that in relation to what the US is doing. I think it comes down to national priorities and historical fact. And I do believe that NO nation is excempt from this.....would you not agree? "

I agree. (Well for one, Russia doesnt really spend so much on defence .. otherwise Iraq probably wouldnt have been invaded) You are talking about third world countries and communist dictatorships in relation to the US. If that is your standard, be it. That is my point. While having an extremely rich upper class corporations and banks, the US is degenerating towards third world standards in it's humanitarian developement. It makes you wonder where all that corporate wealth comes from ?

"Posted by Estragon : Many of us do not –if we are truthful –have a wholly charitable view of the “poor” –or other “unfortunates” and this is not restricted to any one country - perhaps the US is simply more honest or less "guilt-ridden". "

That is a good point. Charity is certainly related to religious beliefs, or values induced from these religious beliefs. But are you sure that a society which neglects these "social duties" and hopes for an easy profit will last a long time ? What if the situation progresses ? Will there be upper class ghettoes protected by the police while the laborious, unemployed, homeless and criminalized masses live in misery ? What will happen then ? Will you erect fences to stop the poor and the exploited from from breaking into upper-class houses ?




[Edited on 2-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

The last time I looked, Moku: the affluent had erected a great many fences, alarm systems, and heaven knows what to keep the rabble far away. It's seldom that difficult to get money for more policing ,and property crimes are notoriously treated as more serious than many other crimes involving violence.
I suspect modern societies will react as the Romans did: bread and circuses and strong guards (often enlisted from the poor).
If the US has relatively primitive social services, it cannot be for lack of money. It must be because there is a lack of political will and that will be because politicians do not see it as a great vote-catcher (how many of the poor vote? And, one assumes that the homeless are ipso facto ineligible for registration).
One needs to be realistic and to recognise that what one may assert to be one's moral belief may not be one's political belief: I do not doubt that many who pay quite sincere lip-service to "thou shalt not kill" as an ethical edict in their pivate belief-systems are quite happy when the gooks are severely zapped.
I'm not sure if this is hypocrisy or merely human nature.
But I am sure that humbug advances no discussion: one has to be realistic about political priorities- domestic and international and perceive clearly that they may not coincide- what we may think appropriate for Liberia we may not think appropriate for Louisiana.

[Edited on 2-8-2003 by Estragon]