It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Every night 754,000 in US homeless -- study

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Every night 754,000 in US homeless -- study


Source Link: newsinfo.inquirer.net

WASHINGTON -- On any given night 754,000 people across the United States are homeless, according to a new government study on the problem released Wednesday.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, in its first study of the scope of the national homelessness problem in 23 years, said that its "snapshot" study based on a three-month period in 2005 showed that two-thirds of the homeless population are men, 16 percent are women, 59 percent are ethnic minorities, 41 percent are in the 31-50 age range and 21 percent are children.

It also said that nearly one in five of the adult homeless are military veterans.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Incredible that in a nation in which we have a government that takes billions of tax payer money to fight wars we have people that is homeless . . .

This are the ugly littler secrets that a nation of Plenty doesn't want many to know, the homeless and the hungry . . .

A disgrace.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
The utmost disgrace is this part:
"one in five of the adult homeless are military veterans"

"Great Nation", "Hono(u)r", "Serve with Pride"...
... what does it mean??



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
It gets worse...


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
The utmost disgrace is this part:
"one in five of the adult homeless are military veterans"

"Great Nation", "Hono(u)r", "Serve with Pride"...
... what does it mean??


Got a source outside this one?….(of course other than HUD)….HUD doesn’t know its own forms from form…or is it a rule of law: Only listen to the agencies that tell you what you want to hear….ignore the rest….right?

The UCICH spends multiple $billions every year on the homeless…

"The $1.4 billion announced today continues the Administration's commitment to ending chronic homelessness and more effectively assisting homeless families," said United States Interagency Council on Homelessness Executive Director Philip Mangano. "This funding will support an unprecedented number of local programs- more than 5,300 individual shelter, housing and service projects throughout America- in a tangible expression of the National Partnership which received additional encouragement recently from the President's proposed FY 2008 budget of $4.4 billion for a seventh record year of targeted federal homelessness assistance funding." source linked above


However, Philip Mangano, executive director of the United States Interagency Council of Homelessness, said that the snapshot survey does not represent the full extent of homelessness across the country, as measured throughout the year.the original posters link

Give trhumping the “honor” vein a rest…it's getting old....

mg



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I'm talking about Veterans. They don't deserve this. You follow the Walter Reid scandal?

If you don't come home in a bodybag, you come as a misfit, a looner (remember the UNA bomber) and chances are you end up on the streets ...as a homeless.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
/ begin sarcasm\ Who cares about the homeless. They are already screwed. We need to worry about the freedom of Iraqis first! Whats more important here, people already out in the streets or people in Iraq that lack freedom that we can put out in the streets!? /end sarcasm\


Now not only are there hundreds of thousands of Americans sleeping out in the freezing cold in nothing but a cardboard box , but Millions of Iraqis were forced to flee the country and are homeless as well as countryless.
Anyway the majority of Americans pretty much know the freedom but was merely an afterthought when it was realized they would be caught in a lie.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Counting the homeless has been a non-starter for years, precisely because of the fact that they're homeless. It's like counting bugs flying about in a swarm. (Not trying to say homeless people are insects, just that their movements are hard to track and their numbers are very hard to determine)

Usually these numbers are derived from shelter lists and assistance applications, combined with limited 'sweeps' that are then extrapolated for larger areas - but who wants to take a bet on how many of the homeless remain unaccounted for and invisible?

What about the underground homeless? What about the transient homeless, those who ride the rails or walk from place to place (some are probably counted twice, and others never get counted)? What about the folks who don't look homeless? What about the young homeless, who often stay the Hell away from the other homeless folks?

Do you count them sleeping, or awake? Do you use soup kitchen numbers (what about the folks who aren't homeless, but utilize soup kitchens)? I just can't even begin to imagine the number of variables involved.

This is a major challenge facing just about everywhere - how to efficiently and accurately count the homeless? Everybody does it differently, and it's quite complicated to reconcile the different methods to synthesize 'combined' numbers and derive any picture of the whole. It's hard enough getting accurate local figures, nevermind national figures. Estimates vary WILDLY at the national level.

What about the homeless people off the grid? What about the rural homeless? The campers and the sailors?

It's a major problem, and I would love to hear ideas regarding the best methods for counting the homeless.

I found this to be a good read, with good links. www.pbs.org...

In any case, the number of homeless veterans is staggering.

We could give 'em all a home for thirty or fourty grand each, and save more on services and census taking in the long run. Nevermind all the government bureaucracy that's sprung up around the problem to further complicate it and increase overhead as a matter of course - we'd save millions of dollars on that every year. Nevermind the health problems created and exacerbated by homelessness, that often come back around to the taxpayers...

Give 'em houses, in a state of their own choosing.

Why not?



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Once a person is homeless it's nearly impossible for them to get their life back. If they apply for a job, they won't have clean clothes, a house address to put down on their resume, a phone to get called back at, a shower to clean themselves daily, nor anywhere to sleep after going home from the job, if they were accepted.

What's even more sad is that there are many homeless families with young children who never get to go to school, which usually makes them end up in the same situation like their parent(s).



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   
I just don't get it.

A nation with the technology to put man on the moon, with a defense budget that makes up the GNP of the hundreds poorest nations on earth and the power to force its will on almost any state, don't have the ability to look after its weakest members.

To me thats an enigma uncomprehensible.

Unless somebody wants it to be like that of course.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   
as far as the homeless vets goes....
you can throw as much money as you want into the free shelters and such, but I've known a couple of these vets....my husband can spot them right off...
you need to spend the money unscrewing their brains. war has messed them up and until that is undone, there's not much that will help...ya, give them a home, but if they can't hold a job, what's gonna stop them from losing it because of the taxes on the home. we've spent billions of dollars messing these people up, if we spent just a little of that finding the solution to their problems, we could help them. but, well, it's better to spend a few billion more messing up more kids..better for some people's stock portfolio, better for some corporations.....and that's all that matters, right?

this is how our fine government "supports" the troops!



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:06 AM
link   
754K homeless but the 4.6% unemployment rate would mean that nearly 1.4 million are without jobs. Why are only half of these people homeless? What is this 700K not doing that the other 700K is doing?

Incidently 4.6% is quite acceptable. Granted if we didnt tax our industies into leaving the country we could have an even less number of unemployed. But anything within 5%-6% pretty much means that anyone who wants a job can get a job. Unless of course the individual has some medical/mental/drug issues.

And its not nearly as impossible as some make it out to be. Im personally aquainted with a dozen or more who have been homeless, addicted to drugs, prostituting themselves and are now college grads, home owners, business owners, a few of them are, financially speaking, worth more than I am. Its not easy to do but dont try to make it out to be this horrible impossability that no one but the elite can accomplish. And dont, for one second, suggest that this nation turn Socialist because 2% of its population doesnt have a home. Let me walk to the other end of my office and ask the Armenian how he would feel if the country he fled to went Socialist. I guarantee he would be less than enthusiastic about it.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I sincerely doubt the 754.000 is included in unemployment statistics.

They have dropped out of any statistics, dropped through the bottom of any charity, good will and human decency.

Can't say they dropped out of the social system as you haven't got any.

BTW, what's so wrong with that word?

Humans are social beings. Or should be.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   


754K homeless but the 4.6% unemployment rate would mean that nearly 1.4 million are without jobs. Why are only half of these people homeless? What is this 700K not doing that the other 700K is doing?


The unemployment rate is a RUSE.



Incidently 4.6% is quite acceptable.


If that were the real number, we could all be happy about it. If it's not three times that high, I'll eat my hat. It's a big hat too...

Unemployment benefits don't last forever, what about the folks who use up their benefits and still haven't found a job? What about the folks who never qualified for benefits? What about the people who chose not to apply for benefits for whatever reason?



Granted if we didnt tax our industies into leaving the country we could have an even less number of unemployed.


Whoa! Hold up. Executive compensation packages are at all time highs. Taxes on corporations continue to decrease, and shelters are expanding. The average CEO made EIGHT HUNDRED AND TWENTY ONE TIMES (821x) more money than a minimum wage employee in this country in 2005, not counting the perks and insurance and what-not.

(url=http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060627]Link[/url]

You're telling me taxes are to blame for the state of the American job market?

I guess rising profit margins and an increasingly non-productive class of business elite, combined with revolving door cronyism in Washington, have nothing to do with the state of the job market...



But anything within 5%-6% pretty much means that anyone who wants a job can get a job. Unless of course the individual has some medical/mental/drug issues.


What an unsupported, presumptious, and offensive statement.

You stereotype everyone without a job as a drug-addicted, or maybe crazy, loser?

The number of unemployed individuals holding diplomas has never been higher. Once again, the number of highly-educated individuals out of work is at an all time high.

Clearly, there's more to the problem than a bunch of unemployable losers.



Its not easy to do but dont try to make it out to be this horrible impossability that no one but the elite can accomplish.


Well, on this I agree - nothing is impossible. It's just that the rags-to-riches fantasy comes true for a very, very small percentage of people. Most folks lack the discipine, or the intelligence, or the motivation. Others just have bad luck.

I don't see any reason not to provide housing for the homeless, it saves money in the long run and improves the quality of life for everyone in the country. It's a minor investment, with a huge payoff, all things considered.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

In any case, the number of homeless veterans is staggering.

We could give 'em all a home for thirty or fourty grand each, and save more on services and census taking in the long run. Nevermind all the government bureaucracy that's sprung up around the problem to further complicate it and increase overhead as a matter of course - we'd save millions of dollars on that every year. Nevermind the health problems created and exacerbated by homelessness, that often come back around to the taxpayers...

Give 'em houses, in a state of their own choosing.

Why not?

Absolutely.
And why stop with the homeless? We have the resources to shelter every person in our country with affordable housing.

This has always been one of my pet peeves, and if I would ever run for office, it would be a major plank in my platform.

There's no reason a person/couple/family should need to pay outrageous interest for 30 years for a simple 3 bedroom house on a half acre, other than to feed the fat banks.

Build a decent house for $100K, let the person pay $10K/yr for 15 years to own it, simple interest. Not this usurious compounded crap.

Provide a person with a home, and you give them an anchor in the community, a reason to participate, a sense of pride in home ownership. And watch your crime stats go down.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Unemployment benefits don't last forever, what about the folks who use up their benefits and still haven't found a job? What about the folks who never qualified for benefits? What about the people who chose not to apply for benefits for whatever reason?

Yes, but you have to counterbalance those numbers with hiring statistics, which are on the uprise, and other things like getting paid under the table.

The problem is, there aren't any other ways to measure employment rates.




top topics



 
3

log in

join