Republican State Gives Free Houses to Moochers, Cuts Homelessness by 74 Percent

republican_state _gives_free_houses_to_moochers

A San Francisco study found that placing homeless people in permanent supportive housing reduced their emergency room visits by more than half. In 2006, the Denver Housing First Collaborative published a study of chronically homeless individuals, comparing the costs of services for two years before and after placement in permanent supportive housing. The group found a 34 percent reduction in ER costs and inpatient nights declined 80 percent.

This seems like a good way of getting a second look at a problem and then thinking out of the box for a solution. Figuring the total dollar amount that the homeless add to the system and then using that figure as part of the solution seems pretty smart overall. This plan works because of the simple fact that not very many people want to be a burden to the system but have been pushed to the side for various reasons.

nationswell.com
nationofchange.org

"This plan works because of the simple fact that not very many people want to be a burden to the system but have been pushed to the side for various reasons. "

Not wanting to be a burden but pushed to the side for various reasons yet they're still called moochers?

A negative connotation that accomplishes nothing.

Moocher:

www.urbandictionary.com...

Someone who always asks for things and favors constantly and will never leave you alone. They will ask for money, rides to places, for you to do simple tasks they could do easily but they think the whole world should cater to them, basically just a leech to everyone around them, a parasite to the community.

Peace

If its the Republicans doing this then i can only imagine they'll want something in return from the homeless.

Seriously, what's the catch?

I don't like the idea of calling homeless people "moochers", there but for the grace of God go I and you. Housing, nutritious food, clean air, clean water, warmth and love, these things are the birth right of every human being. These things should be free to all. Why should some have so very much and others nothing? "We have enough for everyones need but not everyones greed"- M.G. This shows all of us that this is possible. Stop spending all our money on bombs and bullets and inventing new ways to kill each other. PEACE.

jude11
you have been around long enough to see that i called no one a moocher yet you highlight my words then highlight the person who wrote the articles name calling as to indicate it was i that said moocher. come on

Also i gave two other links to related stories so i do not think we should dwell on repubs or moochers here. I will admit perhaps i should have used a different link to the story but i urge you all to find the meat here.

a reply to: SearchLightsInc

As a person who just spent a year in "permanent supportive housing" what it means is that they take old, delapidated buildings, turn them into shelters and then bring in charities and churches to help. The first thing they do, when you walk in the door, is to apply you for SSI, SSDI, Food Stamps, and Medicaid. Once this is done they begin charging rent, on credit. When the homeless persons benefits come in, the facility seizes them as back rent and the person can then head out and try to live on whatever benefits they got.

This actually helps the community because the charities pick up the medical bills ( usually through an arrangement for reduced fees at a local clinic ) and it actually increases property values in the area as the homeless are centralized, the shabby, neglected, old buildling is fixed up and the neighborhood improves.

It's a fairly good program to help get people out of trouble. But it is extremely abusive to the chronically ill who end up stuck in facilities that masquerade as "care facilities" when they are, in fact, homeless shelters lacking the personell and expertise to deal with the chronically ill.

I wrote a thread, recently, about a good friend of mine from that place who died recently. He was the fifth or sixth death in the year span that has transpired.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

As a person who just spent a year in "permanent supportive housing" what it means is that they take old, delapidated buildings, turn them into shelters and then bring in charities and churches to help. The first thing they do, when you walk in the door, is to apply you for SSI, SSDI, Food Stamps, and Medicaid. Once this is done they begin charging rent, on credit. When the homeless persons benefits come in, the facility seizes them as back rent and the person can then head out and try to live on whatever benefits they got.

This actually helps the community because the charities pick up the medical bills ( usually through an arrangement for reduced fees at a local clinic ) and it actually increases property values in the area as the homeless are centralized, the shabby, neglected, old buildling is fixed up and the neighborhood improves.

It's a fairly good program to help get people out of trouble. But it is extremely abusive to the chronically ill who end up stuck in facilities that masquerade as "care facilities" when they are, in fact, homeless shelters lacking the personell and expertise to deal with the chronically ill.

I wrote a thread, recently, about a good friend of mine from that place who died recently. He was the fifth or sixth death in the year span that has transpired.

Not denying its a good thing, everyone should be able to afford to be sheltered. Just wondering what the catch is. Suppose the state saving money is good enough.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

As a person who just spent a year in "permanent supportive housing" what it means is that they take old, delapidated buildings, turn them into shelters and then bring in charities and churches to help. The first thing they do, when you walk in the door, is to apply you for SSI, SSDI, Food Stamps, and Medicaid. Once this is done they begin charging rent, on credit. When the homeless persons benefits come in, the facility seizes them as back rent and the person can then head out and try to live on whatever benefits they got.

This actually helps the community because the charities pick up the medical bills ( usually through an arrangement for reduced fees at a local clinic ) and it actually increases property values in the area as the homeless are centralized, the shabby, neglected, old buildling is fixed up and the neighborhood improves.

It's a fairly good program to help get people out of trouble. But it is extremely abusive to the chronically ill who end up stuck in facilities that masquerade as "care facilities" when they are, in fact, homeless shelters lacking the personell and expertise to deal with the chronically ill.

I wrote a thread, recently, about a good friend of mine from that place who died recently. He was the fifth or sixth death in the year span that has transpired.

They have a similar system here, although much of the housing is new through housing trusts, and the care workers are professionals. That system, and the halfway house system works well. While the monetary application is the same, there is often more money in the pot than in 'Care Homes' and allows the clients, holidays and special events they might not otherwise be able to afford.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
republican_state _gives_free_houses_to_moochers

A San Francisco study found that placing homeless people in permanent supportive housing reduced their emergency room visits by more than half. In 2006, the Denver Housing First Collaborative published a study of chronically homeless individuals, comparing the costs of services for two years before and after placement in permanent supportive housing. The group found a 34 percent reduction in ER costs and inpatient nights declined 80 percent.

This seems like a good way of getting a second look at a problem and then thinking out of the box for a solution. Figuring the total dollar amount that the homeless add to the system and then using that figure as part of the solution seems pretty smart overall. This plan works because of the simple fact that not very many people want to be a burden to the system but have been pushed to the side for various reasons.

nationswell.com
nationofchange.org

Just a question for all. If we can build houses for everyone that would last 1000 years, why for the next 1000 years should anyone need to pay for housing?

You have been taught that everything has a price, but why? Why not build things that will last and then stop charging for them?

The catch is that even evil republicans like to help people. Seriously?

a reply to: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: deadeyedick
jude11
you have been around long enough to see that i called no one a moocher yet you highlight my words then highlight the person who wrote the articles name calling as to indicate it was i that said moocher. come on

Also i gave two other links to related stories so i do not think we should dwell on repubs or moochers here. I will admit perhaps i should have used a different link to the story but i urge you all to find the meat here.

No not you my dear DEADEYEDICK, I was referring to the author of the article on your attached link. As for finding meat, hopefully we will not offend some vagitarian?
:cheers

originally posted by: sacgamer25

originally posted by: deadeyedick
republican_state _gives_free_houses_to_moochers

A San Francisco study found that placing homeless people in permanent supportive housing reduced their emergency room visits by more than half. In 2006, the Denver Housing First Collaborative published a study of chronically homeless individuals, comparing the costs of services for two years before and after placement in permanent supportive housing. The group found a 34 percent reduction in ER costs and inpatient nights declined 80 percent.

This seems like a good way of getting a second look at a problem and then thinking out of the box for a solution. Figuring the total dollar amount that the homeless add to the system and then using that figure as part of the solution seems pretty smart overall. This plan works because of the simple fact that not very many people want to be a burden to the system but have been pushed to the side for various reasons.

nationswell.com
nationofchange.org

Just a question for all. If we can build houses for everyone that would last 1000 years, why for the next 1000 years should anyone need to pay for housing?

You have been taught that everything has a price, but why? Why not build things that will last and then stop charging for them?

Exactly. We must rid ourselves of the parasites that feed off human misery.

a reply to: SearchLightsInc

Well the catch is profit. The property values improve, so businesses move in. And when you get SSI/SSDI you get a lump sum from the date you applied. So, if you're approved for $1,000 a month, and it takes 36 months for the court and paperwork to all work out? The facility gets $36,000 cash. Then, if you wish, the first of the next month you can take your $1,000 check and boogie.

The place I was at, I shared a bedroom with three other men and paid $1,300 a month in rent.

originally posted by: eeyipes
The catch is that even evil republicans like to help people. Seriously?

a reply to: SearchLightsInc

But doesn't that go against their "pulling yourself up by your own bootstrap" rhetoric? Let's not get to excited that the conservatives are involved in such a... Positive move. They're conservative, cold at heart, no interest in anything except their own agendas, somehow, this will lead back to some sort of payback for them!

originally posted by: sacgamer25

originally posted by: deadeyedick
republican_state _gives_free_houses_to_moochers

A San Francisco study found that placing homeless people in permanent supportive housing reduced their emergency room visits by more than half. In 2006, the Denver Housing First Collaborative published a study of chronically homeless individuals, comparing the costs of services for two years before and after placement in permanent supportive housing. The group found a 34 percent reduction in ER costs and inpatient nights declined 80 percent.

This seems like a good way of getting a second look at a problem and then thinking out of the box for a solution. Figuring the total dollar amount that the homeless add to the system and then using that figure as part of the solution seems pretty smart overall. This plan works because of the simple fact that not very many people want to be a burden to the system but have been pushed to the side for various reasons.

nationswell.com
nationofchange.org

Just a question for all. If we can build houses for everyone that would last 1000 years, why for the next 1000 years should anyone need to pay for housing?

You have been taught that everything has a price, but why? Why not build things that will last and then stop charging for them?

That's not how capitalism works

a reply to: SearchLightsInc

You really need to stop viewing people as bad caricatures from an old cartoon. Or use the sarcasm tag. Which is it?

a reply to: eeyipes

Yeah, if the Democrats had come up with this, it would be a great step forward for mankind. But, it was those evil Republicans, so there must be a diabolical hidden agenda.

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
If its the Republicans doing this then i can only imagine they'll want something in return from the homeless.

Seriously, what's the catch?

Because the Democrats never have ulterior motives?

You couldn't possibly be that naive, could you?

a reply to: DAVID64

Actually if the democrats did it there'd be an outrage, they'd be known as Obamacamps and Breitbart and Alex Jones would soil themselves.

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
If its the Republicans doing this then i can only imagine they'll want something in return from the homeless.

Seriously, what's the catch?

To get a job, become an asset to society and pay some taxes?

Crazy talk I know.....