Do you give to beggars?

Reply

Aug 27th, 2003, 06:16 AM
  #101
pchsmiles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
... oh good idea, good one ... the homeless as personal greeters! Lets call Saks! We could have the homelsss float around and announce shoppers specials. There really is no substitue for government attention. Bush tells us he will not retreat in Iraq, but here at home he's walked away from the poor, etc., and substituted his faith based office. Apparently that strategy plays in Crawford.
 
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 07:47 AM
  #102
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11,222
PCH: I read the previous post(s) differently than you: I think the point was that if someone can stand all day begging in the elements, that person would appear to be physically fit enough to work. Maybe not in all situations, but the observation has some validity. This takes us back to the point I have made repeatedly that most of us don't have the expertise to determine who is or is not needy. As for your comments about Bush, I'm sure they "play" well within some circles, but the rationale behind your opinion is not obvious to me. I find his proposal appealing, because I'm not sure the government is very efficient in doling out money, but I also understand that Bush's plan is an expirament, which may fail. What I don't understand is why you think it is doomed from the start. Help me to understand why the faith based initiative is necessarily a bad thing.
Bitter is online now  
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 08:00 AM
  #103
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 219
In Rockland County, NY, there's a problem with geese leaving their droppings everywhere, so some politician suggested cooking up the geese and feeding them to the homeless. brilliant!

As for blaming the poor's problem on Bush or other politicians, that's so simplistic and ignorant it doesn't warrant a response. Washington can't wave a magic wand and cure mental illness.
Yawn_boring is offline  
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 09:02 AM
  #104
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,688
Djk_books: In my experience a great many would be prepared to act as greeters etc. However, in practice this is all but impossible. Employers when faced with a group of applicants for a post are, shall we say, unlikely to employ the one from amongst them who has no references, is ill kempt, has no address and very possibly has various drink/drug/behavioural and mental health problems. Especially when the options include a fresh faced school leaver or mature applicant returning to work or or or?

KathrynT: I also know people who have turned down the opportunity to take up accommodation and the chance to take part in any number of government or charity sponsored programmes aimed at helping them back into society. And I have been incredulous of this. Speaking to professionals within the sector I now understand that some people do not for numerous reasons. Some people have been on the streets so long that coming out of that environment is actually a cause of great fear - it?s outside of their comfort zone. They also know that their new bedsit/apartment whatever will rapidly become a meeting place for their old pals off the street and a general doss house. ( I also know people who took up the accommodator found them but were back on the streets in less than the time it takes to say I can?t cope looking after myself - while the homeless can hardly be described as living in an institution , institutionalism as a mind set is incredibly strong, they do, after all, live outside of society) And do not under-estimate the power of peer pressure either.
However, that said, I do not mean to dismiss your experiences and I?m quite willing to believe that some people to appear to actively pursue the status. As a percentage, though, I?d argue is miniscule.
Dr_DoGood is offline  
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 09:03 AM
  #105
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,688
Sue_xx_yy: Thank you for your comments. It was certainly not my intention to be a bully-on-behalf-of the-homeless. Nor self-righteous. I?m sorry that you construed it as such. Neither was I attempting to self aggrandise as I?m sure Clifton wasn?t in his detailed account of his own experiences. I was only trying to widen this debate by approaching it from a different angle.
I must, though, admit I am puzzled by your reference to the mentally ill murderer. This seems like a red-herring here and confuses me. My point was quite simple - to some homeless people the situation in which they exist appears so hopeless that an effective short term method of dealing with it is by not dealing with it and opting out of their heads instead by way of alchohol or smack or crack or whatever. Since we can not understand nor experience they way in which they as individuals see themselves, the world, society and their place in it (or not in it) how can we cavalierly damn them as unworthy of our help or concern. That approach to their problems is merely self perpetuating (as indeed is their behaviour, but we at least have the luxury of being in a more potent position to do something about it).
I apologise in advance if you find this too self-righteous and nauseating and only ask that you put this down to my struggle to properly convey my meaning.

Dr D.
Dr_DoGood is offline  
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 09:28 AM
  #106
pchsmiles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
... faith based Federal policy is simply absurd ... it appeals to right wingers. It translates into cuttng back government (best able to address the myriad of problems behind homelessness), to fund other priorities. FB is based in the White House, where they can watch it. The next President will abolish this absurdity her first day in office. Aha, did you catch "her"? Look, is Bush smart or not so smart? Easy answer. FB is his creation. They fired the first director - sent him packing back to UPenn, to lose some weight. Who is in there now, in this important office? And what do they do in this office? Does anyone know anything about this murky little faux religious and charity outpost? Can you beleive your tax dollars are allocated to such BS? Do you know that every agency has been asked to id programs that can have a faith based element? Just how dumb is that!
 
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 09:35 AM
  #107
RNC
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 90
So whats your prediction PCH, Hillary on '04 or '08?
RNC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 11:39 AM
  #108
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 496
i was "down and out" in florence in 1971. i'd run out of money buying things i thought i could resell in london. i got ahead of myself.

so i was "stuck" and i knew it. fortunately, the owner of the pensione allowed me to stay for free as long as i kept his place full.

so every morning and late afternoon i'd be at the termini hawking young american tourists for both the pensione and the local tratt with which i also had a deal for food.

i gave "english" tours thru the uffizi and walking tours as well in order to get exit money. it was a pretty rigorous schedule.

but i finally got enough cash to make it to amsterdam (where i unloaded half my saleables) and thence to london (where i got rid of the rest at a severe profit).

i truly was broke and hungry and absolutely homeless in italy. but i hustled for my benefactors (whom i've subsequently seen while in better straights).

they supported me, a forigner who was willing to work, but they would spit on profesional beggars.

subcon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 11:56 AM
  #109
pchsmiles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well, RNC, I bet you think '08, and I bet I do too. Hillary has said no run next year - and obviously with nine, there's hardly room. She's busy with Hilpac, raising money to help Congressional candidates. Perhaps she'll never run, just stay in the Senate and build her power base and seniority,. for the time when Demos once again take control. On the otherhand, I would bet Hillary wants to make history. As an add-on, she'd have Bill as first spouse. She'd probably have the Secret Service keep an eye on him!! I would gues American politics are headed into strange waters, and we're on the verge of a major change, 2-3 years from now, something akin to 1960 and 1980. I think Bush will run out his string before long, and he'll be open to some rather harsh second guessing. We'll see. If Hillary wants to be elected, she needs to start talking now about a tax increases and more emphasis on the economy, technology, education, health, energy and Federal investment in infrastructure here in the U.S.
 
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 12:04 PM
  #110
RNC
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 90
PCH...Hill will not talk tax increase. Mondale tried it in '84 and it got him one state.

Heres my theory..bill and Hill will vote for Bush in '04. That way,it clears the line for '08. She would never run against an incu,bant in '08,bad politics,only kennedy tried it in '80 and he got his ass burned for it.

So if you want Hill,vote for dubya in 2 years cause he's better than any dems running right now.
RNC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 12:04 PM
  #111
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 75
Faith based can't be as bad as the welfare society created by LBJ and his "Great Society." Virtually every premise of the Great Society and its ensuing program turned out to be a giant hoax that made the problems of poverty and crime so much greater. We all should be thankful that, at the least, we'll never fall for that sham again.
JoeyJoJoJr_Shabadoo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 12:11 PM
  #112
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 15
What Ms. Rodham really needs to solve is the very real phenomenon that she is one of a very few politicians (Gray Davis can be included here) who become less popular the more visible they become. She was unquestionably lucky in her Senate run. First, Rudy came down with cancer and had to bow out. Then, the Republicans put up an amateur (Lazio) to face her. She could afford to lay low with the relative unknown Lazio challenging her.

I look for Rodham to run in '04. A Democrat victory in '04 would kill her political future as she wouldn't easily overtake an incumbent Democrat in '08. But that's not the reason she'll run now -- the Democrats are in no danger of winning the White House in '04. She runs now because she may lose her Senate seat in '06. If Rudy G. can be talked out of his desire for the governorship he'll smoke her in '06.

The pisser is she has no shot against Bush in '04 either.
redhook is offline  
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 12:27 PM
  #113
pchsmiles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
... well, very interesting opinions, so thanks.

... she has said no run in '04 and i complelte beleive her. She has no opportunity to do that now anyway - muchy too late, no political base. It would seem like RFK in '68 after McCarthy embarrased LBJ in NH and RFK jumped in. Nope, there are nine candidates now, 2-3 serious. Gephardt is already talking about tax cut rollbacks. People need to get used to the idea. The alternatives are dreadful.

... the '08 election is so far away no one can predict what it will be like. But one thing quite likely, the US will be in trouble and need changes, big ones. History isn't breaking our way right now. The US is in danger, and our one weapon, our economy, is in trouble. We are in a world economy with a world extremely hostile toward us. Our polcieis need to change in order for us to survive. Our military, transformed or not, will become less and less useful for our policies. Fortress here, expeditionary invasions in trouble spots. What an insane strategy.

... Just my opnion. I hope someone like Hillary has the leasdership we need. But who can say.
 
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 01:26 PM
  #114
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11,222
PCH: I appreciate your response, but though I understand your opinion ("absurd" and "BS"), I don't understand your position. Surely you can share your analysis. As for Hillary in the next two election cycles: I used to think she would be "the" Democratic candidate, but I now wonder whether she doesn't she bring as much baggage to the table as she does name recognition. Maybe that doesn't matter (it didn't in NY). I also question what success she has had, if any, getting her own policies/programs through. You mentioned leadership, but it seems she has had a lot of failures and few successes, but then again I often admit I am not a student of history or political science. However, to be a successful president, you have to be able to lead across the political parties, and I question her effectiveness there. I look forward to your thoughts, but question whether she isn'tbetter as a DNC fundraiser and behind the scenes person?
Bitter is online now  
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 01:37 PM
  #115
pchsmiles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Oh, I quite agree with most of what you say, Bitter. I do not say Hillary is a leader. What I do believe is IF a person is to be one, then that person must stand up right now and say what they believe, and hope the public agrees with their vision for the country. You may not agree with my perspective - but it is simply that the US is in dreadful shape and great danger, and that right now, we have the wrong policies. History is not working for us any longer, and still we do not change our policies. We are at a time when we need resopurces for everything, but when we have revenue issues that will plague us for decades. I wish the oublic would wake up, and ask Bush some questions. The media seems to have gone right. Anyway, that's simply my take - don't claim I'm right. Who knows!
 
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 01:39 PM
  #116
RNC
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 90
Hillary and leadership dont belong in the same sentence. after 9/11,the real leader was Rudy,not Hill, she was nowhere to be seen.

Lets face it,top candidates raise the most $$$$$$. She can't,her husband and name can. But if she campaigns on leadership,she would get ruined. As she would have had Rudy run against her.
RNC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 01:57 PM
  #117
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 15
If Rodham announced today that she was running she'd open a fifteen point lead on the nearest of the nine dwarves pursuing Bush -- and she'd have no problem raising money. Her husband/meal ticket runs the DNC through Terry McCauliffe.



redhook is offline  
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 04:14 PM
  #118
dumas1870
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Time to delete this thread before pchsmiles has a stroke from all the liberal "the sky is falling" whining. And you know the bottom has been reached when Mrs. I MARRIED THE DIRTY CREEP FOR POWER Clinton's name starts being mentioned in the same paragraph with terms like leadership and vision.
 
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 04:23 PM
  #119
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,652
Dr. Dogood:

Given that you yourself pointed out that many street people suffer from mental illness, my raising the issue of the possibly disastrous consequences of untreated mental illness is hardly a red herring. Murder-suicide can be one such consequence when certain serious illnesses go untreated. While I acknowledge that mentally ill people might use illicit drugs and alcohol only to assuage the genuine pain that they might feel, it remains a serious possibility that such self medication could serve to inhibit their receipt of appropriate treatment. Again, given the almost unbearably painful consequences that can be the result of certain untreated mental illness, it is grossly irresponsible of you, not to mention hypocritical, for you to judge people like me for refraining from assisting a mentally ill person to self-medicate.

It is equally unfair of you to insist that I see as innocent your making contemptuous reference to the views of others as "well floated balloons", or your outright ordering people in #10 to re-read what you have just written, as if they were too stupid and/or insensitive to have understood you the first time. You judge, you criticize, you call yourself "Dr.Dogood" - sir, you are asking more of this very ordinary human being than she is capable of to find this behaviour anything other than grandiose and self-righteous.
Sue_xx_yy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Aug 27th, 2003, 04:27 PM
  #120
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,407
Aaaaaaaaaannnnndddd, perhaps now would be a good time to halt this thread.
BrimhamRocks is offline  
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:58 AM.