Do liberal policies make homelessness worse?

[Bucky]

When you look at some of the most liberal cities in the United States - Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Boston, New York City, Seattle, Washington D.C, Chicago, Portland, etc... All are fairly liberal cities and have reputations as cities with a high homeless population. Ironically, many of these cities are also the most expensive to live in as well.

Do liberal policies actually increase the homeless population and poverty?

I think FDR said it best:

The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Annual Message to Congress

Liberal policies call for increased welfare programs (which are simply short-term solutions) that enable the homeless and make them dependent on them. Giving welfare to the homeless without first requiring a drug test is ludicrous in my opinion.

Liberals tout they care for the homeless but send mixed messages. They support homeless people, but they also hurt them by supporting illegal immigrants (sanctuary cities, etc) who take away the jobs away from the homeless.

I personally support helping the homeless population find jobs but with tough love. Lets not make it easier for criminals to get on the street on lighter sentences.

Thoughts?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

When you look at some of the most liberal cities in the United States - Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Boston, New York City, Seattle, Washington D.C, Chicago, Portland, etc... All are fairly liberal cities and have reputations as cities with a high homeless population. Ironically, many of these cities are also the most expensive to live in as well.

Do liberal policies actually increase the homeless population and poverty?

I think FDR said it best:



Franklin D. Roosevelt: Annual Message to Congress

Liberal policies call for increased welfare programs (which are simply short-term solutions) that enable the homeless and make them dependent on them. Giving welfare to the homeless without first requiring a drug test is ludicrous in my opinion.

Liberals tout they care for the homeless but send mixed messages. They support homeless people, but they also hurt them by supporting illegal immigrants (sanctuary cities, etc) who take away the jobs away from the homeless.

I personally support helping the homeless population find jobs but with tough love. Lets not make it easier for criminals to get on the street on lighter sentences.

Thoughts?

You need to rethink your premise. Yes, homelessness is a very real problem in our cities...but it isn't because of liberal policies. Why? Try going to other big cities in other first-world nations, say, Vancouver B.C., or London, or Paris (I've been to all three). These are all very large cities even by American standards...but they've all got much less of a problem with homelessness.

So look at your premise - if liberal policies were what was causing the homelessness, then all three of these cities - all of which are more liberal, and are in nations that are more liberal - SHOULD be having an even greater degree of homelessness than our big cities do.

But they don't. Why is that? Because when I went to these cities, I specifically watched to see how many homeless were around...and there are very few indeed - at least when compared to America.

If you'll Google around, you'll find that it actually costs LESS in taxpayer money to house the homeless for free, and to give them access to health care (including drug and alcohol counseling) than it does to just leave them on the street. Sounds very counterintuitive, doesn't it? But when we just leave the people on the street, we do spend more in taxes thanks to the much higher law enforcement costs (including lawyers, courts, and prisons), and higher ER costs, and these are in addition to how much the homeless costs the local businesses.

In other words, perhaps the reason our cities have such a problem with homelessness is because we're a center-RIGHT nation as a whole.

 

[Northern Light]

It's not about liberal or conservative policy, but support networks. I grew up in a conservative city and instead of shelters with social workers we had more church involvement, and community organizing.

Homelessness is caused by lack of support networks. Some people fall on hard times and make it out okay because they have good people in their lives and community structures to fall back on. This site talks about how most of the homeless people in any given city come from the same handful of poor communities. Poor communities have fewer support networks because everyone is struggling and so it's harder to lend a helping hand. In poor communities, disadvantages like mental illness, violence, and lack of education have more serious impacts because there are less support structures to ease burdens.

Liberal policy is more or less about throwing money at the issue, while conservative policy is about lessening financial help and leaving it up to the public to figure out donations.

The problem is that neither really addresses what is truly needed: human resources.

It's the exact same problem we have with foreign aid. We think that throwing money at a poor country will make it better, but we need the actual people to go there and do the work. Granted, money is important, but I mean... most shelters are under staffed, most community organizations can only do so much.

So I don't think it's about liberal or conservative.

 

[Cephus]

Absolutely. Now I'm going to say that these are things that I've had liberals say directly to me, not necessarily on this forum. I have been told that it is immoral to force the homeless to get off of the streets, to force them to undergo psychiatric evaluation, to force them to do anything that would better their lives or encourage them to live in a more socially acceptable manner. They should never be held accountable for their lifestyle, they should be given food and money and allowed to live as they choose, regardless of the damage that does to home and business owners or public safety. Instead of getting the homeless off the streets, into shelters and receiving the care that they need to get back on their feet, they want us to leave them alone and, in fact, make it easier for them to live on the streets. That's harmful.

 

[Gaztopian]

No, they don't, but if conservatives are to fund the federal government without desecrating the holy corporations, they must mislead and trumpet misbelief.

In reality, only a minority of welfare recipients are such abject failures of human beings that they're willing to live in the street if they're denied the life of a leech. For the rest of society, welfare is a recourse in difficult times.

 

[joG]

When you look at some of the most liberal cities in the United States - Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Boston, New York City, Seattle, Washington D.C, Chicago, Portland, etc... All are fairly liberal cities and have reputations as cities with a high homeless population. Ironically, many of these cities are also the most expensive to live in as well.

Do liberal policies actually increase the homeless population and poverty?

I think FDR said it best:



Franklin D. Roosevelt: Annual Message to Congress

Liberal policies call for increased welfare programs (which are simply short-term solutions) that enable the homeless and make them dependent on them. Giving welfare to the homeless without first requiring a drug test is ludicrous in my opinion.

Liberals tout they care for the homeless but send mixed messages. They support homeless people, but they also hurt them by supporting illegal immigrants (sanctuary cities, etc) who take away the jobs away from the homeless.

I personally support helping the homeless population find jobs but with tough love. Lets not make it easier for criminals to get on the street on lighter sentences.

Thoughts?

I don't want to seem heartless, but we have found, when we feed stray cats their number in the yard increases.

 

[joG]

You need to rethink your premise. Yes, homelessness is a very real problem in our cities...but it isn't because of liberal policies. Why? Try going to other big cities in other first-world nations, say, Vancouver B.C., or London, or Paris (I've been to all three). These are all very large cities even by American standards...but they've all got much less of a problem with homelessness.

So look at your premise - if liberal policies were what was causing the homelessness, then all three of these cities - all of which are more liberal, and are in nations that are more liberal - SHOULD be having an even greater degree of homelessness than our big cities do.

But they don't. Why is that? Because when I went to these cities, I specifically watched to see how many homeless were around...and there are very few indeed - at least when compared to America.

If you'll Google around, you'll find that it actually costs LESS in taxpayer money to house the homeless for free, and to give them access to health care (including drug and alcohol counseling) than it does to just leave them on the street. Sounds very counterintuitive, doesn't it? But when we just leave the people on the street, we do spend more in taxes thanks to the much higher law enforcement costs (including lawyers, courts, and prisons), and higher ER costs, and these are in addition to how much the homeless costs the local businesses.

In other words, perhaps the reason our cities have such a problem with homelessness is because we're a center-RIGHT nation as a whole.

That is probably quite right. That does not correspond to what is usually known as "liberal". It is more an economically sensible approach.

 

[ajn678]

I am waiting for your thread asking the same about red states and the vast amount of poverty, uneducated people, and welfare/federal aid that they consume from the government.

 

[Van Basten]

IIRC, a big component of the homeless situation is mental illness and lack of accessible facilities to tackle that issue.

So with increased medical coverage and access to suitable facilities (i.e. the all evil prospect of some sort of universal healthcare), a supposedly liberal policy, the issue could be handled far more effectively.

This seems like more fiscal conservative, "cut da handoutz" mumbo jumbo. Points for trying to use FDR against liberals though -- "trying" being the key word.

 

[earthworm]

When you look at some of the most liberal cities in the United States - Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Boston, New York City, Seattle, Washington D.C, Chicago, Portland, etc... All are fairly liberal cities and have reputations as cities with a high homeless population. Ironically, many of these cities are also the most expensive to live in as well.

Do liberal policies actually increase the homeless population and poverty?

I think FDR said it best:



Franklin D. Roosevelt: Annual Message to Congress

Liberal policies call for increased welfare programs (which are simply short-term solutions) that enable the homeless and make them dependent on them. Giving welfare to the homeless without first requiring a drug test is ludicrous in my opinion.

Liberals tout they care for the homeless but send mixed messages. They support homeless people, but they also hurt them by supporting illegal immigrants (sanctuary cities, etc) who take away the jobs away from the homeless.

I personally support helping the homeless population find jobs but with tough love. Lets not make it easier for criminals to get on the street on lighter sentences.

Thoughts?

In general, I disagree. The state, has for a long time employed ''the otherwise unemployable" , but, there are limits, which, at times have been exceeded. This has little to do with conservative or liberal policies .. I find that most statements made by the OP are opinion .. as such beyond any debate . IF we really wish to cut down the number of homeless , lets take the time and effort to find out WHY they are homeless , rather than continuing the childish blaming of any political party .

 

[Objective Voice]

I don't think policies one way or another cause homelessness. People lose their jobs and find themselves destitute for a whole host of reasons, but most start with a lack of employment. A former Wall Street trader could suddenly find himself on the streets after being a big winner but losing it all on a bad stock investment. A family could find themselves homeless after the primary bread winner gets laid off because the home construction market his his/her area dried up. Another family could suddenly become homeless after a parent dies from a serious illness from which the family couldn't recover from financially due to expensive medical bills.

There are lost of reasons people become homeless. I doubt if many point the finger as government policies one way or another. And seeing that such policies that could grossly affect them could only be taxation or entitlement programs, I seriously doubt either could lead to such detrimental affect as to negatively impact one's earning power or investment strategy whether simple savings or more complex options trading.

In the grand scheme of things, it's boils down to unfortunate circumstances and to a degree bad decision-making on the part of the individual. But government policies...unless the government is kicking people off the job and foreclosing on houses these days, I don't see how government is the problem here. Now, government might not do enough to reduce the numbers of the homeless, but I really don't see government as the cause.

 

[SCitizen]

I believe that homeless people must be provided with some shelter. Especially since the vast majority of them have severe disabilities, the society must care for them.

 

[Logicman]

Here's the result of one of the liberal's ill-conceived $15 an hour minimum wage policies:

Excerpt: "Wendy’s says that they will look at replacing other workers with machines if needed because the increased wages at many of their stores are rising faster than they can raise prices."

Wendy’s Will Replace Workers With Machines in 6,000 Stores This Year – Daily Headlines

 

[SCitizen]

Somehow Scandinavia does manage to provide decent standard of living to all their citizens.

 

[faithful_servant]

When you look at some of the most liberal cities in the United States - Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Boston, New York City, Seattle, Washington D.C, Chicago, Portland, etc... All are fairly liberal cities and have reputations as cities with a high homeless population. Ironically, many of these cities are also the most expensive to live in as well.

Do liberal policies actually increase the homeless population and poverty?

I think FDR said it best:



Franklin D. Roosevelt: Annual Message to Congress

Liberal policies call for increased welfare programs (which are simply short-term solutions) that enable the homeless and make them dependent on them. Giving welfare to the homeless without first requiring a drug test is ludicrous in my opinion.

Liberals tout they care for the homeless but send mixed messages. They support homeless people, but they also hurt them by supporting illegal immigrants (sanctuary cities, etc) who take away the jobs away from the homeless.

I personally support helping the homeless population find jobs but with tough love. Lets not make it easier for criminals to get on the street on lighter sentences.

Thoughts?

While I agree that a lot of liberal policies do contribute to homelessness, just because a city is liberal and has a homeless problem does meant that one is the cause of the other...

Correlation does not equal causation...

 

[TurtleDude]

Don't know if liberal policies increase the number of homeless but they certainly tend to concentrate the population of the homeless in areas where there are lots of handouts.

 

[SCitizen]

Don't know if liberal policies increase the number of homeless but they certainly tend to concentrate the population of the homeless in areas where there are lots of handouts.

There should be no homeless -- people with mental disability deserve some housing.

 

[TurtleDude]

There should be no homeless -- people with mental disability deserve some housing.

you've heard the phrase-You can lead a horse to water?

some homeless people do have housing.

 

[SCitizen]

you've heard the phrase-You can lead a horse to water?

some homeless people do have housing.

I am sorry, but if they are so ill and/or addicted that they can not keep a room, they should be involuntarily committed.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am sorry, but if they are so ill and/or addicted that they can not keep a room, they should be involuntarily committed.

not arguing against that at all