While you folks are so eager to take in Refugees...

[ReverendHellh0und]

Where are we going to get the money to bring in, house, feed these refugees, we have between 48,000 and 75,000 homeless veterans. Why are syrian refugees more important than our veterans?

It's a disgrace.


I say not one syrian refugee until every veteran is housed.

[h=1]Homeless veterans number decreased only slightly last year[/h]

Homeless veterans number decreased only slightly last year

overnmentwide efforts to help homeless veterans pulled about 2,000 individuals off the streets from 2014 to 2015, according to new estimates released this week by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
White House officials spun that statistic as continuing a five-year decline in homeless veterans numbers, proof that they’re making progress on the problem. President Obama this week praised government efforts as helping “tens of thousands of our veterans get off the streets.”
But the small change in the yearly estimates makes the administration’s pledge to end veterans homelessness by the start of 2016 appear all but impossible, and potentially many years away.
The annual point-in-time count, conducted in January, shows there are about 48,000 homeless veterans across the country. That’s down from the 50,000 in the January 2014 count, but a smaller drop than the 5,000 veterans taken off the streets in each of the previous three years.
Officials estimate the number was just under 75,000 in 2010, when the White House announced its national campaign to solve the problem.
Since the latest count was conducted in January, officials in a number of major metropolitan areas — including Houston, Las Vegas, New Orleans and Salt Lake City — announced they have “effectively” ended veterans homelessness by putting in place enough assistance programs and shelters to quickly house any veterans in financial distress.

 

[haymarket]

Where are we going to get the money to bring in, house, feed these refugees, we have between 48,000 and 75,000 homeless veterans. Why are syrian refugees more important than our veterans?

It's a disgrace.


I say not one syrian refugee until every veteran is housed.

What we need are federal and state departments and agencies who can give special assistance to veterans as well as general assistance to them simply as needy people.

 

[HonestJoe]

I say not one syrian refugee until every veteran is housed.

Not all veterans are equal though. Presumably the disabled and elderly veterans should be given priority. No young, able-bodied veterans helped until all elderly and/or disabled veterans are housed! But what about homeless children? Surely they’re an even higher priority. So, no veterans at all helped until every child is housed? Of course, some of those children might be disabled…

Or here’s an idea. How about doing more than one thing at the same time? There’s over 300 million of you guys, I think you can managed it.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Sounds great in theory. The problem is the politicians who are trying to stop the refugees are among the same politicians who scoff at using tax dollars to help the homeless. And because they don't actually care about helping anyone other than their donors, this proposed grand trade off will never happen.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Not all veterans are equal though. Presumably the disabled and elderly veterans should be given priority. No young, able-bodied veterans helped until all elderly and/or disabled veterans are housed! But what about homeless children? Surely they’re an even higher priority. So, no veterans at all helped until every child is housed? Of course, some of those children might be disabled…

Or here’s an idea. How about doing more than one thing at the same time? There’s over 300 million of you guys, I think you can managed it.

us guys, where are you from? how many refugees has your country taken in?


We sent these people into war, we owe it to them to take care of them. your extremist logic really has not value to the conversation.


but yes, whatever things we can do to help americans in need before helping foreigners, foreign nations, etc should be the priority.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Sounds great in theory. The problem is the politicians who are trying to stop the refugees are among the same politicians who scoff at using tax dollars to help the homeless. And because they don't actually care about helping anyone other than their donors, this proposed grand trade off will never happen.

of course it wont, and I don't disagree with you. however you have people not politicians on these very forums scolding us who don't want to take them in or spend the money on them.

 

[Mr Person]

Saying that blocking all refugees on the assumption that they're terrorists because they're muslim is foolish =/= being eager to take refugees. In fact, it's not even a position on whether or how many refugees we should take. All it is, is pointing out spurious fear-mongering.

 

[Mr Person]

Where are we going to get the money to bring in, house, feed these refugees, we have between 48,000 and 75,000 homeless veterans. Why are syrian refugees more important than our veterans?

It's a disgrace.

I say not one syrian refugee until every veteran is housed.

Consider the possibility that those veterans suffered from PTSD, turned to substance abuse, ended up with a criminal record thanks to our lovely and successful "War on Drugs", and are stuck on the streets because of a combination of those things....

 

[TheHammer]

Saying that blocking all refugees on the assumption that they're terrorists because they're muslim is foolish =/= being eager to take refugees. In fact, it's not even a position on whether or how many refugees we should take. All it is, is pointing out spurious fear-mongering.

Would it be fear mongering to simply form a coalition in the ME and create a Safe Zone for ME refugees? Why bring them here?

 

[faithful_servant]

Sounds great in theory. The problem is the politicians who are trying to stop the refugees are among the same politicians who scoff at using tax dollars to help the homeless. And because they don't actually care about helping anyone other than their donors, this proposed grand trade off will never happen.

...and the same politicians who want to open our doors to the refugees are the ones who can't find a way to meet the current needs. If you can't handle an existing problem, why would you voluntarily add to that problem???

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Consider the possibility that those veterans suffered from PTSD, turned to substance abuse, ended up with a criminal record thanks to our lovely and successful "War on Drugs", and are stuck on the streets because of a combination of those things....

Many are, so what? are you advocating that we keep them there? I am not sure what you are getting at with me.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Saying that blocking all refugees on the assumption that they're terrorists because they're muslim is foolish =/= being eager to take refugees. In fact, it's not even a position on whether or how many refugees we should take. All it is, is pointing out spurious fear-mongering.

wtf are you talking about?

 

[faithful_servant]

Would it be fear mongering to simply form a coalition in the ME and create a Safe Zone for ME refugees? Why bring them here?

That would take leadership by our nation and more specifically, our State Dept. We really haven't seen much of that since Condi Rice left State....

 

[Dragonfly]

Where are we going to get the money to bring in, house, feed these refugees, we have between 48,000 and 75,000 homeless veterans. Why are syrian refugees more important than our veterans?

Hmmm...why wait until now to bitch about the homeless vets?

Where was this thread 6 months ago? A year ago? 10 years ago?

Wait - what about just homeless Americans? Why just homeless vets?

Isn't homelessness exactly what this topic is all about?

 

[Mr Person]

Many are, so what? are you advocating that we keep them there? I am not sure what you are getting at with me.

The assumption that they're there because someone said "eh, **** veterans" isn't supportable.

The gist of your OP is: why do we care about refugees but not veterans?

I am calling that inaccurate.





Nevermind that we could, you know, do both at the same time....

 

[HonestJoe]

us guys, where are you from? how many refugees has your country taken in?

The UK and according to many Americans I see here, far too many already.

but yes, whatever things we can do to help americans in need before helping foreigners, foreign nations, etc should be the priority.

I never suggested veterans shouldn’t be helped. I was specifically challenging the idea that one problem should be entirely resolved (e.g. “every veteran housed”) before any effort at all is expended on any other.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Hmmm...why wait until now to bitch about the homeless vets?

Where was this thread 6 months ago? A year ago? 10 years ago?

Wait - what about just homeless Americans? Why just homeless vets?

Isn't homelessness exactly what this topic is all about?

I work with several charities for homeless, wounded, disfigured vets. I am on the board of one of the largest known charities for veterans. I "bitch" about it now because I am appalled at how over the years we get shut out, told there is no money, now suddenly we have the money for these refugees?

Sorry that offends you.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

The assumption that they're there because someone said "eh, **** veterans" isn't supportable.

The gist of your OP is: why do we care about refugees but not veterans?

I am calling that inaccurate.





Nevermind that we could, you know, do both at the same time....

so you are suggesting we start with the refugees then hope for the best with the veterans.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

The UK and according to many Americans I see here, far too many already.

according to many of your countrymen as well.

I never suggested veterans shouldn’t be helped. I was specifically challenging the idea that one problem should be entirely resolved (e.g. “every veteran housed”) before any effort at all is expended on any other.

slight hyperbole, you show a good faith effort in these veteran issues then talk to me about syrian refugees,

 

[HonestJoe]

slight hyperbole, you show a good faith effort in these veteran issues then talk to me about syrian refugees,

It’s a myth that men can’t multitask. Why not do both?

 

[Cardinal]

Where are we going to get the money to bring in, house, feed these refugees, we have between 48,000 and 75,000 homeless veterans. Why are syrian refugees more important than our veterans?

It's a disgrace.



I say not one syrian refugee until every veteran is housed.






[/FONT][/COLOR]

I don't know what the policy is for handling refugees once we have them, but an average of 80,000 refugees are taken in by the United States per year, a policy going back over thirty years.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

It’s a myth that men can’t multitask. Why not do both?

indeed, why not? *looks around*

 

[Gardener]

Saying that blocking all refugees on the assumption that they're terrorists because they're muslim is foolish =/= being eager to take refugees. In fact, it's not even a position on whether or how many refugees we should take. All it is, is pointing out spurious fear-mongering.

I haven't read anybody state that Muslim Immigrants from Syria should be blocked because being Muslim makes them terrorists. The argument is actually that the likelihood exists due to the fact that one of the French Islamists had a recent passport.

If I were to ascribe the word foolish to an opinion, it would be the head in the sand, hear no evil see no evil approach where earning one's cred as a right, proper virtuous person outweighs the potential for horrific mayhem to one's fellow Americans.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I don't know what the policy is for handling refugees once we have them, but an average of 80,000 refugees are taken in by the United States per year, a policy going back over thirty years.

That is incorrect. the average is not 80,000 that was one year I believe 2010

 

[haymarket]

The assumption that they're there because someone said "eh, **** veterans" isn't supportable.

The gist of your OP is: why do we care about refugees but not veterans?

I am calling that inaccurate.





Nevermind that we could, you know, do both at the same time....

The OP also finds it politically convenient to pretend that we DO NOT already spend large amounts of money to help veterans and have a variety of programs to help them both with the special problems a vet of the military may have as well as simply being needy. We have those programs now and they spend lots of money.

President’s Budget Request
Fiscal Year 2016:

The 2016 Budget and 2017 Advance Appropriations requests for VA fulfill the President’s promise to provide America’s Veterans, their families, and Survivors the care and benefits they have earned through their service.
The President’s 2016 Budget includes $168.8 billion for VA in 2016. This includes $70.2 billion in discretionary resources and $95.3 billion in mandatory funding. Our discretionary budget request represents an increase of $5.2 billion, or 7.5 percent, over the 2015 enacted level.
VA’s budget requests the resources necessary to increase Veteran access to benefits and services, sustain progress on the disability claims backlog and for ending Veteran homelessness. The Budget supports Veterans, their families, and Survivors in receiving the highest quality benefits and services we can provide and which they earned through their sacrifice and service to our Nation.