Muhammad Rasheed - Great. Now Utah is full of thousands of filthy houses that smell like urine and crystal meth.
Al Bush - as opposed to the alley behind your house. WTH?
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Al Bush - Close case Mr. Deadpan.
Muhammad Rasheed - I think it's a good idea, too. Especially the part where the caseworker helps clean off the dried urine, gets them off the meth, and teaches them how to do laundry again. [thumbs up]
Kurt Thiel - Wow, I was wondering if they'd be people actually hating on a successful program that not only saves money, but also reduces homelessness. Guess you never are at a loss for critics;-)
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm only about 2% serious, Kurt. It's a great program. Just recognize that a lot of those folk are in that position because they literally didn't want to be a part of civilization any more, and aren't looking for a way back in. So while they may welcome a chance to get in out of the elements, they will definitely bring an unrepentant savage element with them, and will be problem children in this program, giving those caseworkers hell.
Muhammad Rasheed - It's absolutely not going to be a utopist, all holding hands in a Kumbaya sing-a-long.
Kurt Thiel - Cool of you to read their minds and know their thoughts and intentions. I'd suppose it isn't out of the realm of possibility that they see no easy way back in. With nothing and no address, it isn't so easy to reintegrate.
I'd suppose those are the ones who aren't moving into the apartments, so 100% isn't realistic but a great improvement nonetheless.
Kumbaya, by the way, is a great song, but to those determined to have a negative worldview, (unrepentant savage?, nice characterization) it has no meaning:-)
Muhammad Rasheed - Some will make great success stories, some will give the caseworkers a hard time, and some will unrepentantly bring that criminal element with them and cause great problems in the program. That's not a "negative worldview" that's how life functions. The program will provide some good to that percentage of the homeless who are looking for that very boost, but it is very naïve to think it will be without challenges.
Do you really think all of those people are out there because of the same reason?
Muhammad Rasheed - There's quite a few out there because they are of the criminal opportunist class, and that is the life they prefer. They will only look upon this program, and the caseworkers, as prey.
Muhammad Rasheed - The program had better have that fact built into its business plan up front. The idea that ♫"They are ALLLL going to love us and live happily ever after!"♫ will cause this whole thing to fail.
Kurt Thiel - I think you're greatly deluded about the homeless. The great, great majority of criminals have access to resources. By far, the only criminality of the homeless are 'crimes to self' > so called substance abuse.
Muhammad Rasheed - There are different types of criminals, Kurt. This type here we're talking about is the lowest level... the completely separated from human civilization level of it.
Kurt Thiel - The last statement is that of nothing more than a critic, thanks God for those who ignore critics and work on accomplishing something:-)
Muhammad Rasheed - You really do think that all of the homeless are there for the exact same reason!
Muhammad Rasheed - Wow...
Kurt Thiel - Scummy bustards, shot 'em all and let God sort em out.
Kurt Thiel - Yea, wow.
Delinda Mccann - Who are the homeless? Low income people who lost an apartment when their roomie moved out and they didn't have money for a new deposit. Families with kids. Women who ran from an abusive husband. Veterans. Adolescents abandoned by their parents. i've worked with them. Their stories include serious illness of one family member. Loss of a job. Some have reasonably good jobs that simply don't pay enough to pay for an apartment.
Muhammad Rasheed - Here's how the program will function (my official prediction):
1.) A certain percentage of the homeless will use the program as a boost to get back on their feet and successfully transition into society (the smallest percentage).
2.) Another percentage will live healthier but still at a very poor state, while still riding that borderline homeless existence (they won't be able to let go of the drug culture).
3.) Another percentage will continue to live the same lifestyle but will just be in out of the elements.
4.) The rest will continue to be the dedicated criminals, taking advantage of the program and preying upon the people in it, and working it to their selfish advantage.
Kurt Thiel - Can't imagine why you'd imagine that I'd imagine that they'd all be there for the exact same reason. But I'd think that roughly 1/2 are there because of substance abuse; 25% there because of severe financial hardship; 20% there (on the younger side) because of severely bad family relationships; and 5% due to being a highly unsuccessful criminal.
Muhammad Rasheed - Delinda Mccann wrote: "Who are the homeless? Low income people who lost an apartment when their roomie moved out and they didn't have money for a new deposit. Families with kids. Women who ran from an abusive husband. Veterans. Adolescents abandoned by their parents. i've worked with them. Their stories include serious illness of one family member. Loss of a job. Some have reasonably good jobs that simply don't pay enough to pay for an apartment."
This will represent that ITEM #1 in my prediction.
Kurt Thiel - Yes, Delinda, exactly. However, perhaps Muhammad has more knowledge and is wise beyond his years regarding his knowledge of the homeless;-)
Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "Can't imagine why you'd imagine that I'd imagine that they'd all be there for the exact same reason."
Because even though I said some will succeed and some will make the program very challenging, you keep responding as if I said the whole thing will fail. Like you're arguing a one or the other.
Kurt Thiel - Ok, I was overreacting, but I needed a good argument tonight, thanks for providing one;-)
Al Bush - Mo. This story says utahs experience puts the lie to your speculations. It's a pilot for the states that had a demonstrated success. You are right that it's not perfect and some will fail. So what? It is cheaper , it works for many and it's undeniable that others want to try it out. Chill dude.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "Ok, I was overreacting, but I needed a good argument tonight, thanks for providing one;-)"
lol That doesn't feel like a good argument since you were taking an odd stance. Granted I began my responses in this thread by acting goofy with Al, so... it's cool.
Al Bush - Ok. True enough. I didn't follow the thread til this moment and not very well. I'll let it lay and read tomorrow. Sleep well all.
Al Bush - I see you're response was to Kurt. Oh well. I'm behind.
Muhammad Rasheed - Who are you again...?
Al Bush - That's correct. Who am I. The universal question. I'm the guy looking for solutions. Lol. I'll take advantage of any that best the odds.
Muhammad Rasheed - ;)
Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "Yes, Delinda, exactly. However, perhaps Muhammad has more knowledge and is wise beyond his years regarding his knowledge of the homeless"
The ironic part is that I am literally some random person on the Internet that you have NO IDEA what my past is like... what I've done, what my expertise is in, past jobs I've had... and yet you make a comment like that as if you're my mom or something. lol
Al Bush - If crime is reduced due to this program does it mean we might think anything but what's normal. Lock'em up and teach professional crime lessons for 3 years and let'em go again?
Muhammad Rasheed - Again it is a good program, Al. But for it to be a GREAT program, one that is a bigger solution, it will have to deal with the criminal element separate from the other clients, and continuously tweak it. They CAN'T have a one-size-fits-all approach that remains the exact same throughout without any efforts to monitor, control, collect data, study data, improve.
Muhammad Rasheed - ...the way the typical tax drain liberal programs function.
Al Bush - I saw that Mo. I agree with you and don't have any illusions about ease or not. It's true. All you've said. I was speculating myself. We have a series of boxes we will put both the. homeless or criminals in. What of crime was reduced by a guaranteed income of room and board and 10,000 a year. Cheaper than courts and Leo and jail. What's interesting to me is to get out of that box.
Al Bush - What I don't understand is that with 333,000,000 people we ought to be able to experiment like mad yet we don't. Why? We think we know. We don't but we think we do.
Kurt Thiel - Well if the photo is any indication of your true age, you're a bit on the young side, and from your comments, a little short on the experience side, that is what I've got to go on and ate reasonable assumptions on my part
Muhammad Rasheed - Al Bush wrote: "I saw that Mo. I agree with you and don't have any illusions about ease or not. It's true. All you've said. I was speculating myself. We have a series of boxes we will put both the. homeless or criminals in. What of crime was reduced by a guaranteed income of room and board and 10,000 a year. Cheaper than courts and Leo and jail. What's interesting to me is to get out of that box."
There are some who only make criminal choices out of desperation, so I would 100% expect a lot of those numbers to drop because of the program, sure. But the dedicated criminal element has always been among mankind and will always be so. He/she likes being a criminal. The program must deal with those folk separately.
Muhammad Rasheed - So you are saying there are no criminals among the homeless?
Kurt Thiel - So it's a liberal plan from Utah, lol
Muhammad Rasheed - So you are saying the program will be 100% successful with a one-size-fits-all approach, and the opposite of everything else I've said? Is that your position? It seems like it, from comments like that.
Kurt Thiel - If you have any real world experience or some special insight or some real stats you can share regarding the homeless, please do so
Muhammad Rasheed - A government program that spends tax dollars to help the population? That's text book "liberal."
Kurt Thiel - You keep speaking in absolutes like '100 %', it won't be perfect, etc. Pretty much everyone knows that, what point are you trying to make?
Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt I CLEARLY have more insight into this than you. I'm sorry. But you sound like the kid here. And I'm only 43.
Muhammad Rasheed - I said I personally would "100%" expect the crime numbers to drop based on a percentage of criminal acts being those of a desperate, survival nature.
Muhammad Rasheed - That's not fantasy or magic.
Muhammad Rasheed – Common sense.
Kurt Thiel - Damn guess all those GOP in Utah have some 'splainin' to do, especially one that both saves money and helps people, again what's your problem, that they've made an improvement?
Kurt Thiel - Ha ha, I believe you because .....
Muhammad Rasheed - Where did I say I had a problem? Where did I post that?
Remember it was you saying I was a "hater" and hinted continuously that I thought the program would fail, despite numerous posts to the contrary.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "Damn guess all those GOP in Utah have some 'splainin' to do, especially one that both saves money and helps people, again what's your problem, that they've made an improvement?"
The GOP have a history of hypocritical actions. If the demos did this, the GOP would be completely against it. It's okay if they put liberal programs in place though. (bearing in mind I haven't looked into this to see exactly who put this program in place.)
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Kurt Thiel - Well you clearly seem to be irritated that this is being seen as an improvement over the current state of affairs.
One would think that you could take a more positive note on a clearly successful program. Sure it's not totally perfection, but your stance has been mostly negative throughout.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "Well you clearly seem to be irritated that this is being seen as an improvement over the current state of affairs."
No. I began by being goofy, and making (probably cruel-ish) comments about how nasty the living conditions would be in that housing. But I agreed up front that it was a good idea, outside of my lame jokes.
Kurt Thiel wrote: "One would think that you could take a more positive note on a clearly successful program. Sure it's not totally perfection, but your stance has been mostly negative throughout."
Again, no. I acknowledged a very realistic percentage of the people who take part in it would have better lives. That's positive anyway you look at it. But I also acknowledged the reasons why some of them would NOT be successful... reasons that IF the program directors don't take heed of, the program will end up being a disappointing waste of potential.
That's not being negative. Negative is to say it will fail in every possible way and they shouldn't even try. Did the labeling it as a clear "liberal" program ruffle your feathers? lol You'll be okay, Kurt.
Kurt Thiel - Muhammad wrote: "The GOP have a history of hypocritical actions. If the demos did this, the GOP would be completely against it."
Gotta like that statement:-)
So given that you are more experienced with the homeless, give me the benefit of who you see as the the homeless, percentage wise, as I've given you my estimate.
Muhammad Rasheed - What do you mean? Who the homeless actually are?
Kurt Thiel - Oh no Muhammad, I've a very proud slightly to the left of center sort of liberal, but would never take offense to being characterized as a liberal. Should I find myself in CA, and be to the right of an argument I would be quite offended should anyone call me far right, whose members are the scum of the earth in my opinion.
But thanks for playing the naming game;-)
Kurt Thiel - See earlier post where I give best guess % of why people are homeless.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "Oh no Muhammad, I've a very proud slightly to the left of center sort of liberal... But thanks for playing the naming game;-)"
I didn't say YOU were a liberal, I pointed out that this was a liberal program. You seemed to immediately get up in arms about that. Do you deny it?
This is a government program that uses taxpayers' money to do a perceived charitable act against the taxpayers' wishes. In other words, a 'Vision of the Anointed' program of the very kind that the GOP absolutely hates when the democrats do it. It's a liberal program in every way. Text book definition. So if GOP folk in Utah put it together, why are they okay with it, since it represents everything they hate from their political rivals? (or PRETEND to hate anyway; you know how slimy politicians are.)
Perhaps it's okay on the state level, and the GOP only hates liberal programs when they are initiated by the federal gov? Who knows with them.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "See earlier post where I give best guess % of why people are homeless... But I'd think that roughly 1/2 are there because of substance abuse; 25% there because of severe financial hardship; 20% there (on the younger side) because of severely bad family relationships; and 5% due to being a highly unsuccessful criminal."
I think that 25% on severe financial hardship is too high. I would replace a chunk of that one with "mental illness" factors. There's these and some sub-categories underneath each that make them more complex, but it still boils down to: 1) how many are reachable and 2) how many are willing to use this program as a tool to help themselves? I think less than a quarter of them will be success stories, the majority will be poor and permanent residents of these facilities, and the rest will be their natural predators.
Kurt Thiel - If it's conceived of a planned by conservatives, it is a conservative plan. When it saves money, conservatives, of course, have no problem owing it.
Sounds like you consider any government plan that helps people by definition liberal:-) Even as anti-far right as I am, I don't believe that conservatives can't conceived and run such a program.
Kurt Thiel - Muhammad, good call on the mental illness, that is indeed a large part. From your posts you had played up the criminal element which I again tell you is more at the petty or substance crimes level.
I'd say that the reachable will be closer to 75%. Perhaps you are looking for full reintegration, in which case, 25% seems reasonable. It is, however, a plus for partial reintegration and staying off the streets and out of jail gives us the 75% and the cost savings even without full reintegration.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: “If it's conceived of a planned by conservatives, it is a conservative plan. When it saves money, conservatives, of course, have no problem owing it.”
If they make it then they own it. If their political rivals make it, then they automatically hate it. That’s the climate we are in. It doesn't matter if the program is inherently conservative or liberal in nature.
Kurt Thiel wrote: “Sounds like you consider any government plan that helps people by definition liberal”
Those are the specific elements that the GOP complain about when the other side makes a program: 1) The gov is trying to save people with some program that is charitable in nature 2) by using taxpayer money. The ‘talking point’ buzz phrases they use against them are “pulling yourself up by your boot straps,” and “free government handouts on the taxpayer dime.”
Charitable gov programs using taxpayer funds are liberal programs by definition, and the GOP hates them when they're giving speeches about it. Yet here they are doing it themselves. It’s okay as long as it’s them doing it, is the lesson.
Kurt Thiel wrote: “Even as anti-far right as I am, I don't believe that conservatives can't conceived and run such a program.”
Sure they can. When they do it is called “hypocrisy.”
Kurt Thiel wrote: “Muhammad, good call on the mental illness, that is indeed a large part. From your posts you had played up the criminal element which I again tell you is more at the petty or substance crimes level.”
Again there are different kinds of criminals: white collar criminals, organized criminals, criminals of passion, and the low-life criminal that I am talking about in the context of this thread topic. The low-life level criminals among the homeless come in two forms: 1) The desperate criminal that performs illegal acts for the sake of raw survival 2) and predatory acts from rapists, thieves, homicidal sociopaths, petty scam artists, etc. The first one will be relieved to not have to do those crimes anymore and will take to this program with enthusiasm. Those are among the ones who will contribute to the success stories. The second class of criminal mentioned will not be moved by the program, and in fact will treat these areas like their hunting grounds. They cannot be helped in this way, and different measures will need to be taken in order to, primarily, protect the others from them.
Kurt Thiel wrote: “I'd say that the reachable will be closer to 75%. Perhaps you are looking for full reintegration, in which case, 25% seems reasonable. It is, however, a plus for partial reintegration and staying off the streets and out of jail gives us the 75% and the cost savings even without full reintegration.”
Okay, then if the only goal is to get these folk off the street and into the housing, then yes, I don’t have a problem with the 78% numbers mentioned in the meme above. That’s quite reasonable. Who wants to sleep in the rain? I’m talking about the aspect of adding the caseworkers to the project. Obviously the addition of this staff is to help transition these poor souls into a better way of life, yes? THAT is the part that will by no means have a success rate as high as 70-80%.
No way.
Al Bush - As mentioned now twice this program has been run and some data available. I'd ease into "No Way" I don't see any issues here worth arguing about. Either it saves initial money. I live between a large area of 300,000 dollar homes and 35,000 homes. There are guys walking the neighborhoods all day looking to mow grass. Living on 20 a day. Just sleeping rooms would be a Godsend. Grown men with a little history, petty theft at 30, now can't work at 50. Lost housing in last crash and bounce from apt complex to complex eviction to eviction. Homeless or marginal. Social workers- cheaper than medical and about the same as jailers. Not much difference.
Al Bush - Stability begins the process, add value as possible. As opposed to increased ER visits. Increased crime, substance use, We've all seen trashed out places totally overrun by low-end coping skilled folks. Nothing is easy but 30% ROI. I'll take it.
Muhammad Rasheed - I agree. For those that the program WILL help it is certainly worth it. As mentioned several times myself, I agree it IS a good program. The rest is just analysis.
Kurt Thiel - Both ends of the political spectrum have seen that criminal records have been holding people out of the job market and have been taking steps to alleviate that. As well states like CO and WA have magically made thousands of 'criminals' disappear through legalization of marjiuana which has in turn driven down the overall crime rate. Both positive steps for a country that incarcerates more of its citizens than the rest of the developed world (and much of the underdeveloped world as well)
Kurt Thiel - Can we sing Kumbaya now ;-)
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Sure.
Muhammad Rasheed - ♪Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbayah
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya♫
No comments:
Post a Comment