Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness By 91 Percent; Here's How

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K

KimPetras

Guest
#22
With federal tax dollars. Don't leave that out. That is paramount to the topic at hand.
Of course. The argument they are making is that it would come out of the government's pocket anyways though. They claim "it's not only compassionate, it's cheaper."
 
May 15, 2013
4,307
27
0
#23
So is it your opinion Utah is lying about it costing less to house than to continue with the status quo? They are saying it's cheaper to house them because they are more likely to seek work, stay off drugs, and stay out of jail which ends up costing the government more money.
If these houses are going to drug users, and which they doesn't care about themselves, then how much that they will care about the house that has been given to them for free. I believe that they will not put home owner's insurance to protect them from costly damages or law sued. The government will still have to pay someone to oversees those property to make sure that they stay up to code. It is very costly to maintain a home, and especially it is more than very costly if the owner of the home is on drugs. It is best to give to those that will appreciate a home, like to the ones that care about about themselves; but not give to someone just to get them off of the streets. I believe that they will give to those that will not take care of the homes and when it fail, that they will say that they had tried to help them, but they are unable to be helped, and so let's forget about them and move on with our lives.
 
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
252
0
#24
Of course. The argument they are making is that it would come out of the government's pocket anyways though. They claim "it's not only compassionate, it's cheaper."
It is doomed to failure. The program will grow exponentially throughout America until it bleeds the economy dry. Parasites are exactly that, parasites. They contribute nothing.
 

achildofGod

at rest with his Savior
Apr 16, 2015
2,029
75
0
#25
Of course. The argument they are making is that it would come out of the government's pocket anyways though. They claim "it's not only compassionate, it's cheaper."

The govt. doesn't have a pocket, they have their hands in ours!!!!!!!!!!!
 

JosephsDreams

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2015
4,313
467
83
#28
Here is something that a lot don't foresee, regarding housing and employment. It is not something I have come up with; it has been talked about for quite a while in social and finance circles.
The day is coming when socialism even in this country in some form is going to happen.
Before I go on, so everyone knows where I stand, I don't think it is as bad as a lot of us, myself included, were led to believe. A mix of it and our current system.
I was a business owner for almost 3 decades, employing about 15 to 20 people most of that time. I like our system. People should be held accountable too. If they can genuinely work, and they just want to make a million excuses why they can't, I am not sympathetic to them. Of course there really re people who are so physically and/or mentally and spiritually screwed up that they are just unemployable.
How to separate the phonies, from the legitimate, well that is another discussion, and probably beyond me anyway.
But back to my main point; folks, the day is coming, and maybe sooner then we all realize. To many jobs are going overseas. We are living in a world economy. Computers are taking a lot of jobs. These trends will just continue to accelerate. There is no stopping them. There are only so many service jobs, and only so much natural resources. You can't make more natural resources just because more people need jobs. You can't tell companies to use three humans when one computer can do it. With more people competing for less jobs, something has to give.
This may sound far fetched, but I strongly believe that one day, right here in America, the government will have a furlough work system for a segment of the population. They will pay people for long periods of time to not work. Or who can't find jobs. And I am not talking like what is currently the situation, like 6 months or a year unemployment payments. More like 5, 10, years, maybe even longer. They will encourage them to not even look for jobs. They are going to weigh the pros and cons, and realize it is more beneficial to just keep them on a modified welfare system, or a form of socialism then have them starving, or rioting, from robbing, and just causing general unrest.
Like it or not, this is going to happen in some form. This thing in Utah is just the start. So is the Obama care. One day Obama care will seem like it was American as apple pie compared to what will come.
The political party that is ahead of this curve will control the government.
 

Oncefallen

Idiot in Chief
Staff member
Jan 15, 2011
6,057
3,354
113
#29
That sounds more like a Trump idea to end homelessness. Then again... he is from NY. :p
I don't see the problem with NYC's method. They aren't just sending the families somewhere else for the sake of getting rid of them, they are paying to send them somewhere that the persons have family who are willing to help them out.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,500
1,076
113
#30
Some people probably want to work but just can't find a job. When there are more people then thereare jobs to accommodate them that you will always run into this problem.. .. also there are people who work but are still homeless because the cost of housing is too high
 

jenniferand2

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2016
1,433
33
48
#31
I see that providing homes for people who need them to back back on their feet I can support that How ever there would be strict rules about you better be working looking for work or very disabled and on the list to get social security other wise if your on drugs or alcohol you better do your treatment. there is no way to save every homeless person some homeless people are just drifters and will never change. I can say that some people become homeless because of the ever raising costs of thing like gas electric etc... I know that there are many people one paycheck away from being on the street. I think that if the system sets up so people can not take advantage then it could work.. there is now a Law I that able bodied people have to work for food stamps etc... it is about time because the burden of supporting people who want to be worthless was getting heavy. People will throw a fit about this but oh well the welfare system was originally created to help working families that could not get by. There are people that really do want to put there full effort in and for whatever reason can not find work or for what ever reason... Just another example.. Friend I know is disabled this person wants to work but will loose their social sec. if they make more then 800 dollars a month and then will loose their medical so the problem is this friend has to decide A do I loose all my ssd and medical to work and make say 1,600 a month or B do i stay on my ssd and make 900 a month and struggle to keep a roof over my head. this is a big problem you see it costs way more then 800 a month to live and if people on ssd work they risk loosing their stuff. we are going to see way more disabled people and elderly people hitting shelters soon over the loser that just does not want to work you watch.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#32
Of course. The argument they are making is that it would come out of the government's pocket anyways though. They claim "it's not only compassionate, it's cheaper."
There really is no such thing as "the gov'ts pocket" it comes from us,the tax payers.
 

JosephsDreams

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2015
4,313
467
83
#33
No offense :eek: Jennifer, but it is sometimes hard to read your longer posts. The sentences sometimes don't have periods at the end, and capital letters at the beginning, or commas where they need to be. It reads a little bit like a run on sentence. And you have a lot of interesting things to say, so I like reading your posts. Please don't be mad at me, I mean no offense. I was going to PM you saying this, but after thinking about it, I thought that it would be better here. :eek:
 

jenniferand2

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2016
1,433
33
48
#34
you are right I am horrible with punctuation. I sometimes get rolling and forget. I also have very very bad English skills. I have never ever been good at this I think it is some kind of learning thing i just never could get it. I had a hard time reading also I did not read until I was like in 4th grade. I will try though thank you. p.s. just do not get mad if I still put them in the wrong place lol .
 
Aug 2, 2009
24,639
4,298
113
#35
The article says they still have to pay rent of either $50 a month or 30% of their income, but it doesn't mention anything about what their source/s of income is.. ?? Are they supposed to find a job as soon as they move in or what?
 

tinytom

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2016
114
2
0
#36
Watch how many people flock to Utah over the next couple of years to obtain free housing. Eventually their system will collapse, unless of course the feds bring them back from the brink.
Can you say Tenncare...people came from all around for free insurance from the state of Tennessee.
 

tinytom

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2016
114
2
0
#37
I believe charity starts at home.

There is no reason that any American citizen should be homeless or hungry, however, when illegal immigrants make up 5 percent of the workforce, and we give billions a year to other countries, to be nice, then we have a problem.
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,768
838
113
#38
Not to bring up wonkish particularities, but there are rare cases in which the state has funds voluntarily given to them that they have little else to do with.
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,768
838
113
#39
This article was, well, your typical NPR article. There are ways of using government funds for this sort of thing that are consistent with principles of the free market. Now, these occasions are rare, but the general rule is that they originate
at the state and local level and contribute to infrastructure.
 

cavil51

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2012
147
3
18
#40
Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness By 91 Percent; Here's How : NPR

Some highlights of the article:




Conservatives hate the "s word" (socialism) and think people are just plain lazy. Nevertheless, lazy or not, there is a group of people that end up costing the government more money (no insurance/jail time). They realized that through their program, people are more likely to be productive and out of jail if they were housed. Utah ended up saving money while simultaneously taking care of homeless people. Isn't that the better alternative than just to have the government use tax payer money to pay for ER visits/lock them up?

What arguments do you have against the US adopting this pragmatic approach if it works?
Homelessness in Germany:The visible form of true poverty, by Andrea Bistrich, Share International Archives
An analysis of how/why some 860,000 people are homeless in Germany, which has no governmental structure to address this human rights problem.
Just how tough is it being homeless in Germany? According to BAG, in the winter of 1996/1997, 27 people froze to death on the streets of Germany, one of the world’s most prosperous nations.