President Bush can’t point to a lot of signature successes on the domestic front, but fighting homelessness might be one of them.
A new survey of the chronically homeless indicated that between 2005 and 2007, the numbers of those living in shelters and on the streets dropped about 30 percent, from 176,000 to 124,000, according to Bush administration housing officials.
If so, that’s a remarkable accomplishment, and it’s largely because of the administration’s embrace of the “housing first” model that’s been used successfully in many American cities (and is at the heart of Wichita’s new homelessness strategy).
In the past four years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has backed the development of more than 40,000 new units of housing with support services for the homeless — the idea being to get the homeless off the street and get them the help they need (such as mental health and alcohol treatment) to become self-sufficient again.
It appears to be working.
41 Comments
For some reason, I seriously doubt those numbers. Perhaps its the administration’s pension for lying and twisting numbers..you know like how Bush spouted such a high graduation rate in Texas as governor to find out that all they did was ‘recalculate’ how they came up with those numbers.
I see MORE homeless than I have ever seen in my life and in small towns. There is something wrong with their numbers.
I’ve only recently seen homeless outside the downtown core area, but today I see them pretty far out regularly. Maybe bushco think since they aren’t where they were, they’re gone? He and his don’t have a track record of seeing reality or anything differently than they wanted to see before they began looking. Even after a cursory “look,” they’ll report what they want and not let truth get in the way.
With a record number of home foreclosures it seems odd that the homeless numbers would go down. Would that be because so many homeless are squatting in the empty houses therefore not needing the homeless shelters?
Or perhaps the Bush regime fudged with how they count the numbers the same way they count the unemployed.
WASHINGTON — The number of chronically homeless people living in the nation’s streets and shelters has dropped by about 30 percent — to 123,833 from 175,914 — between 2005 and 2007, Bush administration officials said on Tuesday.
–
From Randy’s link. The key is “Bush administration officials said.” Given the source, I too doubt seriously the veracity of the “improvement.”
For the past 3 weekends I’ve seen 3 different guys spend Saturday night across the street from my home, on the sidewalk and under the protection offered by the vestibule of the tv office station there. Never seen homeless guys there before, probably because it ain’t a good place for sleeping.
Since 2002 it’s ALWAYS been a good idea to corroborate anything this administration says.
Liberal Rules of Presidential Politics
If it happened, it’s Bush’s fault.
Unless it is good.
Then, the statistics are wrong. Or the source is biased. Or, it would have happened anyway. Or Bush lied.
There’s a guy who lives on the porch of an abandoned house on 21st and Waco. Another guy lives behind a bunch of pallets at the old Spaghetti Warehouse. These guys must not be homeless since they don’t reside in shelters.
It’s Bushenomics. Kinda like if you take three people. Two of those people don’t have jobs, the third has three jobs therefore you have 0% unemployment.
Or for more Bush math take the budget deficit. Bush claims the budget will have a deficit of about $500 billion. That doesn’t include the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq (although he was required by law to include those numbers), nor does it include the money taken from the Social Security Trust Fund. Total would actually be $800 billion but when you don’t add accurately, like the 2000 elections, you end up with a different result.
outlander, he did lie about many very important issues. We haven’t yet (and may never) find out the extent of his lies. What most recognize is that he has a history that makes him deserving of suspicion. He lied often enough and badly enough he can’t be trusted. People who are caught in lies, exaggerations, even biased representations are suspect. He censored other “government” reports and that has been proven. Why should he not be questioned, isn’t that what happens when you prove you aren’t trustworthy?
I think , with respect to homelessness, the most important date is Jan 20, when Bush un-asses our White House!
outlander
Posted August 6, 2008 at 8:22 am | Permalink
Unless it is good.
Then, the statistics are wrong. Or the source is biased. Or, it would have happened anyway. Or Bush lied.
—
Cracks me up. You know, your argument is gelded by one salient truth: the administration has been incorrect, lied, or stretched the truth so often that we REALLY DO have to keep ‘em honest. They REALLY WILL lie if that lie will further their ideology or Bush’s standing in a political fight.
Really, they lie. Unfortunately for you and his other supporters, it completely knocks the pins out from under anybody seeking desperately a silver lining in the Bush administration. :D
Just wait Pedant. Soon after whoever wins the presidency takes office, if not before, the attacks will begin with; “__________ lied”. It will be repeated ad nauseum with little or no evidence ever produced, just like it was for Bush. And people, especially the gullible, will begin to believe it. Because it will fit their world view.
Not that we shouldn’t be on the look out for actual lies. I am talking about a political strategy. Which amounted to lying about lying.
“lying about lying”
:lol:
I think you meant to write “incorrect about being incorrect.” :wink:
“between 2005 and 2007, the numbers of those living in shelters and on the streets dropped about 30 percent, ”
In bush’s America?
Those poor folks probably died.
That ANYONE is homeless makes this one sorry country indeed.
Many people here suffer from: Bush Derangement Syndrome has been used in the political arena to describe a purported hatred by some American liberals of President George W. Bush and his policies. This supposedly leads to reflexive opposition to any position advocated by Bush for no other reason than that Bush happens to be advocating it
And many are suffering the after effects of “Voter Remorse”, manifested by paranoia, intelligible utterings, errant behavior and rampant bed wetting in extreme cases.
I’m sure BDS is as real as was CDS.
Thing is, pointing out the the Bush administration is often incorrect (at best) is hardly evidence of BDS.
As Bush himself once famously mangled, “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.” Given the general level of incompetence of the administration, there ain’t nothing wrong with insisting on some independent verification of improvements in homelessness on a national level.
I guarantee you the numbers are bogus. The method for collecting the data and defining “who” is homeless create numbers that are inaccurate at best.
Probably because bush policy put them all into new homes with his ‘Ownership Society’, soon to be back on the streets after foreclosure.
If you’re against something bush supports, history has shown you’re on the right side of the bet.
BDS-Bush Demonstrated Stupidity
Bet the did a door to door census in arriving at their conclusion.
Agreed, MH.
How can foreclosures be at an all-time high since the Depression and homelessness be down?
If that’s really true, my guess is that so many have died at the uncaring hands of our present government that the total numbers have fallen.
Here’s an insightful piece that has nothing to do with the thread; I just didn’t want to keep spamming the open thread:
Garrison Keilor from salon.com:
And it’s an amazing country where an Arizona multimillionaire can attack a Chicago South Sider as an elitist and hope to make it stick. The Chicagoan was brought up by a single mom who had big ambitions for him, and he got scholarshipped into Harvard Law and was made president of the law review, all of it on his own hook, whereas the Arizonan is the son of an admiral and was ushered into Annapolis though an indifferent student, much like the Current Occupant, both of them men who are very lucky that their fathers were born before they were. The Chicagoan, who grew up without a father, wrote a book on his own, using a computer. The Arizonan hired people to write his for him. But because the Chicagoan can say what he thinks and make sense and the Arizonan cannot do that for more than 30 seconds at a time, the old guy is hoping to portray the skinny guy as arrogant.
Good luck with that, sir.
Meanwhile, the casual revelation last month that Mr. McCain has never figured out how to use a computer and has never sent e-mail or Googled is rather startling. It’s like admitting that you’ve never clipped your own toenails or that you didn’t know that toothpaste comes out of a tube because your valet always did that for you. It’s like being amazed at the sight of a supermarket scanner. What world does Mr. McCain live in? Where does he keep his sense of curiosity? My 94-year-old mother has sent e-mail. Does somebody plan to show him how it’s done and will they explain to him what “LOL” means?
It’s like riddiculing by handing out air gauges, “What the hell are the things for, anyway?”
Actually Phantom, the rules for counting homeless have been around for many years. The equation is complicated and method of counting designed for failure. It isn’t a Bush count, but the numbers can be used to say about anything you want them to say.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/library/countinghomeless/countingguide.pdf
Apparently bush has discovered the closely guarded fact that there is an inverse relationship between foreclosures and homelessness!
Yeah there is something really very wrong with the numbers and only a few neocons are brave enough to try to say that its because the liberals just don’t want to believe it. We don’t believe it because it doesn’t make any sense for one and for two we know the idiot in chief has his own way of skewing numbers on more than just this issue.
How often does anyone ever go from home ownership directly to living on the street?
Foreclosed properties were often dumped by people who could not sell a prior home, in order to move into the new home.
Foreclosed homes were, at times, purchased by speculators wanting to “flip” the property for a profit, and when prices went down, the speculators walked away.
It is rare for someone to be kicked out of their home and wind up on the street.
Homelessness is NOT an economic problem
Homelessness is a mental health and addiction problem.
Period!
Pall,
Homelessness is the result of many causes, and to dismiss the homeless as mentally ill addicts is not only callous to the extreme but utterly simplistic baloney. Maybe is you had ever once in your pathetic life talked with a few homeless people you might have a basis to comment on the problem, but you’ve worked hard all your life to avoid any contact whatsoever with poor or minority human beings. Grow a heart!
MYTHS ABOUT HOMELESSNESS
1) All homeless are older, alcoholic males
WRONG! In 1998, 40% of the clients served in homeless shelters in our community were children. Eighty-two percent of those children were under the age of 10.
2) All of the homeless are lazy and refuse to work
During the past year, 24% of the clients entering local homeless shelters were employed when they requested service. Unfortunately, most were employed at minimum wage jobs with no benefits. Families often become homeless when one family member experiences a medical crisis and becomes unable to work or pay for medical treatment.
3) All of the homeless want to be on welfare
The public perception of welfare is that it is easy to obtain, easy to live on, and provides an excellent standard of living. In reality, applying for welfare can be (and often is) a dehumanizing experience.
The welfare system in and of itself is not designed for the benefit of the client nor is it designed to empower them to achieve a better life.
Programs designed to get individuals off the welfare rolls (such as Kanwork, Voc-Rehab), are often unavailable without a long waiting period.
If a mother is able to secure employment, she often does not make enough to pay for child care, mecical costs, transportattion, etc., ano thererore it may not be cost effective for her to work. The monthly amount a single mother with two children receives is $403 with approximately $304 in food stamps. Out of these monies, she must pay her rent, utilities, transportation, etc. Items such as toiletpaper, paper products, cleaning supplies, diapers, etc. are not covered by food stamps. For example, if her monthly rent is $325, that will leave her with $78 to purchase the above listed items. As you can see, that will not ensure her a high standard of living.
All of the homeless are uneducated
People from a variety of backgrounds, educational levels, ethnic groups become homeless. It is estimated that every American is two paychecks away from becoming homeless. During the past year, 74% of the adults entering local homeless shelters had a high school diploma or a G.E.D. and 17% had some college credits. Education, in and of itself is no guarantee that an individual will not become homeless.
All of the homeless are addicted to drugs and alcohol
Statistically, it is estimated that approximately 30% of the homeless population in the United States has a substance abuse problem. Most‘stereotype their behavior and personal characteristics, It becomes easy to “blame” them for their misfortune and see them as deserving their fate. In reality, many of the factors that impact these families and individuals are beyond their control (poverty, lack of affordable housing, mental illness and/or mental retardation, inability to find full time permanent employment which would allow them to support their family, physical disabilities, inability to support family on public assistance, etc.)
Prepared by Lynn Tatlock, Director of Salvation Army Homeless Services
Franklin, you know for a fact that all homeless are mentality ill, not a single homeless person is because of bad luck or economic hardship?
“Franklin” pontificates –
“Homelessness is NOT an economic problem”
And hunger is not a food problem.
Disease is not a health problem.
Pollution is not an environmental problem.
Corruption is not an ethics problem.
Welcome to “Franklin’s” world.
(Please check your brain at the door.)
Jed
I suggest that YOU need to “grow a heart” —
It is heartless to try and make a political issue out of mental illness and drug addiction.
These ARE the root causes of the vast majority of homeless cases.
Even in the opening of this thread, Randy used these words:
“the idea being to get the homeless off the street and get them the help they need (such as mental health and alcohol treatment) to become self-sufficient again.
It appears to be working.”
The econonmy has slowed, however homelessness has declined.
During this same period of time, we have concentrated on mental illness, alcholism and addiction.
Gee, maybe the facts are on MY side?
IF we could eliminate the addiction problem and if we could eliminate the mental health problem, it would be relatively easy to deal with the cases that were left.
Moreover, there ARE innocent victims of drug and alcohol addiction and there are children out there that depend on the mentally ill or the addicted.
Even if that child has no problems, other than the parents the child was born to, — getting the parents into treatment is the way to go.
Samkan
Lynn was once my neighbor.
She is a good person.
Her Father was a great guy.
Facing the problem is NOT being “heartless” — facing the problems of substance abuse and mental illness are the only way to deal with this problem, if you truly want results.
Sam post your orgs, address i got a bunch of coats and old clothes I was gonna give away but i could bring them buy
Within three minutes walking distance from where I live, there is a mostly vacant apartment complex.
Maybe 50 duplexes. Maybe 100. I haven’t counted.
They change hands every couple years. Another greedy, irresponsible landlord comes in.
And the living units continue to deteriorate.
I say GIVE those units to the homeless on the condition they improve them.
It worked for the pioneer era of this country. Let’s try it again.
Apparently, none of the CONs watched the movie, “The Pursuit of Happyness.”
The single Dad in that movie was the hardest working dude I’ve ever seen–he was not a drunk or a pimp or on drug or mentally ill, and he was homeless.
Franklin,
I don’t believe I called anyone heartless….
Tom..
We don’t have a physical address, but we have been working out of Messiah’s Branch which is at 900 S Broadway. Here is their web site so you can get the hours they are open:
http://www.wichitahomeless.com/
Samkan
My apologies.
I know that you did not use that term, I was trying to respond to the Bloggers at large with that one, and I should have done so with a separate post.
This is a legendary blog. Thanks for sharing your idea!