News-Record.com

"...until the federal government has the same desire to actually stop the source of the problem — and unless employers can pay their employees a decent wage so they won't have to work 101 hours a week to pay for an apartment..."

Classic liberal playbook, blame homelessness on the Feds and employers. You should have gone one step further and demonized WalMart, that's pretty popular these days.

Not one iota of responsibility for the homeless person himself/herself, it's Bush's fault!!! I also noticed no blame for our Democratic run state...hmmmmmm.

101 hours? Let's say you make only 6$/hour. 6 X 101 = $606/week X 4 weeks = $2424/month X 12 months = $29,088.

What I would do is find a better paying job & work 60 hours a week.

"No wonder so many citizens feel powerless". True, when you rely on the govt. for your survival you will feel powerless. When you rely on yourself you will feel empowered.

In addition to what Dan said, I'll remind you that the federal government has absolutely no authority to deal with homelessness. Read the Constitution.

I have to ask you though, Dan, how you square this statement...

"True, when you rely on the govt. for your survival you will feel powerless. When you rely on yourself you will feel empowered."

...with your desire to have the government control alcohol sales.

Gotta chime in on this one. I totally agree with Dan that reliance on the government is not a great idea, but one thing Jaime Foster said was absolutely true...the President's speech said nothing about OUR social problems. Sure is is going to hire 70,000 more teachers to educate children, what is he going to do about our local residents that cannot afford to heat their homes? THAT IS REGULATED. How about nursing homes where the State requires a minimum temperature of 71 degrees?
I have to ask Dan an Co. what will the temperature of your house be set at this weekend when winter finally arrives in the South? On this issue, your republican president has not provided extra funds to your democratic State to cover the rise in fuel costs, but will spend 100b off-shore? Do you get it now?

Crypto,

I see you didn't read the Constitution as I suggested. Show me where it gives the federal government any authority whatsoever to regulate heating.

"On this issue, your republican president..."

I interpret this to imply that I'm a Republican who voted for Bush. I'm not, and I didn't.

"has not provided extra funds to your democratic State to cover the rise in fuel costs, but will spend 100b off-shore? Do you get it now?"

Yes, I get it. But he would have no business providing funds to our state either.

Paul, my comment in the ABC regulations "I'll drink to that" was in jest.

Crypto, where is it "regulated" in the Constitution that the Federal govt. has to pay to heat peoples homes?

My thermostat will be set about about 50 this weekend, as I'm going on vacation in S. Florida. If I were here, it would be set at a comfy 70 degrees and maybe I would go chop some wood to build a nice fire. When the power bill comes in I'll pay it with my money, not the govts. money.

By the way, the guy I buy firewood from is an elderly widower without much money, but he has a wood burning stove and relies soley on it for his heat. Not a bad idea.

"Where is it 'regulated' in the constitution that the federal govt. has to pay to heat people's homes"?

Dan, this can be found in Ted Kennedy's and Dennis Kunicinich's copy of the constitution. It is the paragraph right next to the one where the founding fathers wrote in the right to an abortion. Have you not been listening??

"but not compassion in the United States for a Mexican immigrant, or a young mother on welfare"

Good grief. Our poor are the envy of the 3rd world. Here's goverment (free or subsidized) housing for your Mexican immigrant and young welfare mothers.

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/5583/00039920pg.jpg

I have to admit that I am confused by Ms. Foster's letter. She begins by talking about homelessness, then she talks about people having to work 101 hours per week to pay for an apartment. I agree with Dan, working 14 hours a day to pay for your apartment is troubling. Even if you only made $6.00 per our as Dan suggests that results in $2,500 per month for an apartment. I'm sure that you can get a pretty impressive apartment for $2,500 per month. You sure wouldn't be homeless.

Ms. Foster's letter seems to be more about hyperbole than substance. I'm hearing someone who just wants to rant the "Bush is responsible for all of my problems" rant. Where is personal responsiblity and people taking care of people. If Ms. Foster is concerned about homeless people, why doesn't she do something other than lament about the federal government? This is the same mindset that existed in New Orleans before Katrina. If you always rely on the government to take care of you, you will likely be disappointed regularly. but, it is obvious that this mindset is too prevalent in Greensboro.

We need, as a nation, to stop living beyond our means and probably our needs.

Believe it or not, you don't NEED cable tv (or even a television), a cell phone, a car payment, a closet full of clothes, a cd player, pepsi, cigarettes, and the list goes on and on.

I'm not saying that would solve ALL our homeless problems but I'm betting it would solve the majority of them.

ydog,
i believe you are on to something !! if one were to actually make a list of their needs and then compare it to what they really have, they should be blessed beyond measure.......

I appreciate Ms. Foster's concern and invite her to join the Homeless Prevention Coalition of Guilford County: http://www.hpcgc.org. We serve the needs of homeless folks in Greensboro, High Point and throughout Guilford County and we are working to prevent and end homelessness in our community. (I am a member.)

Just a couple of other comments: The "living wage" in Greensboro is currently $13.04 per hour. That is the amount per hour that a person would have to make to afford the average two-bedroom apartment here. To afford the same apartment, working a minimum wage job, that person would have to work 101 hours per week. So we need to address wages, job training and education, and affordable housing in our community.

The federal government absolutely is involved in the issue of homelessness. HUD funds help pay for housing for the homeless. They're here: http://www.hud.gov/. There's also a United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, which includes Secretaries from other Departments of our government (HUD, Defense, Justice, DHHS, etc.) They're here: http://www.ich.gov/.

There will be much more in the media within the next week or so about Guilford County's plans to serve the needs of our homeless citizens and end homelessness in our community within 10 years. Please watch for it!

Neocon,
You never disappoint. Your arrogance must have to make up for your shortcomings in other areas.

Today is Friday 3rd and this is from the Charlotte Observer concerning Senator Dole now having to call the Republican plan bad and still sleep with her husband:

"Think how many years Democrats have talked about adding a prescription drug benefit," Dole told reporters last week. "But we (Republicans) got it done."
Dole is invested in the success of the Medicare plan. Her husband, ex-Sen. Bob Dole, is promoting Part D on a speaking tour largely paid for by Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company.
And, as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, her job is to elect enough GOP candidates this fall to keep the Senate in Republican control.
That could be tough if seniors, always reliable voters, go Democratic in a big way.

Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, and Presciption Drug coverage----and you guys say you are supporting CONSERVATIVES ?
This President makes FDR look tightfisted, but wait....I'm being unpatriotic for not supporting him!

Chosen Fast, thanks for your post and the websites. The ICH.gov website you provided announces the Bush admin allocating $1.33 billion to fight homelessness. Is that a good thing?

If so, it contradicts the original writers opinion that the govt. (specifically Bush) provides no compassion or help for the young mother on welfare. Quite the contrary, that young mother gets welfare, food stamps, probably gets subsidized childcare if she works, subsidized education if she attends school, and now she will get part of the $1.33 billion to assist with homelessness.

Do you also have stats on how many primary wage earners actually earn minimum wage? I'm not talking about the teenager flipping burgers for spending money, I'm talking about the person who is supporting their family. My guess is it's low. Starting salary at Wal Mart is around $8/hour I believe. So I think the stat about working 101 hours a week is misleading as it doesn't factor that most people make more than min. wage and some households have two incomes.

Deac, I agree with you that this admin. is not conservative when it comes to spending.

Dan, obviously the federal government, under Bush's administration, IS doing something about homelessness. Perhaps the letter writer is simply not aware of all the resources that are currently allocated to help the homeless and the poor.

The arguments that I hear (and I take no stand here) have to do with how funds are allocated, whether the amount of those funds is sufficient to meet the need, and whether current programs or policies need changing. But I would disagree with anyone (including this letter writer) who says that the federal government is not interested in ending homelessness at its source.

One of the interesting things about the Ten Year Plans (to end homelessness) that communities across the nation are doing (and our community is beginning), is the "housing first" concept. Studies show that chronically homeless folks cost a community a great deal of money in terms of services that they access, and in jail costs and costs for medical and mental health services. Studies show that it's more cost-effective (i.e., less expensive in the long run) to provide these folks with long-term housing and supportive services. This method ends their homelessness, focuses on their individual needs and costs less to the community. It's a good model, and one I'm sure our local Ten Year Plan Task Force will look at here. You can see one example here: http://www.pathwaystohousing.org/

I don't have specific stats on individual workers earning minimum wage, but there are 11,000 households reporting less than the "living wage" ($13.04 per hour), and thus those households do not earn enough to pay for safe, affordable housing in Greensboro. 2000 of those households have only enough income to afford rent of $250 (or less) per month.

And with your Walmart worker example, making $8/hour, that person would still need another wage earner in the household to afford average market rent, based on that income.

I didn't have time to read ALL of the very good points made above, but I find it interesting that one of the most recent reports regarding the number one health problem of those Americans living at or below the poverty line to be obesity. Now malnourishment is a health problem and certainly associated with the obesity problem but tell that to the truly malnourished covered in flies dying on the roadsides in Africa and other nations that don't enjoy life in a democracy.

To Dan and the others bringing up the concept of personal accountability.. here, here. Enough with the blame game, already.

Actually, we can trace the blame for the homeless in this country back to Jimmy Carter and the abominable failure of his beloved Habitat for Humanity to provide housing for all the poor, destitute, and homeless of this great nation!

(Hint to the perpetually clueless on this board: It's just SATIRE.....look it up, if you don't understand.....)

Chosen First,

Many of the people that you are citing are eligible for housing assistance. I am familiar with some individuals that have a pretty decent apartment and their monthly cost is about $140 per month with housing assistance. It's not the taj mahal, but it's a nice home.

Again, provide me with the numbers on your 101 hours per week to afford an apartment at minimum wage. I can't make that calculation. If you assumed a person did make $6.00 per hour, they would net at least $5.50 per hour of that as take home pay. 101 hours of work per week would equal about 435 hours per month. That would be nearly $2,400 per month. Where am I missing your point? And, the person would no doubt be eligible for food stamps and housing assistance, so this person should be far from homeless.

So, at the end of the day we do find that the government is responsible for some of our social ills. They fund programs through the State where is it distributed locally. As for my earlier rant about "regulated fules costs"... the state approves all rate increases. While one hand is approving a rate increase, the other has not allocated the funds to the programs that will assist those suddenly find they cannot afford it.

I have traveled all over this country and abroad. There are vast areas HERE that are no better off than a third world country...especially out west. I have assisted some of the Hopi where they receive government assistance (a great humiliation in their culture) that equals about $300/mo. I have worked in our inner cities feeding the homeless... why are they homeless when they can receive their share of 1.3b? Some, it turns out, just want to live that way! Others have mental illness. The people that hurt me the most are those that have lost their jobs, or work less than 101 hours/week and just can't seem to earn enough to pay rent. These are the people that make too much to "qualify" for their portion of the 1.3b you speak of. they hold on to their dignity and do the best they can...working and filling out volumes of paperwork for help.

When I speak of the Government not doing what is necessary to help these souls, this is the context I frame the statement in.

I am eager to read the article coming out soon.

Oak Ridge Runner:

One way that affordable housing is often figured is by using income x 30-40%, and that's the amount the person can afford to pay for housing. 30% of income for housing in preferred, 40% is maximum. In reality, many low-income people pay much more.

Example:

$6.00 an hour (income) X 40 hours per week = $240
$240 X 4.33 (52 weeks divided by 12 months) = $1039.20
$1039.20 X 30% = $311.76
$1039.20 X 40% = $415.68

So affordable rent for a person working 40 hours per week at $6.00 per hour would be between $311.76 and $415.68 per month, with the lower figure preferred. Go to this web site and see what you can rent in Greensboro in that price range: http://socialserve.com/tenant/Search.html?city_id=30362&type=rental

As for housing assistance, yes, there are subsidized housing programs for the poor. But there are as many people on the waiting list for public housing as there housing units available. And the Section 8 waiting list is closed. I believe the last number I heard was about 7,500 waiting for subsidized housing. There are some other assisted housing programs, but again, the need is greater than the supply.

Here's another web site that you can visit to learn more about affordable housing (and the lack thereof) in Greensboro: http://greensborohousingcoalition.com/

I wish that no one was homeless and that we had safe, affordable housing for everyone in our community. That's not the reality - yet. But there are many of us who are committed to finding solutions. If that's your passion, too, I encourage you to join us. Join the Homeless Prevention Coalition of Guilford County, http://www.hpcgc.org and/or the Greensboro Housing Coalition, http://greensborohousingcoalition.com

JEC,

what food can you get that cost next to nothing in this country? Fast Food. Its cheap, cheap, cheap and it is what many who live on very little every year can afford to eat. Eating fast food everyday will lead to many people having an obsesity problem. So yes, those who are starving in other countries may think our poor have it good, but by my standards and our countries standards (which we all feel is the best country in the world) they do not. And I do not think that being better off than someone starving in a third world country is good enough. Our country's standards should be higher.

30% of income is the amount I'm familiar with to determine affordable housing.

ORR - "Why are they homeless when they can receive their share of 1.3b?" I'm not sure I understand your question. People are homeless for many different reasons. We get a share of that money locally, but so far we still don't have enough housing, jobs, medical and mental health care, supportive services, substance abuse treatment, etc. for everyone who is homeless here. And when you say their "portion," you make it sound like that money is for cash payments for homeless people, and that's not true at all.

Fast food is far from cheap, cheap, cheap. I can eat at many local resturants, no chain types, for less than I can eat at McD's or simular junk food joints. There I can get a fairly balanced meal, unlike the fast food junk food joints.
To many think that McD's is the answer to food needs as well as the deli's at the local supermarkets.
If one shops wise, leave out the junk food, candy, chips, soda's, cake, cookies etc one can prepare meals for a fraction of what a Big Mac and fries cost. I do it daily, not because I am poor but because I like real food, not junk. Others can do the same with a little help. I tried teaching a class for those who were on limited incomes on how to shop and how to prepare good wholesome meals on a tight budget. After the first two sessions most were gone. I observed them in the grocery store later in the week. Guess what was in their basket? A load of junk food being paid for with food stamps. Food stamps have been the ruination of balanced meals. WIC is good because it limits what can be purchased. Food stamps should be the same. Commodites were a better choice but then people were too dang lazy to go get them and prepare them. For some who do not remember pre-food stamp days. Commodities included flour, milk, cheese, beans, vegetables, fresh and canned and fruits in season. There were other things but it did not include potato chips, candy, soda's, bakery cakes and pies, deli dinners.

Slum lords like there seems to be in abundant supply in G'boro were frowned upon and not rewarded as some seem to be in your fair city. Rents are high because some landlords do not want to rent to those who have no responsibilty and will tear anything decent to pieces in a matter of a few weeks or a month or two. As a former landlord I would make a home visit to see where the potential renter lived. If it was a dump, dirty and unkept, I didn't rent to them. If it was clean, even if it was a dump otherwise, I gave them a chance to live in something decent.
Public housing has lost it original use which was a place to get a start, not a place to call home for generation after generation dependent upon welfare and cheap housing. If it was used as intended there would not be a critical housing shortage for low income individuals or families. It is easier for those who run public housing however to just let things flow and as long as they stay just inside the limits let them stay until it freezes over. No incentitive to move out anymore. The HUD 203b program was killed because it worked and created a surplus of public housing for a while.

that's my niclkles worth for tonite.

Mrp,

Thank you for trying to educate people on how to eat healthfully on a budget. I agree that fast food can be just as expensive, but you also can get an entire meal for 3 dollars if you use the dollar menu. Education is the best tool to help people realize other alternatives, unfortunately, some people do not care to learn about such things. I agree with you about public housing, I think most people would agree that giving people a good start is one thing, but enabling them is another. Welfare programs should encourage people to leave behind public assistance, instead they encourage them to hold fast to them. If people could still get some help while they worked (instead of being abandoned because suddenly they make too much money), public housing reverted back to its original use, and if commodities were used and food stamps had restrictions, then people would not rely on the system as much.