Support our veterans!
Unless they're homeless bums, then let them pull themselves up by their own combat bootstraps?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More than 25 percent of the homeless population in the United States are war veterans, although they represent only 11 percent of the civilian adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday.
On any given night last year, nearly 196,000 veterans slept on the street, in a shelter or in transitional housing, the study by the Homelessness Research Institute found.
"Veterans make up a disproportionate share of homeless people," the report said.
"This is true despite the fact that veterans are better educated, more likely to be employed and have a lower poverty rate than the general population..."
..."These findings highlight the need to provide veterans with the proper housing and supportive services to prevent homelessness from occurring in the first place," said Nan Roman, the organization's president. "If we can do that, then we can greatly reduce the number of homeless veterans in general."
Other veterans -- nearly 468,000 -- are experiencing "severe housing cost burden," or paying more than half their income for housing, thereby putting them at a high risk for homelessness.
Full story here
=======
Birds have nests, foxes have dens
But the hope of the whole world rests
On the shoulders of a homeless man...
~Rich Mullins
22 comments:
This includes not only elderly and middle aged Vets from the Vietnam era, but even young Vets from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Centers for Disease Control say that they believe the repeated deployments and extended stays for our overstretched military is making it harder for them to resist the stresses of life when they return. Thus, domestic violence, alcoholism, and drug abuse among returning vets is way up and these are major causes of homelessness. And very little has been done in the way of support systems.
BTW, do you still want to link to my creation and evolution posts? Go ahead. I am surprised at how few comments I have received so far when there were so many votes for me to write on this topic.
I wonder how many people are reluctant to employ veterans because they believe the smear that they're baby-killing war criminals.
Or was this post only intended to question the patriotism of those on the right?
Not meant to question anyone's patriotism. That's not my bag, you know.
It's to question the morality and ethics of those (not necessarily on the Right, but if the shoe fits...) who clamor for the US to "support" the troops by sending them to a questionably moral and legal war, but when it comes to supporting them when they get home, not so much.
As to your baby-killer stereotype, I've not met any folk, so-called "Left" or "Right" who buy that tripe. My friends on the "Left" have great compassion for our military sons and daughters.
In fact, we support the notion of supporting them once they get back and have completed their service to our country, hence this post.
I apologize, then, for being inaccurate about the details of your moral preening.
Accepted.
(shakes head, furrows brow, wondering at Bubba)
WTH was that? Musta been a sale on cheap shots at the Wal-Marts.
Said with a crooked smile. :-\
Dan admits that he doubts whether other people support our troops and that he's questioning their morality and their ethics. He's doing this, not because of anything they've said or done, mind you, but because of a news report that veterans are disproportionally disadvantaged economically.
There is the hypocrisy that Dan makes this complaint in the midst of his consistant mantra that we spend too much on our military, as if Veterans Affairs isn't part of our military budget: he questions how political conservatives can dare to support a large military budget, as if national defense wasn't a central function of every government and as if one of Washington's four Cabinent members was the Secretary of War, but political conservatives get no credit for the fact that that support almost always entails (and often explicitly includes) providing excellent pay and benefits to our soldiers and veterans.
There is the notable absence of a policy prescription that would improve the situation, as Dan is too busy attacking the character of people he doesn't like to make any recommendations for improving the lot of veterans he claims to support. For my part, I would support increasing benefits, with a focus on education and job training, but I think the most important thing is organizations (like the VFW) that can help make up for the cut social ties that often result from military service.
And there is the exceptional lack of substance in Dan's attack. Can he point to anyone he's criticizing whose words or deeds suggest at least indifference to the plight of veterans? I doubt he can, which suggests an attempt at mind-reading on his part, but what's noteworthy is that Dan doesn't even try.
It's an instantiation of a very tired attack: there is a situtation he doesn't like, and that fact alone is reason enough for him to smear the people he doesn't like, to attack their morality and ethics, and essentially to revile them as uncaring and heartless.
This attack has no substance behind it and is nothing more than thoughtless emotionalism.
To point this out is not to make a cheap shot.
As stated, the point is: "to question the morality and ethics of those (not necessarily on the Right, but if the shoe fits...) who clamor for the US to "support" the troops by sending them to a questionably moral and legal war, but when it comes to supporting them when they get home, not so much."
To criticize this sort of hypocrisy is not to take cheap shots at anyone but hypocrites. Like it or lump it.
Bubba asked:
Can he point to anyone he's criticizing whose words or deeds suggest at least indifference to the plight of veterans?
Yes. There was a homeless veteran program the funds of which were cut back in the budget this year, despite the need being there (I'm sure I can find the details if you would like).
Now, I don't know who voted in favor of cutting these funds - perhaps it was, as you suggest - soldier-hating "liberals."
You know what, though? I doubt it. Wanna place a bet?
That would be one example of a lack of real support for our sons and daughters in uniform.
Regardless of who it is who opposes offering support for our veterans - AND ONCE AGAIN, I pointed no fingers - I'd suggest it is wrong.
I'd think this is something you could agree with me on, Bubba.
Bubba also said:
he questions how political conservatives can dare to support a large military budget
To be fair, I question how anyone can dare support an OBSCENELY large military budget.
NOT merely a large budget, but one that is nearly as much as the rest of the world combined! One that is approaching $1 trillion/year!
If we reduced our budget down to "merely" $150 billion (more than China and Russia combined - our next two largest competitors), we would have a large military and I probably wouldn't complain too much. But we are spending something approaching $700 billion - maybe more, depending upon what you count - and I simply don't trust gov't that much.
It has been my experience that what some criticize as budget cuts often turns out to be nothing more than reducing the increases in a budget item -- that item is increased by, say, only twice(!) the rate of inflation when it was only originally scheduled to be increased by 3x inflation. And, given the size and complexity of our bureaucracy, to oppose increased funding for one particular program doesn't imply an indifference to the problems that the program is intended to address.
There was a homeless veteran program the funds of which were cut back in the budget this year, despite the need being there (I'm sure I can find the details if you would like).
I would appreciate it, as the best I could find wasn't that the funds for that program were being cut, only that they weren't being increased, as the Democrats claimed about Bush's 2007 budget, here, in a document that prominently quotes Proverbs in a bit of political theater that some here would probably criticize as theocratic if it came from another source.
Here, the Bush Administration discusses how this program's effectiveness and efficiency is being evaluated. It is at least plausible that the administration supports helping homeless veterans -- more than plausible, in my opinion, given that Bush seems to believe quite sincerely that the government should act when people are in need -- but you don't even consider the possibility:
Now, I don't know who voted in favor of cutting these funds - perhaps it was, as you suggest - soldier-hating "liberals."
You know what, though? I doubt it. Wanna place a bet?
That would be one example of a lack of real support for our sons and daughters in uniform.
You clearly equate support for increasing the budget in certain programs with support and concern for particular issues.
Well, two can play at this game. You just now argued that military spending should be reduced -- actually reduced -- by $500 billion.
Clearly, that's proof you don't give a shit about national defense, right? By your moronic logic, the only way to demonstrate a real concern for national defense is to support increasing government defense programs, in any and all circumstances.
Oh my. Such righteous indignation. If I did't know better I would have sworn I was reading Matthew 21:12-13
For what it's worth, I find that both political parties and partisans on all sides employ the groundless tactic of arguing, the opponent doesn't care about [X] because he doesn't support a particular amount of funding for a government program designed to address [X].
But that doesn't mean that it's a valid tactic, and it doesn't mean I can't call Dan out for using it here.
I imagine that, in a substantive discussion over policy disagreements, Dan would likely agree that a person can care about [X] while opposing a particular amount of funding for a program that is designed to address [X]: he may think the program is ineffective or counterproductive, either on principle or in that one particular case, or he may have to weigh his support of that program against other competing concerns.
But this topic isn't about substance, it's about grandstanding, about attacking other people's morality and ethics, about calling them hypocrites, no matter how lame the argument behind the attack.
I was just leaving a light-hearted comment about the language Bubba. I am "THE POT" calling the kettle black however. It causes me to shudder when I remember some of my youthful tirades. :D
Actually, I didn't see your comment when I was writing mine.
Disjointed comments on a virtual flight
like two ships that pass, unseen, in the night.
But this topic isn't about substance, it's about grandstanding, about attacking other people's morality and ethics...
You may be right...
The Washington Post reports that 1.8 million veterans are uninsured. My son is among those statistics. That figure has grown by 290,000 since 2000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/20/AR2007062002161.html
Bubba: "It has been my experience that what some criticize as budget cuts often turns out to be nothing more than reducing the increases in a budget item"
Bubba, you have no experience either with the military or the Veteran's Administration. Talk to a guy I know.. Tom Chelston. He works with veterans every day trying to help them get the care they need. Just google his name and contact him. I am sure he will be glad to give you a little dose of truth.
I had no idea Marty's son was in the military, and I wonder why she hasn't mentioned this before.
I'm assuming that's a joke.
Funny Bubba. FYI, my son is no longer in the military. He's fighting the VA for benefits he was promised, but now that he's out, has been denied.
Something changed in the CNN story. Dan quoted the article as saying that 25% of the homeless are war veterans, but the CNN article now says that 25% are military veterans.
The methodology used to generate the figure is a little unclear, but if it's based on the Fannie Mae poll, then the argument is predicated on 24% of veterans being "concerned" about finding a place to live.
I'm not sure that the statistics support such a high figure.
Can anyone else figure out how the Homelessness Research Institute is coming up with these numbers?
The National Alliance to End Homelessness based the findings of its report on numbers from Veterans Affairs and the Census Bureau.
http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/1839
Post a Comment