Jim Lyons wrote: > > Brian Thompson wrote: > > > i believe you may be talking about those > > individuals who are living on the street, the "stereotypical" homeless. > > were you aware that a sizable percentage (sorry, don't have the exact > > number at hand) live in cars, with friends, with families, etc? > > Here's part of the problem with discussing these sorts of issues: > definition. A person who is living with family would not be considered > homeless by most people. Nor would a person who lives with a friend. > > Over the last 15 years or so the homelessness problem has been given > quite > a lot of hype. One of the ways advocates for the homeless pump up their > numbers is to include those who live with family or friends. The > problem > with their pumping up figures this way is that when they show pictures > of > homeless people, the people are always on the street. This gives the > impression > that "homeless" is the same as "on the street." So, when perfectly > honest > figures give a high number of homeless (including people not on the > street) > many people assume the numbers refer to those living on grates, etc. > The > concern people have is for those unfortunates who are on the streets, in > spite > of their best efforts to get off. Most people are not concerned, nor > should > they be, for those who have a place to stay, just not their own.
Yeah, right. So a woman and her three children who are sharing a one room apartment with her friend because she couldn't pay the rent when her ex didn't send the child support check on time, and who had to give up almost everything she owned because she had no where to store it and couldn't have afforded to move it if she did, deserves no concern, while anyone who actually is on the street is tarred as a bum who wants to be there, so they don't deserve any concern either. How convenient for self-centered sociopaths like yourself.