Former New Jersey governor goes undercover as homeless man

[Stoney]

A phony beard, a fake tattoo and clothes dragged through grass and stained with coffee were all it took to transform former New Jersey Governor Richard Codey into a homeless man looking for shelter on a frigid night this week. His self-appointed undercover mission to spotlight what he calls discrimination against men by shelters took about three months of planning before Codey stood at the door of the Goodwill Rescue mission in Newark, New Jersey at 8 p.m. on Monday, asking to be let in.


http://news.yahoo.com/former-jersey-governor-goes-undercover-homeless-man-023749042.html

I'm left with questions. I can understand why he would be turned down in favor of families and women. But I don't understand why he would be turned down because he didn't have SSI unless they use that as a test of eligibility.

Of course the good Senator wants better mattresses and to be able to sit in chairs. Government is the answer.

[Conley]

Interesting article, sounds like this guy has a history of going undercover.

I think they do use the SSI / welfare check as a form of checking eligibility. The thinking I suppose is that if you don't qualify for that then you should be able to pay for your own shelter with a cheap hotel room or something like that.

[Stoney]

Interesting article, sounds like this guy has a history of going undercover.

I think they do use the SSI / welfare check as a form of checking eligibility. The thinking I suppose is that if you don't qualify for that then you should be able to pay for your own shelter with a cheap hotel room or something like that.

Sounds right to me, and fair. Save the beds for those that need them.

Government wouldn't make that distinction.

[waltky]

Number of homeless students up 38% since 2009-10...
:shocked:
1,301,239: Homeless Students in Public Schools Up 38% Since 2009-10
April 12, 2016 | The number of homeless students is steadily rising in this country, up 38.44 percent since the 2009-10 school year, based on data submitted by state and local education agencies, including those in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.


The U.S. Education Department says 1,301,239 homeless students were enrolled in the nation's public schools in the 2013-14 school year, the most recent year for which numbers are available. That's a 6.67 percent increase from the 1,219,818 homeless students enrolled in 2012-13; a 14.86 percent increase from the 1,132,853 enrolled in 2011-12; a 22.09 percent increase from the 1,065,794 in 2010-11; and a 38.44 percent increase from the 939,903 in 2009-2010. The greatest growth in the most recent school year was seen in preschool-aged children and ninth grade students.

Homeless students are defined as those who "lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence." These students fall into four categories for data collection purposes, including sheltered (living in homeless shelters, other transitional programs, or awaiting foster care placement); unsheltered (living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, etc.); living in hotels or motels; and doubled up (sharing housing with others for hardship reasons). In 2013-14, the vast majority of homeless students (989,844 or 76 percent) fell into the doubled-up category, followed by those in shelters (186,265 or 15 percent), those in motels/hotels (80,124 or 6 percent) and the unsheltered (42,003 or 3 percent).

The Education Department places homeless students in four subgroups. Homeless children with disabilities comprise the largest subgroup, followed by homeless students with limited English proficiency; unaccompanied homeless youth who are not in the physical custody of a parent or guardian; and migratory children (related to seasonal agricultural work). Some children fall into more than one of those subgroups, and each of those four subgroups saw growth over the three-year period 2011-12 through 2013-14. The nation's public schools (including D.C. and Puerto Rico) are required by law to provide all children with equal access to education at the elementary and secondary levels, regardless of their immigration status, but the Education Department does not categorize homeless students based on whether they are in the country legally or illegally.

However, high-immigration states such as California, New York and Texas have the largest numbers of homeless students, while Wyoming, Vermont and South Dakota have some of the lowest numbers, based on data compiled for the Education Department by the National Center for Homeless Education. Notably, Tennessee's population of homeless students more than doubled year-to-year in 2013-14, increasing 107.15 percent to 29,663 -- the largest percentage increase of all the states. As President Obama noted in December 2014, "Nashville’s got one of the fastest-growing immigrant populations in the country." The president went there to take part in an immigration town hall. He hailed the "new Nashvillians” as coming from Somalia, Nepal, Laos, Mexico, and Bangladesh. "And Nashville happens to be the home of the largest Kurdish community in the United States as well," Obama said at the time.

MORE (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/1301239-number-homeless-students-nations-public-schools-38-2009-10)

[Mac-7]

http://news.yahoo.com/former-jersey-governor-goes-undercover-homeless-man-023749042.html

I'm left with questions. I can understand why he would be turned down in favor of families and women. But I don't understand why he would be turned down because he didn't have SSI unless they use that as a test of eligibility.

Of course the good Senator wants better mattresses and to be able to sit in chairs. Government is the answer.


If he is going to truly live the life of a bum tell us what kind of boose or illegal drugs he was consuming.

[OGIS]

Interesting article, sounds like this guy has a history of going undercover.

I think they do use the SSI / welfare check as a form of checking eligibility. The thinking I suppose is that if you don't qualify for that then you should be able to pay for your own shelter with a cheap hotel room or something like that.

Ayup. Its a cheap, easy and relatively brainless method of filtering. And filtering does need to be done, as the number of homeless is now far too high for the amount of shelter and beds available. Which is curious, because I am constantly reassured by cons that "the market" and the natural benevolence of the job creator class will take care of the homeless problem.

[OGIS]

If he is going to truly live the life of a bum tell us what kind of boose or illegal drugs he was consuming.

Nice broadbrush there, tex.

[Mac-7]

Ayup. Its a cheap, easy and relatively brainless method of filtering. And filtering does need to be done, as the number of homeless is now far too high for the amount of shelter and beds available. Which is curious, because I am constantly reassured by cons that "the market" and the natural benevolence of the job creator class will take care of the homeless problem.

I dont think the market can help drug addicts and alcoholics.

Which along with mental illness it what most of these people suffer from.

They may be too lost to hold a job but not because of anything I did to them.

maybe we could blame our permissive, bleeding heart liberal society for getting them off to a bad start.

but that does not get them off the street now that they are so far gone.

[OGIS]

I dont think the market can help drug addicts and alcoholics.

Which along with mental illness it what most of these people suffer from.

They may be too lost to hold a job but not because of anything I did to them.

maybe we could blame our permissive, bleeding heart liberal society for getting them off to a bad start.

but that does not get them off the street now that they are so far gone.

So what is your solution? You're King for a Day: How would you deal with the homeless problem? Please be specific; glittering generalities such as "Free market and unicorns!" won't hack it. What is your answer?

[Mac-7]

So what is your solution? You're King for a Day: How would you deal with the homeless problem? Please be specific; glittering generalities such as "Free market and unicorns!" won't hack it. What is your answer?

I would not leave them on the street or expand the homeless shelters.

First I would seal the southern border abd deport every illegal alien I could find.

then if there are a few homeless people who want to better themselves they will have a better chance to do so.

as for the others let the shrinks take a look at them.

If they are too insane to care for themselves or too substance addicted then they should be locked up.

[OGIS]

OK, this is a good start. A few questions, for you to fine tune your proposal:


I would not leave them on the street or expand the homeless shelters.

Everything in this world takes time. Your below solutions will take time, so what do you do with the homeless while the solutions are being implemented? Because the above sounds a bit contradictory. If you do not initially expand the homeless shelters, how do you get them off the street? Again, specifics, please.


First I would seal the southern border abd deport every illegal alien I could find.

Totally 110% agree. Except it will take time to build the wall, and it will take time to plan and implement a way of rounding up 12,000,000 (at least) people. At least two things you should probably take into account with your plan:

(1) disruption - perhaps fatal disruption - of many, many businesses who employee illegal aliens. Like it or not, many businesses must hire illegals to compete with their competitors who are also hire them (two examples: construction firms, farms). Also, it is not hard at all to get fake ID, and many businesses unknowingly hire illegals who appear legal.

(2) disruption - perhaps fatal disruption - of many, many businesses who sell consumer goods. A good chunk of their sales are to illegals.

Also, I see you did not mention H1-B. I've been homeless, and I've met an architect, a computer programmer, and several other professionals who were also homeless. Reason: sudden termination with replacement at greatly reduced salaries by "guest" workers from India. None of these people were mentally ill or had substance abuse problems. No discussion of illegals taking jobs can be complete without a discussion of the abuse of the H1-B system by "job creators" trying to save a buck.


then if there are a few homeless people who want to better themselves they will have a better chance to do so. as for the others let the shrinks take a look at them.

They're homeless, Mac. Who pays for them seeing the shrinks? Can't be the government; that's SOCIALISM! Should job creators step forward and offer to pay those (very expensive) medical bills? WILL job creators step forward? What's been stopping them in the past?


If they are too insane to care for themselves or too substance addicted then they should be locked up.

Where should they be locked up? If in private mental institutions, who pays for that? The government? Should we re-establish the network of state insane asylums that once existed, before the double whammy of Reagan and the ACLU wiped them out of existence? In either case, that is, once again, Socialism.

And speaking of the ACLU.... Anytime you have people who have total power over other people you have the potential for systematic and horrible abuse. In the case of mental institutions (both public and private), this abuse included rapes, murders, torture, and unauthorized medical experiments ("Let's see if we can quiet his fits by stirring his brain a bit with a knife"). This was the basis of the ACLU lawsuits. The Republicans basically said "Wow, that's terrible; hey, we will just close all the nuthouses and them everyone live on the streets. PROBLEM SOLVED!"

The other problem was the systematic abuse (in some states) of the laws that allowed for involuntary commitment. "Uncle Charlie's worth $50 million, but the old fart just won't DIE. Let's get him declared crazy and get him locked up, then we can get our hands on that sweet sweet money." Yes, indeed, that did happen.

****

Also, understand the arrow of cause and effect here. There is a very high percentage of homeless people who are schizophrenic. That illness (and the GFY attitude of their families) was the cause of their being homeless in the first place. The alcohol and the illegal drugs are self-medication attempts to make the voices go away. In other words, FIRST the mental illness, THEN the drugs. That is how it is for the vast majority of cases.

Also, you didn't address the number of homeless who are physically disabled. When we wer homeless we know lots of homeless people who got around in wheelchairs. And I can see more today, whenever I walk to the Food for Less.

A good number of them are wounded veterans.

[gamewell45]

I would not leave them on the street or expand the homeless shelters.

First I would seal the southern border abd deport every illegal alien I could find.

then if there are a few homeless people who want to better themselves they will have a better chance to do so.

as for the others let the shrinks take a look at them.

If they are too insane to care for themselves or too substance addicted then they should be locked up.

Where does the money come from to do all of what you propose?

[Mac-7]

Where does the money come from to do all of what you propose?

Tell me how much we are spending on homeless shelters now and that is the money I would spend on mental hospitals instead.

[Mac-7]

OK, this is a good start. A few questions, for you to fine tune your proposal:



Everything in this world takes time. Your below solutions will take time, so what do you do with the homeless while the solutions are being implemented? Because the above sounds a bit contradictory. If you do not initially expand the homeless shelters, how do you get them off the street? Again, specifics, please.



Totally 110% agree. Except it will take time to build the wall, and it will take time to plan and implement a way of rounding up 12,000,000 (at least) people. At least two things you should probably take into account with your plan:

(1) disruption - perhaps fatal disruption - of many, many businesses who employee illegal aliens. Like it or not, many businesses must hire illegals to compete with their competitors who are also hire them (two examples: construction firms, farms). Also, it is not hard at all to get fake ID, and many businesses unknowingly hire illegals who appear legal.

(2) disruption - perhaps fatal disruption - of many, many businesses who sell consumer goods. A good chunk of their sales are to illegals.

Also, I see you did not mention H1-B. I've been homeless, and I've met an architect, a computer programmer, and several other professionals who were also homeless. Reason: sudden termination with replacement at greatly reduced salaries by "guest" workers from India. None of these people were mentally ill or had substance abuse problems. No discussion of illegals taking jobs can be complete without a discussion of the abuse of the H1-B system by "job creators" trying to save a buck.



They're homeless, Mac. Who pays for them seeing the shrinks? Can't be the government; that's SOCIALISM! Should job creators step forward and offer to pay those (very expensive) medical bills? WILL job creators step forward? What's been stopping them in the past?



Where should they be locked up? If in private mental institutions, who pays for that? The government? Should we re-establish the network of state insane asylums that once existed, before the double whammy of Reagan and the ACLU wiped them out of existence? In either case, that is, once again, Socialism.

And speaking of the ACLU.... Anytime you have people who have total power over other people you have the potential for systematic and horrible abuse. In the case of mental institutions (both public and private), this abuse included rapes, murders, torture, and unauthorized medical experiments ("Let's see if we can quiet his fits by stirring his brain a bit with a knife"). This was the basis of the ACLU lawsuits. The Republicans basically said "Wow, that's terrible; hey, we will just close all the nuthouses and them everyone live on the streets. PROBLEM SOLVED!"

The other problem was the systematic abuse (in some states) of the laws that allowed for involuntary commitment. "Uncle Charlie's worth $50 million, but the old fart just won't DIE. Let's get him declared crazy and get him locked up, then we can get our hands on that sweet sweet money." Yes, indeed, that did happen.

****

Also, understand the arrow of cause and effect here. There is a very high percentage of homeless people who are schizophrenic. That illness (and the GFY attitude of their families) was the cause of their being homeless in the first place. The alcohol and the illegal drugs are self-medication attempts to make the voices go away. In other words, FIRST the mental illness, THEN the drugs. That is how it is for the vast majority of cases.

Also, you didn't address the number of homeless who are physically disabled. When we wer homeless we know lots of homeless people who got around in wheelchairs. And I can see more today, whenever I walk to the Food for Less.

A good number of them are wounded veterans.

Ok

you asked for my solution now lets hear yours.

[gamewell45]

Tell me how much we are spending on homeless shelters now and that is the money I would spend on mental hospitals instead.

Can you answer my question first without attempting to deflect it?

[OGIS]

Tell me how much we are spending on homeless shelters now and that is the money I would spend on mental hospitals instead.

The difference in costs between the two is not even in the same ballpark, Mac. A well run mental hospital - like ANY hospital - is expensive: doctors, nurses, costs of pharmacologicals, physical security (mental hospitals, like prisons, require controlled access between areas, and building this type of infrastructure is costly), security personnel and aides, dieticians and individual meal prep and planning.... the list is huge and expensive. A homeless shelter generally consists of a big warehouse room and some cots. There may or may not be a chow line.

As an semi-educated guess, off the top of my head, take the annual operating cost of the typical homeless shelter and tack on six zeros to it.

Who pays for the difference? The taxpayer?

Here's the thing, Mac: If our streets were filled with homeless people who, through no fault of their own, had running sores and bodies filled with cancers and parasitic worms - i.e.: physical diseases - and were dropping dead from them sometimes right in front of you, the general public would be outraged and demand that something be done.

But schizophrenia is like cancer in the 60s. One didn't talk about it. It was somehow shameful. It was somehow blamed on the victim. And these are people who - through no fault of their own - have mental running sores and parasitic mental processes. And they often die, through attempts at self treatment with booze or drugs, or getting the pulp beat out of them by other homeless, or get shot by the police. And the general public does nothing. Understand? The cause of schizophrenia is a PHYSICAL cause; schizophrenics suffer from a disease. And no one gives a fark.

[OGIS]

Ok

you asked for my solution now lets hear yours.

Here's five things:

(1) Let's divert the $20,000,000,000 we will spend on our next super carrier and instead fund the construction and staffing of well-run mental institutions in every state.

(2) Utah, as and a couple of other places, have had great success with simply giving apartments to homeless people. The costs involved are actually LESS than that other costs (the petty crimes, the additional costs to police, jails, and the revolving court system) of doing nothing.

(3) the ACLU needs to "take a hike" regarding the "inalienable constitutional rights" of a mentally ill homeless person to get raped, robbed, beaten up and starved to death in the streets. My justification for ignoring these rights for these people? The exact same one we use to protect children: they are not competent to provide for themselves.

(4) Another possibility would be for the feds to funds degrees in psychology and psychiatry at colleges and universities. This was done for the STEM degrees back in the 60s when we were worried about the Russians; it can be done again.

(5) This would also help ease the homeless problem from another direction: it would give workers made obsolete by automation a route to NOT ending up homeless.

These five things would be a start.

And your taxes wouldn't have to go up by a single dime.

***

BTW, you also need to respond to my points about your solution.

[Mac-7]

Can you answer my question first without attempting to deflect it?

I dont know how much we spend now

whatever the homeless cost for homeless shelters and other benefits should to mental hospitals instead.

[Mac-7]

Here's five things:

(1) Let's divert the $20,000,000,000 we will spend on our next super carrier and instead fund the construction and staffing of well-run mental institutions in every state.

(2) Utah, as and a couple of other places, have had great success with simply giving apartments to homeless people. The costs involved are actually LESS than that other costs (the petty crimes, the additional costs to police, jails, and the revolving court system) of doing nothing.

(3) the ACLU needs to "take a hike" regarding the "inalienable constitutional rights" of a mentally ill homeless person to get raped, robbed, beaten up and starved to death in the streets. My justification for ignoring these rights for these people? The exact same one we use to protect children: they are not competent to provide for themselves.

(4) Another possibility would be for the feds to funds degrees in psychology and psychiatry at colleges and universities. This was done for the STEM degrees back in the 60s when we were worried about the Russians; it can be done again.

(5) This would also help ease the homeless problem from another direction: it would give workers made obsolete by automation a route to NOT ending up homeless.

These five things would be a start.

And your taxes wouldn't have to go up by a single dime.

***

BTW, you also need to respond to my points about your solution.

I value a good supercarrier far more than a homeless person.

In the next world war we can never have too many carriers.

as for your many counterpoints to my points what is the point?

I disagree with most of your ideas just as you do with mine.

Neither of us is going to change the other mind.

But we both exressed our opinions without being too hostile so lets just leave it at that.