Rise in homeless people

"What is more responsible for the rise in the number of homeless people?"

"Government policies?"

"Economic conditions?"

"Poor mental healthcare?"

"Individual failures?"

????Hmmm,...that is a very good quaerite.

Thank you Nebulous.

i hereby attempt to present a series of informal (*variably opinionated) arguments which will initially seek to show that all four presented "responsibility" potentials are actually symptoms of that which is Truly (*willfully derelict) with regard of such neglected responsibilities and for the manifestation & thusly proliferation of "homeless people".

•"Homeless people", are simply individuals like any other, are they not?—and thus inherently responsible for an individual's-self(*whether dutifully assuming so, or naively surrendering one's sovereignty unto perceived external "authority", and/or just being bloody lazy by disregarding duties of self-hood, or combination thereof)—and yet irrespective of such, the reality for all individuals is obviously also that external factors-whether positive or negative influences—(although often indirectly)—are a fundamentally inescapable aspect incumbent upon one's very existence as an individuated being amongst a multiplicity of other distinctly individuated beings.

•"Poor mental healthcare", i currently think is what i'd generally equate with the overall preeminent world-wide institutional establishment[/s] exerting (assumed) "authority" over all matters pertaining to "mental"–"health"–"care".
[Of course therefore the burden of responsibility (& accountability) is thusly incumbent upon such "authority"]
An inescapable problem with this form of an "authority" arises due to it's foundational actuality being premised upon (veiled) falsehoods buried within the corporate control hierarchical system of which(via various methods) intentionally enable deceptively virtue signaled practices that are primarily self-serving and greatly distort perceptivity for the actual real-world reality being that of significantly detrimental consequences for individuals "mental" wellbeing—while simultaneously enabling calculated disregard of any accountabilities for which, again, are incumbent thereupon—and instead (falsely) project derelict accountabilities upon various other convenient entities, occurrences, situations, circumstances,...and most abhorrent of all—is the fact this often dumps the accountability dereliction wholly upon(&/or utilize such for manipulation of) those for whom the "authority" pretends to exist for the service thereof—ie; individuals afflicted by "mental" challenges.

•"Economic conditions",...????...imo, obviously can lead to societal detriment including proliferation of "homeless people",... however i think we ought not presume to equate "economic conditions" as a thing in and of it-self, but rather as an artificial composite construct with an existence solely dependant upon the consistent input by human collectives.
Furthermore, as the accepted definitions for the term - 'conditions' variably imply, thusly "economic conditions" at any given moment would therefore be an artificial construct existing in whatever current state directly correlated to the state of human collective input—however(& irrespective of, say; natural disasters, etc)-as is the case regarding "mental healthcare", so to is this composite "economic" construct premised upon assumed (collective) corporate "managerial" "authorities".....

.....

.....


.....????...which brings us to "Government policies".

What is "government"?

Is it a thing existing in an of it-self?

Isn't the concept of "government" not unlike the concept of "economy"?

Ever noticed, generally, most people refer to "government" as if to be an ever-present—unchanging entity?
Almost as if implying to believe a fundamental consistency of a "thing" regardless of the reality being that various ideologically inconsistent "political" entities alternate assumption of managerial administration responsibilities of the "thing".

Are we not led to believe that the various nation's "Government's" are "sovereign"-"authorities" incumbent with responsibilities for maintenance of a nation's "economic conditions", "mental healthcare" state and the overall societal state-including efficaciousness regarding developmental provisions ("education") for each of a national bodies individual members?

But does this correlate with the reality we bare witness?

Or should we simply tolerate the glaring incongruities consistently demonstrated by every consecutive "political" entity we supposedly "elect" into the role of "governmental" responsibilities?

In summary; i have, above(& lazily so) not sought to present arguments for which of the four options were potentially more [ir]responsible for the perceived "...rise in homeless people"—but rather to allude to the actual (& more often seemingly entirely disregarded) causality.

The major challenge here, is that we've all been exposed to-and thereby imposed upon-during early developmental stages by fundamentally corrupted "entities"(*masquerading as "educational"-"institutions") which—unfortunately—were usurped at inception and thereafter designed specifically to function as a means of "programming" the multitudes of individuals so to develop core ignorances of particular aspects of reality—especially pertaining to the causality of which i allude and will hereby state;

*The ambiguous concept we generally refer to as "Corporations"

Did you know that a "Governments" (*so to, each of our "official"-"identifications"-aka; "legal fictions") are actually "corporations"—and most definitely not at all-infact entirely the opposite to what we're led to believe.

A certain ambiguous publicly concealed empire "own" all the predominant international "corporations"-which "own" lesser "corporations"–(*eg; "governments")—and this may come as a surprise for most, the fact is that "governments" "own"(*via "trusts") each and every individual "citizen" via the "Birth"('berth')-"Registration" 'Contract'.
[What is a "birth"-"certificate"?]-[????In simple(*common English) terms it is merely a 'receipt' of a transaction we are deliberately -often aggressively - kept wholly ignorant of, and this is infact one of many 'legally' "granted" permissions defined in the terms of these secret "Contracts" .]

We are "legally" defined with a variety of terms, such as; "chattel", "persons" and etc.
Don't take my word,...????...Google them.

????????Cheers
 
my response is very easy,

get up and make a change, yes sometimes it hard for homeless people to get back on their feet but anything is possible. i know some people who used to be homeless and yes it was a differnet situation but they got up and worked hard and got a job and got a hotel room for the time being, it was only casual work but it resulted in a hard worker, got to full time and now my friend owns his own business, as well as his house and car!

i don't believe its all the governments fault, i believe its 50/50. some people who are homeless have made bad life choices which resulted in being homeless.
 
If it is in a place where everything is going well and people are living fine, then we can blame individual failures. You can't tell me that you are living in a place where there is jobs, yet you are jobless for zero reasons. There are places where people pray for such jobs.
 
I think everything you mentioned is resulting in homeless people still being a thing and it getting worse. The government needs to step in and do something to help get them off the streets and more needs to be done to deal with mental health as well. Of course, those that are homeless also need to stand on their own two feet and go for help if it is offered as well.
 
Shortie said:
I think everything you mentioned is resulting in homeless people still being a thing and it getting worse. The government needs to step in and do something to help get them off the streets and more needs to be done to deal with mental health as well. Of course, those that are homeless also need to stand on their own two feet and go for help if it is offered as well.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but disagree.
i don't think the government should need to step in with all cases to help with the homeless, as sometimes they aren't the problem. in alot of cases its actually people who either drink, or do drugs badly which resulted to them getting evicted and not seeking help and sleep on the street

i'm sorry if this seems harsh, but i don't feel sorry for them as they need to get up and start improving themselves.
 
guyyanthony said:
Agreed, but disagree.
i don't think the government should need to step in with all cases to help with the homeless, as sometimes they aren't the problem. in alot of cases its actually people who either drink, or do drugs badly which resulted to them getting evicted and not seeking help and sleep on the street

i'm sorry if this seems harsh, but i don't feel sorry for them as they need to get up and start improving themselves.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you hold very conservative views? I may be wrong and I don't mean to cause any offence :)
I do agree though, there can be a variety of reasons for unemployment, often personal. Sure, not everyone does drugs.
However, would be wise to evaluate a person's circumstances as to why they they are unable to obtain employment.

Benefit payments are not much at all, nowhere near enough to live on comfortably.
So I doubt most people are abusing the goodwill of the government.
Of course this is debatable, and each to their own :)
 
~ True Legend ~ said:
Sounds like you hold very conservative views? I may be wrong and I don't mean to cause any offence :)
I do agree though, there can be a variety of reasons for unemployment, often personal. Sure, not everyone does drugs.
However, would be wise to evaluate a person's circumstances as to why they they are unable to obtain employment.

Benefit payments are not much at all, nowhere near enough to live on comfortably.
So I doubt most people are abusing the goodwill of the government.
Of course this is debatable, and each to their own :)
Click to expand...
i actually agree and disagree with you as you also make some good points as well.
 
i agree with the benefit payments it is not enough for people to live, or even to support a family....

but my point is how do you know that money is going towards getting help or getting a job? that money could be going back into their bad habits, or drug habit and not even trying to get themselves back on the right track? as nobody checks this, or tracks where the money is going to.

as Centrelink here has now introduced in australia does weekly, fortnightly checks and you must be applying for 50+ jobs a week to be able to get the next payment which i think is fantastic and stronger rules should be enforced more to help people more as i'm all for helping people and them getting the support but they need to show that they are taking the steps.

you know what i mean?
 
guyyanthony said:
i agree with the benefit payments it is not enough for people to live, or even to support a family....

but my point is how do you know that money is going towards getting help or getting a job? that money could be going back into their bad habits, or drug habit and not even trying to get themselves back on the right track? as nobody checks this, or tracks where the money is going to.

as Centrelink here has now introduced in australia does weekly, fortnightly checks and you must be applying for 50+ jobs a week to be able to get the next payment which i think is fantastic and stronger rules should be enforced more to help people more as i'm all for helping people and them getting the support but they need to show that they are taking the steps.

you know what i mean?
Click to expand...
UK laws already exist to require universal credit claimants to perform certain activities, with the possibility of exemptions to be (rightly in my view) made for circumstances such as ill health, carer responsibilities, etc, as detailed here: https://www.turn2us.org.uk/Benefit-guides/Universal-Credit/Claimant-Commitment-Conditionality

They are to introduce more stringent requisites.
www.bbc.co.uk

Job centre staff to get bonuses for getting people work

The government's pilot scheme aims to get more Universal Credit claimants into employment.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
The pilot will also make it compulsory for Universal Credit claimants who have been on the benefit for thirteen weeks, to visit a job centre every weekday for a fortnight for "intensive support". Failure to attend could lead to sanctions.

At present, Universal Credit claimants normally only meet with a work coach once a week for the first three months and once a fortnight after that.
Click to expand...

I'm based in the UK so can only speak for UK law. Where are you based if it's okay to ask? :)
 
~ True Legend ~ said:
UK laws already exist to require universal credit claimants to perform certain activities, with the possibility of exemptions to be (rightly in my view) made for circumstances such as ill health, carer responsibilities, etc, as detailed here: https://www.turn2us.org.uk/Benefit-guides/Universal-Credit/Claimant-Commitment-Conditionality

They are to introduce more stringent requisites.
www.bbc.co.uk

Job centre staff to get bonuses for getting people work

The government's pilot scheme aims to get more Universal Credit claimants into employment.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk


I'm based in the UK so can only speak for UK law. Where are you based if it's okay to ask? :)
Click to expand...
That's fantastic to see, this is what australia needs!!

i'm based in Australia happy to share ahah ????
 
I just thought I'd share this as this has some semblance to the subject: not only in homelessness an issue, but also the conditions of housing for hte less well-off in the UK.
More than two million children in England are living in overcrowded accommodation with little or no personal space, while some 300,0000 share beds with family members, new analysis suggests. The BBC has spoken to two families struggling to cope because they do not have enough space.
Click to expand...
www.bbc.co.uk

Thousands of children sharing beds due to overcrowding

More than 300,000 children in England have to share beds with family members, analysis suggests.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

A sad read, but may be interesting to know this happens in the UK despite the benefits and all that :(
 
Nebulous said:
What is more responsible for the rise in the number of homeless people?

Government policies?

Economic conditions?

Poor mental healthcare?

Individual failures?
Click to expand...
I would say that all of these factors plays a very big role in the reason why we are having a lot of homeless people today all over the world. Also migration in search of a better opportunities which doesn't go as planned plays a part too.
 
Heatman said:
Also migration in search of a better opportunities which doesn't go as planned plays a part too.
Click to expand...
Speaking of which, relating to the UK:
A group of Conservative MPs say they have reached a deal with Rishi Sunak's government to toughen up new rules for removing migrants.
Click to expand...
www.bbc.co.uk

Migration bill: Home secretary set to win powers to ignore European court

Changes to proposed new law could make it harder for European judges to stop UK deportations.
www.bbc.co.uk

The legislation, set out last month by Home Secretary Suella Braverman, would prevent anyone entering the UK illegally from claiming asylum.

It is central to Mr Sunak's pledge to stop small boats crossing the English Channel, but has provoked outrage among charities and opposition parties, who say it breaches international law.
Click to expand...

Now Tory MPs say the government will make changes to the bill, which is due to go through its final parliamentary stages next week.

A source close to the MPs said ministers had agreed to change the bill to give the home secretary powers to ignore injunctions from judges at the European Court of Human Rights - known as Rule 39 orders - under certain conditions.

The Strasbourg-based court, unpopular with the Tory right, blocked the removal of migrants to Rwanda last year, pending legal challenges.

The source suggested a second amendment will also require British judges to decide a deportation would cause "serious and irreversible harm" in order to stop it.
Click to expand...
 
Heatman said:
I would say that all of these factors plays a very big role in the reason why we are having a lot of homeless people today all over the world. Also migration in search of a better opportunities which doesn't go as planned plays a part too.
Click to expand...
In my country the rising of the street children is mainly caused by the early pregnancies and domestic violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
737Threads
6,281Messages
76Members
aliasceasarLatest member
Top