I am not a heartless person & I do have compassion for those that are hurtin'. I felt the need to preface that.

I just read the following story & this is something we have discussed before. I cannot reiterate enough that when you give people things there is no reason for them to strive for more.

A controversial program offering low cost cell phone service for homeless people may be headed to the Golden State.

"This is great--it is transformative for homeless and low-income people," San Francisco's "homeless czar" Bevan Dufty told the San Francisco Chronicle, noting that the phones could help the city's homeless call into the 311 information line that provides information about available shelter beds. "Fundamentally, to be in the mainstream of our society you have to have a phone...We really need this plan."

Story

Work hard, Mr. User & Hot D, those on welfare are depending on you.

Sonofabitch. Cellphones are NOT a necessity!

No they are not. Unless maybe they don't have a landline? Is this their only phone? IF that is the case, it's one per family. Not one for everyone. But still, get a freakin job and pay for your own damn phone.

(12-11-2012, 01:01 PM)ramseycat Wrote: Unless maybe they don't have a landline?

I highly doubt the homeless have landlines....

But come on guys, these people NEED a cell phone. You know, for calling their drug dealers and what not.

(12-11-2012, 02:05 PM)RaisingAPrince Wrote: But come on guys, these people NEED a cell phone. You know, for calling their drug dealers and what not.

Lots, but not all, are drug addicts and alcoholics.

Many of the homeless that I've encountered are mentally ill, imo. I wish that the money for this subsidized cell phone program could be redirected towards more outreach counselors to help these homeless seek and take advantage of the many many services (social & medical) that are already available to them in San Francisco.

San Francisco spends about $11,000 per year on such services for each of the more than 7,000 living on the streets. I know of about 25 homeless shelters in the Tenderloin and Mission districts primarily, that's not including some places that provide homeless sleep areas but aren't classified as shelters, like Saint Boniface church in the Tenderloin (lovely people who allow the homeless to sleep in the pews at night).

Putting the homeless in permanent shared housing is estimated to be cheaper to the city because it dramatically reduces the emergency room visits, helps to ensure the mentally ill stay on their meds resulting in less police action, affords them regular on-site access to transition services, etc... But then, there's the issue of creating the permanent housing and the portion of the homeless population who are now accustomed to living on the streets and don't desire a structured environment. Complex issue...

In terms of incentive to work, most of the homeless where I've volunteered or just those I've met on the street have a long way to go before they'd be capable of holding a job, but helping them to get there would be a much better investment than these cell phones, imo. The homeless here have a "word-on-the-street" communication network and many wander a lot - they know which shelters have beds available without needing a cell phone. Imo, those phones would be sold, stolen, or lost very quickly in order to acquire true necessities or booze/drugs. Even expecting most to cough up the initial $20 phone fee and having the incentive or ability to keep the phone charged seems unrealistic, to me.

I agree that the cost would far exceed the intended benefit (based only on my experience here).

You're the voice of reason. I get hungup on all of the people that I know will take shameless advantage of such a program.

(12-11-2012, 03:51 PM)Duchess Wrote:

I get hungup on all of the people that I know will take shameless advantage of such a program.

That's definitely a legitimate concern, imo.

I think a hell of a lot of the cell phones that would be given to the homeless here for $20 would be sold for a profit very quickly thereafter. I don't know for a fact, but I suspect that too many are also reported as "stolen" or "lost", (either legitimately or illegitimately) by the low income and homeless persons that are already part of the program in the 30+ states that have enacted it.

(12-11-2012, 03:51 PM)Duchess Wrote:

You're the voice of reason. I get hungup on all of the people that I know will take shameless advantage of such a program.

Yes, HotD tries to look for the silver lining and the positives in stories.

You're right to question this program, though. If there were a way to categorize the homeless, and distribute aid accordingly, our society would be better for sure.

Until that day, there will most likely be more people abusing the system than those that truly need it.

I didn't even think about charging the damn things. How are they going to do that if they have no home? HottieD made some good points how the money for these phones could be put to better use.

(12-11-2012, 04:02 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Yes, HotD tries to look for the silver lining and the positives in stories.

Imo, there's not a silver lining or positive in this story, MS. Just the reality that this program is not prudent for the homeless (imo, based on my experience) and the homelessness problem is a sad and complex one with no real solution in sight...

Hot D said prudent.

(12-11-2012, 04:23 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Hot D said prudent.

Don't you dare mock my vocabulary!!!!!!!

Prudent: Adjective
Acting with or showing care and thought for the future.

This program only extends current problems associated with entitlements and creates new ones, imo. It is therefore not prudent!

(12-11-2012, 04:20 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(12-11-2012, 04:02 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Yes, HotD tries to look for the silver lining and the positives in stories.

Imo, there's not a silver lining or positive in this story, MS. Just the reality that this program is not prudent for the homeless (imo, based on my experience) and the homelessness problem is a sad and complex one with no real solution in sight...

So my generalization about you (in response to Duchess' statement) was confusing to you?

I bet if I polled Mock's members they'd agree with what I said originally:

Yes, HotD tries to look for the silver lining and the positives in stories.

(12-11-2012, 04:42 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [So my generalization about you (in response to Duchess' statement) was confusing to you?

I bet if I polled Mock's members they'd agree with what I said originally:

Yes, HotD tries to look for the silver lining and the positives in stories.

Oh, I see now. Your statement had nothing to do with this particular story in this thread, so it was relevant and accurate. Okay, then.

I don't ignore the negatives, but also see the silver linings and positives in anything when they exist. Sometimes I simply can't see any in many of the stories that I read, especially those related to crime or politics.

When it comes to people, I think you're generalization is right. Everybody's got their good and bad points and sometimes I have to look to find the positives. It's not usually too hard to see them if they're there.

I see many good things about you, for example, without even having to look too hard.

But, I'm not gonna take a poll or anything to confirm my generally positive perception of you.

(12-11-2012, 05:05 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Oh, I see now. Your statement had nothing to do with this particular story in this thread, so it was relevant and accurate. Okay, then.

I don't ignore the negatives, but also see the silver linings and positives in anything when they exist. Sometimes I simply can't see any in many of the stories that I read, especially those related to crime or politics.

I see many good things about you, for example, without even having to look too hard.

But, I'm not gonna take a poll or anything to confirm my generally positive perception of you.

Thanks for not polling the Members.

I think the overall numbers would be lower than you or I might think.

Duchess loves me, however, and that's really all that matters.

(12-11-2012, 05:16 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Thanks for not polling the Members.

I think the overall numbers would be lower than you or I might think.

Nah, I wouldn't be surprised if they were low (or not). I just don't care what everyone else thinks about other people; it doesn't affect how I see them. I stick to what they show me and what I think when it comes to judging others.

(12-11-2012, 05:16 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Duchess loves me, however, and that's really all that matters.

I snorted.

(12-11-2012, 05:26 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(12-11-2012, 05:16 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Duchess loves me, however, and that's really all that matters.

I snorted.

Yes, it's all fun and games.

But, when you're looking to vent who usually provides you an opportunity to do so?

Moi.

That's why I enjoy Mock.

Some people deserve assistance or require it. The mentally incompetent, crackheads, and loser fucks that live off the "system" should not be applicable to this scenerio.

(12-11-2012, 05:41 PM)Sphincter Cop Wrote: Some people deserve assistance or require it. The mentally incompetent, crackheads, and loser fucks that live off the "system" should not be applicable to this scenerio.

I feel the same way about it. For those who truly warrant assistance and benefit from the cell phones, it's a good thing.

Too many programs like this start off with good intentions to help a specifically qualified group and then snowball into a huge entitlement program that's out of control, imo.