Those stats are incorrect. 91 percent of homeless people have destroyed their lives with drugs and alcohol

I volunteered at the City Rescue Mission here in Jax for 2 years in the late 80's. I talked with many many homeless during this period, both men and women. Now, I know this is all antecdotal data and I didnt keep any official records on paper, but thinking back on it, i found a couple of things seemed to be the case:

80-90% of the homeless population was male. This high % could have been because Jax has other facilities for homeless women, most of which are shelters for battered or abused women and thier children.
Of those 8 / 9 out of 10 men, 6 to 7 of them admitted to some sort of current or past history of drug or alcohol abuse.
The remainder of them had recently lost thier job thru layoffs or seemed to have some sort of mental illness/issue.
There were a very small number who seemed actively able to work but were gaming the system for free food and shelter. They felt that they were freer by not being tied down to a job/family/etc.

Now again, this was personal observation and was over 30 yrs ago, so it may not be relevant today (and also depends on the truthfulness of the homeless and thier stories, which is questionable sometimes), but drugs have gotten more addictive since then and society certainly hasnt gotten much better, if at all, so im guessing these percentages might still be similar today.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

It doesn't matter. Mikey can't trust his eyes. He prefers the 5 minute google search that parrots what he was told.

---

Those stats are incorrect. 91 percent of homeless people have destroyed their lives with drugs and alcohol

I volunteered at the City Rescue Mission here in Jax for 2 years in the late 80's.  I talked with many many homeless during this period, both men and women.  Now, I know this is all antecdotal data and I didnt keep any official records on paper, but thinking back on it, i found a couple of things seemed to be the case:

80-90% of the homeless population was male.  This high % could have been because Jax has other facilities for homeless women, most of which are shelters for battered or abused women and thier children.
Of those 8 / 9 out of 10 men, 6 to 7 of them admitted to some sort of current or past history of drug or alcohol abuse.
The remainder of them had recently lost thier job thru layoffs or seemed to have some sort of mental illness/issue.
There were a very small number who seemed actively able to work but were gaming the system for free food and shelter.  They felt that they were freer by not being tied down to a job/family/etc.

Now again, this was personal observation and was over 30 yrs ago, so it may not be relevant today (and also depends on the truthfulness of the homeless and thier stories, which is questionable sometimes), but drugs have gotten more addictive since then and society certainly hasnt gotten much better, if at all, so im guessing these percentages might still be similar today.

Those numbers sound right actually, that about 2/3 would have current or past drug or alcohol abuse.  But past abuse isn't the problem we are talking about.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

As always you redefine the discussion to fit your view.  Clearly this conversation is about “street people” and you moved the goal post to include sheltered homeless.  They are not the same and you are aware of that.

I didn't write the article.  I agree the article is broader than the discussion here, but still has facts that are pertinent to us.  Do you have a better article to link us to?

---

This post illustrates the problem with you and your fellow "lefties", you're too gullible. You seize any and all information that supports your agenda without consideration for timing and/or situational relevancy, then pride yourselves of being 'informed".  The article credits specific studies a total of ten times, the most recent of which dates back to 2014.  

5 from 2014
2 from 2013
2 from 2010
1 from.............................wait for it........................1996.

Same question to you.  Do you ha e a better article?

I honestly don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, or you simply lack the mental agility to follow the conversation.  You believe everything you read on the internet like a well-trained socialist.  You then quite magnanimously scholar the less informed masses with your "expert" knowledge.    A true puppet, dancing on the strings of the Left.

The most current data source is 7 years old.  Finding more relevant statistics shouldn't be an overly challenging task.  Here's a useful tip to help you.  Any research article that doesn't first and foremost define the topic of study is useless.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

I didn't write the article.  I agree the article is broader than the discussion here, but still has facts that are pertinent to us.  Do you have a better article to link us to?

---

Same question to you.  Do you ha e a better article?

I honestly don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, or you simply lack the mental agility to follow the conversation.  You believe everything you read on the internet like a well-trained socialist.  You then quite magnanimously scholar the less informed masses with your "expert" knowledge.    A true puppet, dancing on the strings of the Left.

The most current data source is 7 years old.  Finding more relevant statistics shouldn't be an overly challenging task.  Here's a useful tip to help you.  Any research article that doesn't first and foremost define the topic of study is useless.

It's deliberate.  I'm trying to get you to question your assumptions.  Find evidence for them.  Prove it to me.  Explain it like I'm 5.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I honestly don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, or you simply lack the mental agility to follow the conversation.  You believe everything you read on the internet like a well-trained socialist.  You then quite magnanimously scholar the less informed masses with your "expert" knowledge.    A true puppet, dancing on the strings of the Left.

The most current data source is 7 years old.  Finding more relevant statistics shouldn't be an overly challenging task.  Here's a useful tip to help you.  Any research article that doesn't first and foremost define the topic of study is useless.

It's deliberate.  I'm trying to get you to question your assumptions.  Find evidence for them.  Prove it to me.  Explain it like I'm 5.

Now we're getting somewhere!  Cure begins with admission.  I'm not the one who made the original assumption.  You did, based on the article referenced.  I tend to be somewhat more scientific in my research and skeptical of unsupported conclusions.

OK, five-year-old.  Conclusions are drawn from data.  For data to be relevant, you most first understand the research topic.  Define "homeless".

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

I've stated a few times before that Tucker Carlson's only redeeming quality is his astute monologues. Otherwise, I can't stand listening to the guy. But his monologues are measured and surprisingly not as politically biased as his show. Last night he presented a truthful treatise on the motivations for homelessness in America.
 
Regardless of your political leanings I think it's a worthwhile watch. 

https://youtu.be/DREmnsungVM

It's a tug of war. We're in the middle of it. 

Governments protect businesses or ruin them. Due to policies or behind the scenes deals. 
Businesses protect their best people or ruin them. Due to morality or lack thereof. 
People who are at their best are doing enough to be a productive member of society to maintain what's left of the middle class. 
Ruined people turn to handouts or succumb to other means to numb themselves. 

Ultimately. From what I have seen in my almost 34 years of existence, is that, it's a [BLEEP] system all the way through. If you have anything worth holding onto. Hold onto it. If you lose it? Don't replace it with something that will negatively impact your way of life for any substantial amount of time. Some people are far more fortunate than others and have a strong foundation between their family and others not so much. 

A lot of it is manufactured. It starts on a social level, then, an economic level. It shouldn't be a surprise that overcrowded cities with crooked politicians that contributed to a mass exodus of sustainable businesses, smaller businesses going down the [BLEEP], jobs being shipped off across the pond or across the pacific, and a rigged market that put people (most people) into a forced debt system or line of credit have these problems.

Some people can overcome it, mentally deal with it, stomach it and accept the fact that the hamster wheel is how to make a living. Some people can't. There's people on both sides of the aisle and on the 100th floor or higher in their ivory towers willing to take advantage of those willing to work and those willing not to work. 

It's [BLEEP] disgusting. But, that's the way of it. The people responsible for this shouldn't be able to walk down the street soon.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

It's deliberate.  I'm trying to get you to question your assumptions.  Find evidence for them.  Prove it to me.  Explain it like I'm 5.

Now we're getting somewhere!  Cure begins with admission.  I'm not the one who made the original assumption.  You did, based on the article referenced.  I tend to be somewhat more scientific in my research and skeptical of unsupported conclusions.

OK, five-year-old.  Conclusions are drawn from data.  For data to be relevant, you most first understand the research topic.  Define "homeless".

You would ask a 5-year-old to define homeless?
You first.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Now we're getting somewhere!  Cure begins with admission.  I'm not the one who made the original assumption.  You did, based on the article referenced.  I tend to be somewhat more scientific in my research and skeptical of unsupported conclusions.

OK, five-year-old.  Conclusions are drawn from data.  For data to be relevant, you most first understand the research topic.  Define "homeless".

You would ask a 5-year-old to define homeless?
You first.

Debating with you certainly feels like talking with a 5-year-old, but I was crediting you with being slightly smarter.  My bad.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Now we're getting somewhere!  Cure begins with admission.  I'm not the one who made the original assumption.  You did, based on the article referenced.  I tend to be somewhat more scientific in my research and skeptical of unsupported conclusions.

OK, five-year-old.  Conclusions are drawn from data.  For data to be relevant, you most first understand the research topic.  Define "homeless".

You would ask a 5-year-old to define homeless?
You first.

Yes. If my 5-year-old was talking out of their [BLEEP] about the homeless, I would ask them to define it.

---

You would ask a 5-year-old to define homeless?
You first.

Debating with you certainly feels like talking with a 5-year-old, but I was crediting you with being slightly smarter.  My bad.

Mr.Sez is not interested in having an actual conversation.  He would rather be the board contrarian, dodging, ducking, spinning and weaving than actually discussing a topic.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

You would ask a 5-year-old to define homeless?
You first.

Debating with you certainly feels like talking with a 5-year-old, but I was crediting you with being slightly smarter.  My bad.

We both know it's hard to define homeless.  People might sleep on a friend's couch.  People might sleep in their cars.  Copycat suggested "street people".  Is that a term you can find in sociological literature?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Debating with you certainly feels like talking with a 5-year-old, but I was crediting you with being slightly smarter.  My bad.

Mr.Sez is not interested in having an actual conversation.  He would rather be the board contrarian, dodging, ducking, spinning and weaving than actually discussing a topic.

I like discussions.  They're a tool to challenge and expand your worldview. But what you want is not discussion.  You just want your worldview confirmed by others. I only post factual info.  If you were here to discuss sincerely, you would accept those facts and integrate them into your worldview.  You still might not agree with my conclusions, and you might say there are other facts I'm ignoring, but you'd engage on that level.  That's what discussion is.  Instead, you reject facts and attack me instead.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Mr.Sez is not interested in having an actual conversation.  He would rather be the board contrarian, dodging, ducking, spinning and weaving than actually discussing a topic.

I like discussions.  They're a tool to challenge and expand your worldview. But what you want is not discussion.  You just want your worldview confirmed by others. I only post factual info.  If you were here to discuss sincerely, you would accept those facts and integrate them into your worldview.  You still might not agree with my conclusions, and you might say there are other facts I'm ignoring, but you'd engage on that level.  That's what discussion is.  Instead, you reject facts and attack me instead.

The part in bold is the only truthful thing that you said... as long as you are looking in the mirror.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Mr.Sez is not interested in having an actual conversation.  He would rather be the board contrarian, dodging, ducking, spinning and weaving than actually discussing a topic.

I like discussions.  They're a tool to challenge and expand your worldview. But what you want is not discussion.  You just want your worldview confirmed by others. I only post factual info.  If you were here to discuss sincerely, you would accept those facts and integrate them into your worldview.  You still might not agree with my conclusions, and you might say there are other facts I'm ignoring, but you'd engage on that level.  That's what discussion is.  Instead, you reject facts and attack me instead.

1. What are your thoughts on homelessness? 
2. What do you feel are the primary driving reasons or motives behind homelessness?
3. Do you know what the best thing about dating a homeless girl is? You can drop them off anywhere.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

I like discussions.  They're a tool to challenge and expand your worldview. But what you want is not discussion.  You just want your worldview confirmed by others. I only post factual info.  If you were here to discuss sincerely, you would accept those facts and integrate them into your worldview.  You still might not agree with my conclusions, and you might say there are other facts I'm ignoring, but you'd engage on that level.  That's what discussion is.  Instead, you reject facts and attack me instead.

1. What are your thoughts on homelessness? 
2. What do you feel are the primary driving reasons or motives behind homelessness?
3. Do you know what the best thing about dating a homeless girl is? You can drop them off anywhere.

1. It's a state that people "fall" into when a confluence of bad things happen in their lives.  Then a bunch of things have to go right for them to "climb" out.
2. Depends where we are talking about.  In Florida homeless people might find their way here from up north because at least they won't freeze.  In Seattle, the homeless we see are generally home-grown. A person in Seattle is twice as likely to be homeless as a person in New York City. So, some factor that contributes to homelessness is twice as bad in Seattle as it is in New York. Or some factor that reduces homelessness is twice as good in New York as in Seattle.  Do we really think that twice as many in Seattle are addicted to narcotics, when compared to New York?
3. But what's the worst part?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I like discussions.  They're a tool to challenge and expand your worldview. But what you want is not discussion.  You just want your worldview confirmed by others. I only post factual info.  If you were here to discuss sincerely, you would accept those facts and integrate them into your worldview.  You still might not agree with my conclusions, and you might say there are other facts I'm ignoring, but you'd engage on that level.  That's what discussion is.  Instead, you reject facts and attack me instead.

1. What are your thoughts on homelessness? 
2. What do you feel are the primary driving reasons or motives behind homelessness?
3. Do you know what the best thing about dating a homeless girl is? You can drop them off anywhere.

I laffed.

---

Mr.Sez is not interested in having an actual conversation.  He would rather be the board contrarian, dodging, ducking, spinning and weaving than actually discussing a topic.

I like discussions.  They're a tool to challenge and expand your worldview. But what you want is not discussion.  You just want your worldview confirmed by others. I only post factual info.  If you were here to discuss sincerely, you would accept those facts and integrate them into your worldview.  You still might not agree with my conclusions, and you might say there are other facts I'm ignoring, but you'd engage on that level.  That's what discussion is.  Instead, you reject facts and attack me instead.

No you don’t.  If you did you would discuss what YOU actually think and believe.  Instead you post DNC talking points and quotes from Wikipedia.  You have already admitted that you realize THIS conversation is about the chronically homeless and yet you continue to insert the situationally homeless and provide statistics that back up that.  Everyone here empathises and sympathises with unfortunate people you continue to interject into THIS conversation but they are not who we are talking about. The discussion here is about the mentality ill and drug users living on the streets that are committing a majority of the crimes we  are seeing on the nightly news and what to do about them.  The documentary Americus posted was an excellent starting point to meaningful conversation and YOU chose to tell everyone that actually watched it that they were manipulated and YOU dismissed it all the while posting your view of “facts” as gospel.  

Finally, for the record I would love to have an actual discussion with you Mike but all we ever see is Mr. Sez.

---

I like discussions.  They're a tool to challenge and expand your worldview. But what you want is not discussion.  You just want your worldview confirmed by others. I only post factual info.  If you were here to discuss sincerely, you would accept those facts and integrate them into your worldview.  You still might not agree with my conclusions, and you might say there are other facts I'm ignoring, but you'd engage on that level.  That's what discussion is.  Instead, you reject facts and attack me instead.

1. What are your thoughts on homelessness? 
2. What do you feel are the primary driving reasons or motives behind homelessness?
3. Do you know what the best thing about dating a homeless girl is? You can drop them off anywhere.

Bahaha classic!

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

Debating with you certainly feels like talking with a 5-year-old, but I was crediting you with being slightly smarter.  My bad.

We both know it's hard to define homeless.  People might sleep on a friend's couch.  People might sleep in their cars.  Copycat suggested "street people".  Is that a term you can find in sociological literature?

LOL.  You've been spouting off about knowing their common characteristics, proximate cause, percentages of drug users, etc.  If you can't define what qualifies them to be considered homeless, how can you possibly identify those who are (a necessary prerequisite to establish a base group).  If you don't even know who's in the base group, how can you draw any conclusions about a subset of the that group?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.