There are so many homeless people in the USA. In my community there are tent cities all over. Wasn't it Reagan who closed so many mental hospitals when he was in office? Sad. If the USA is the richest country on the planet, how can it not take care of the homeless????
sharemental hospitals were shut in the 1970s before Reagan.
shareJews died before Hitler, it doesn't excuse Hitler. Reagan dumped the mentally ill on the streets, own it.
shareNot so, “Here’s the real story – In 1963, President Kennedy proposed a program funded by the federal government that would provide community mental health centers (CMHCs) to take the place of state-run mental health hospitals during a speech entitled “Mental Illness and Mental Retardation.” For about a century, care of the mentally ill had been the states’ responsibility. Kennedy’s program closed many hospitals over time, known as deinstitutionalization.
The problem with JFK’s plan, though, was when the state-run facilities were closed in favor of community mental health centers, the toughest cases were often overlooked in favor of less severe problems accepted by community centers. Those in most need were not treated, as they had been in state hospitals.“
“When Ronald Reagan came into office as President, he decided to issue block grants to states and take it out of the federal government’s hands and place it back with the states. That is completely in line with Republican principles – when possible, services should be the responsibility of the states, not the federal government. When the federal government’s role was lessened under President Reagan, liberals blamed him for a lack of funding for the mentally ill. *Thus, the false claim that Reagan “dumped” mentally ill people out onto the streets.*”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2013/02/04/fifty_years_of_failing_america039s_mentally_ill_301246.html
Yes so, it's public record. Don't buy into revisionist history.
shareI don’t believe I’m the one buying into revisionist history. I lived through that time. I recall vividly the ACLU was on Reagan’s case to release many of those institutionalized. It’s *not* “public record”. I believe in facts as the following will attest to being factual regarding the *release* of the mentally ill.
“Deinstitutionalized Program”
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html
https://www.thebalance.com/deinstitutionalization-3306067
The following is an excerpt from the article which follows:
“As a lifelong Democrat (of the Irish-Catholic-Labor variety), I think Reagan did some good things and other things I didn't support. But one thing Reagan didn't do was single-handedly "close down" mental hospitals thus triggering 40 years of mental health hell.”
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/article/zz/20130609/NEWS/130607065
same thing happened here in Canada in the 1970s.
shareIt is public record if you want to know real facts and not alternative facts. I actually did live through that time and I voted for Reagan. And Reagan caught a lot of flack for defunding mental health (google OBRA) and dumping many on the streets to become homeless. Reagan and his cronies freed up taxpayer money to be siphoned off by capitalists which is why the national debt skyrocketed while the mentally ill were thrown out on the street. You and other apologists are trying to diminish Reagan's responsibility by playing up that he wasn't a sole actor ... well he wasn't, but he was a major actor.
shareOK, we’ve reached an impasse; we’ll have to agree to disagree. There’s no sense in debating back and forth as we have the “facts” we choose to believe. It’s like beating a dead horse...neither one of us is going to change our mind. This is the reason to stay away from political subjects such as this on a supposedly *fun* General Discussion board. It would be best to take these posts to a Politics Board. I’m guilty of responding to you...it won’t happen again. 🤷♀️🙅♀️
shareThe second OBRA comes up you shut down, gee, wonder why. It's all fun and games until facts come out to play.
shareReagan was reflecting public opinion in defunding mental institutions. Most people wanted them closed even if there were some unsavory side effects. By the 1970's most people felt whatever good was accomplished was greatly outweighed by the numerous abuses committed. Let's not pretend that mental institutions were without numerous flaws that were near impossible to fix.
shareAnd let's not pretend Reagan didn't toss them out on the street and funnel the savings to his cronies.
shareOur priorities are totally out of order. Its sickening how much we spend on the Military each year. We could easily reduce the amount, put that money towards issues such as homelessness, education, infrastructure and probably still have the most powerful Military in the world.
shareThe trouble is we need the military plus for decades we had to resolve the mess in Europe by taking their toys from them as they could never play nice with each other. The enemies of the US are not going away anytime soon. It's just like a school yard. The bullies only play nice when the threat of punishment is there otherwise they are pressing other kids up against the wall to get their lunch money.
shareOf course we need a military. I never said we didn't. Look at my last statement - we can cut back on spending and still have the most powerful military in the world.
shareSo where do we cut? Naval vessels are spending more time in port and the overall number of personnel has been reduced. The military budget looks large because there has always been inflation involved where the valuation of hardware is involved just like an automobile. A basic full sized automobile in 1970 was around 3,500 dollars and today a basic automobile is ten times the 1970 price or 35,000 dollars. Is somebody a spendthrift because they spend 35,000 dollars or are they just trying to keep pace with what is going on? Having study economics my opinion is nobody has ever come up with a long term solution for inflation other than employing a Draconian solution such as price controls.
shareOh come on! I understand about the inflation, but the US spent $618 Billion last year, while China, the 2nd biggest spender, only spent $171 Billion. Number 3 comes in as our foe Russia, who spent $84.9 Billion. Not sure cuts are going to be made as long as the Orange A-Hole is in the office, since he wants a huge boost in spending, along with a "Grand Military Parade!"
shareFor better or worse the US's objectives are different than those of China or Russia. Also, I would guess the number cited by you for those two are more the result by involuntary restraint as their respective economies do not generate the revenue to do anything more. Either would spend substantially more on their militaries if the money was there. And in the process Russia and China would project their power much further outside of their respective borders.
shareI agree with your first comment, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, I love our country, but hate its foreign policy.
I think Russia and China probably would spend more if they could, however, they are smart enough to know that our well balanced nuclear deterrents is enough reason to avoid direct confrontation in the first place.
Maneuvering behind the scenes has been and will be the play for any country looking to expand its power. That means using soldiers and lesser hardware. That is where we are in places such as Afghanistan and the Russians with designs on the Ukraine. The decision making in deploying nukes in Russia is far more streamlined so if it really bothered the Russians that we were in the Middle East and points beyond we would already be at a nuclear conflict. At the most primal level all the players want the scenery to stand clear with only the other guy falling to the ground.
share@Alfred
Good question....”So where do we cut?” I found the 2017 Federal Spending pie chart interesting. Notice we are spending almost double for Human Resources (which includes the freebies) than we are for the Military. Me thinks somebody may have taken too many Quaaludes.
Edit:https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php
The military and war on drugs siphon off taxpayer money into private pockets. I have a relative that works on a drug task force. His pay was frozen by state Republicans years ago but they will pay for a helicopter and ground cars to surveil a minor drug dealer for 8 hours a day, week after week. And when they arrest him, he's released and they follow someone else. Why? Because the fuel and maintenance parts are bought from private companies. It's a scam and the taxpayer is the mark. The military is used the same way but on a national instead of local level.
share Define a minor drug dealer? Lets not get into pot but that quite a few sell clearly harmful products such as meth. If such a dealer is getting released then perhaps the issue may reside with the court system.
As to the military being an economic engine that is unavoidable in an open society. The alternative is for the government to use force to have weapons built and nobody wants that.
Street level dealers. Most of their business is pot but they deal other stuff. The courts aren't releasing them, the cops are releasing them as "informants."
And there is a big difference between an "economic engine" and siphoning tax dollars, which I'm sure you understand.
So if these same dealers were busted for meth even if it were not a majority of their business dollars-wise you don't want the book thrown at them?
In an ideal world there is not abuse of the taxpayer. The trouble is in that ideal world the government is a totalitarian state where everything is done by the order of a select few. Try employing price controls as a leader and see how long you last before you are overthrown or killed off.
Thank you Padeen! That's exactly how I feel. It's more important that the USA be in constant wars, but not to take care of the people who live here. Healthcare needs to be improved along with all of the things you mentioned.
shareI went to Hamburg a few years back and I saw people living there under a bridge with what seemed all of their furniture. I was shocked, I've never seen anything like that over here in Holland.
shareThis is why I think we need a proper two tier system. Capitalism for those who like it and a kind of Communism for those who fall by the wayside. The idea being that they would have their needs met (ie food, shelter, clothing, medical etc.) at a basic but decent level in return for State control over their fertility.
It is extremely sad, I don't think all homeless people are necessarily mentally ill, some just down on their luck but...
Having said that I don't think care in the community works at all, not one little bit. I'm not an expert by any means but I just can't see how realising a mentally ill person into the community helps them in any way. When a safe environment with specialist care can do wonders.
The other thing about homelessness is that it is a vicious cycle where in order to get off the streets a person needs a job, but to get a job you need an address.
In the UK there are charities such as Centrepoint who do fantastic work with the young and homeless.
The UK government stopped giving housing benefit to under 25's so if you found yourself thrown out onto the streets or had to leave home due to abuse you were up shit creek. Shameful stuff.
Kayne West doesn't care about poor people.
shareThere was an outcry for elimination of mental health facilities well before Reagan came along. For several decades prior many consider such facilities as cruel to the many residents there many of them not there by choice. These same places were engines of abuse as many were placed there without proper testing by accredited professionals. Often people were placed there by others as these people had things of value such as savings, homes, and businesses that the others wanted and were willing to get through any means ethical or otherwise. There were even episodes of being vindictive or worse where somebody could be placed in an institution simply by the influence of somebody important in the community. I had a relative who worked social services in the state of New York during the darkest times of the state mental hospitals during the 1960's and early 1970's and the stories recounted bordered on chilling and nauseating. There could never be enough oversight employed to prevent abuse whether committed by somebody in the community towards a patient or an employee of the institute. I don't like to see anybody homeless but it is a small price to pay not to have to witness what took place on average 50 years ago at these institutions. That aside I would say in a number of instances the circumstances have nothing to do with traditional mental health issues but rather dependency or addiction issues plus a general inability to run one's life.
share