Destitute Americans Living in Tents
Sep 27th 2011, 10:34 pm
#1
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,848
Destitute Americans Living in Tents
I know that there are 'tent cities' in California (where the climate is generally mild away from the mountainous areas) but I was shocked to read about once-prosperous people living in tents in New Jersey. It is absolutely freezing here in the Winter months.
What a sad state of affairs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...sey-woods.html
What a sad state of affairs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...sey-woods.html
Sep 27th 2011, 11:15 pm
#2
Yes, I know i'm awesome.
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 624
Re: Destitute Americans Living in Tents
It makes you thankful for what you have.
Sep 27th 2011, 11:27 pm
#3
The Kwisatz Haderach
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: North Wales
Posts: 8,080
Re: Destitute Americans Living in Tents
When the real winter weather comes I can see that being a pretty dire situation. Some have wood stoves in the tents 
Sep 28th 2011, 12:36 am
#4
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Midlands - MA - CO-CA
Posts: 2,763
Re: Destitute Americans Living in Tents
You wonder why there is so many millions in aid going overseas when there is this situation, here in this country.
Sep 28th 2011, 2:10 am
#5
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 10,678
Re: Destitute Americans Living in Tents
Although I am liberal on many causes such as universal health insurance, I'm not sure how I stand on this issue. According to the article, she was making $100,000 per year (over double the medium US salary) before she lost her job and then lost her house. How much he was making was never stated but even if he was making the medium US salary, they were making about $150,000 per year.
Where did the money go? Should US taxpayers who make much less money now pay to take care of people who blew their money on frivolous things and expensive vacations?
Should the government impose mandatory savings for those making over a certain amount of money?
The situation seems to have been created by their freedom to chose how they spent their money when they had a good income.
That is also one of the reasons that I support mandated universal health care/insurance. For many younger people with no assets, it is much cheaper to not pay health insurance premiums (even if subsidized) when they are healthy and if they get seriously sick, someone will take care of him/her and all they need to do is file bankruptcy. So why would someone want to pay non-mandated health insurance premiums (even subsidized) when they can take expensive vacations and buy frivolous things instead since not paying health insurance premiums has always worked so well for them in the past?
In the latest republican debate, Ron Paul came the closest to say "let him die" when asked how to pay the hospital bills (crowd cheered) but backed off when asked directly whether we should let him die by stuttering and then saying "No" (crowd became quiet and some yelled "let him die"). The lady in the article could have possibly been one of those in the tea party crowd cheering if she hadn't lost her job.
Where did the money go? Should US taxpayers who make much less money now pay to take care of people who blew their money on frivolous things and expensive vacations?
Should the government impose mandatory savings for those making over a certain amount of money?
The situation seems to have been created by their freedom to chose how they spent their money when they had a good income.
That is also one of the reasons that I support mandated universal health care/insurance. For many younger people with no assets, it is much cheaper to not pay health insurance premiums (even if subsidized) when they are healthy and if they get seriously sick, someone will take care of him/her and all they need to do is file bankruptcy. So why would someone want to pay non-mandated health insurance premiums (even subsidized) when they can take expensive vacations and buy frivolous things instead since not paying health insurance premiums has always worked so well for them in the past?
In the latest republican debate, Ron Paul came the closest to say "let him die" when asked how to pay the hospital bills (crowd cheered) but backed off when asked directly whether we should let him die by stuttering and then saying "No" (crowd became quiet and some yelled "let him die"). The lady in the article could have possibly been one of those in the tea party crowd cheering if she hadn't lost her job.
Last edited by Michael; Sep 28th 2011 at 2:58 am.
Sep 28th 2011, 4:29 am
#6
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: Destitute Americans Living in Tents
There is that battle going on in Essex, Basildon.
I am somewhere a lot colder and know people living in Yurts.
But back to the topic I am always suspicious of this sort of story, stinks of cheap journalism.
And they say there is one in Colorado? I have never heard of it.
As it gets colder most transients here head for warmer parts.
I am somewhere a lot colder and know people living in Yurts.
But back to the topic I am always suspicious of this sort of story, stinks of cheap journalism.
And they say there is one in Colorado? I have never heard of it.
As it gets colder most transients here head for warmer parts.
Sep 28th 2011, 10:43 am
#7
Forum Regular
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 157
Re: Destitute Americans Living in Tents
Diverting money from (much needed) overseas aid isn't the answer - there has to be some sort of safety net to divert that money into. At the moment there isn't and I doubt there ever will be.
Sep 28th 2011, 2:11 pm
#8
Deep in the woods of CT
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,002
Re: Destitute Americans Living in Tents
New York magazine did an article about this place almost two years ago:
http://nymag.com/news/features/63047/
http://nymag.com/news/features/63047/
Sep 28th 2011, 2:16 pm
#9
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 361
Re: Destitute Americans Living in Tents
Excellent post. Why didn't she save anything? It shouldn't be the government's business to force people to save, and it shouldn't be the government's business to bailout such people.
I work in the medicine and I know that the insurance companies have so much protection from competition etc. If Ron Paul had his way, the insurance companies would be forced to compete in a free market economy and like the cost of computers to cell phone services, with time, the cost would indubitably be driven down.
Way OT. A topic for another thread.
On another unrelated note, Ron Paul is a pure fiscal conservative.
I work in the medicine and I know that the insurance companies have so much protection from competition etc. If Ron Paul had his way, the insurance companies would be forced to compete in a free market economy and like the cost of computers to cell phone services, with time, the cost would indubitably be driven down.
Way OT. A topic for another thread.
On another unrelated note, Ron Paul is a pure fiscal conservative.
Although I am liberal on many causes such as universal health insurance, I'm not sure how I stand on this issue. According to the article, she was making $100,000 per year (over double the medium US salary) before she lost her job and then lost her house. How much he was making was never stated but even if he was making the medium US salary, they were making about $150,000 per year.
Where did the money go? Should US taxpayers who make much less money now pay to take care of people who blew their money on frivolous things and expensive vacations?
Should the government impose mandatory savings for those making over a certain amount of money?
The situation seems to have been created by their freedom to chose how they spent their money when they had a good income.
That is also one of the reasons that I support mandated universal health care/insurance. For many younger people with no assets, it is much cheaper to not pay health insurance premiums (even if subsidized) when they are healthy and if they get seriously sick, someone will take care of him/her and all they need to do is file bankruptcy. So why would someone want to pay non-mandated health insurance premiums (even subsidized) when they can take expensive vacations and buy frivolous things instead since not paying health insurance premiums has always worked so well for them in the past?
In the latest republican debate, Ron Paul came the closest to say "let him die" when asked how to pay the hospital bills (crowd cheered) but backed off when asked directly whether we should let him die by stuttering and then saying "No" (crowd became quiet and some yelled "let him die"). The lady in the article could have possibly been one of those in the tea party crowd cheering if she hadn't lost her job.
Where did the money go? Should US taxpayers who make much less money now pay to take care of people who blew their money on frivolous things and expensive vacations?
Should the government impose mandatory savings for those making over a certain amount of money?
The situation seems to have been created by their freedom to chose how they spent their money when they had a good income.
That is also one of the reasons that I support mandated universal health care/insurance. For many younger people with no assets, it is much cheaper to not pay health insurance premiums (even if subsidized) when they are healthy and if they get seriously sick, someone will take care of him/her and all they need to do is file bankruptcy. So why would someone want to pay non-mandated health insurance premiums (even subsidized) when they can take expensive vacations and buy frivolous things instead since not paying health insurance premiums has always worked so well for them in the past?
In the latest republican debate, Ron Paul came the closest to say "let him die" when asked how to pay the hospital bills (crowd cheered) but backed off when asked directly whether we should let him die by stuttering and then saying "No" (crowd became quiet and some yelled "let him die"). The lady in the article could have possibly been one of those in the tea party crowd cheering if she hadn't lost her job.
Sep 28th 2011, 2:22 pm
#10
Unmitigated Gall
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: it's still too dark to tell
Posts: 16,162
Re: Destitute Americans Living in Tents
There is that battle going on in Essex, Basildon.
I am somewhere a lot colder and know people living in Yurts.
But back to the topic I am always suspicious of this sort of story, stinks of cheap journalism.
And they say there is one in Colorado? I have never heard of it.
As it gets colder most transients here head for warmer parts.
I am somewhere a lot colder and know people living in Yurts.
But back to the topic I am always suspicious of this sort of story, stinks of cheap journalism.
And they say there is one in Colorado? I have never heard of it.
As it gets colder most transients here head for warmer parts.
Sep 28th 2011, 2:50 pm
#12
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,754
Re: Destitute Americans Living in Tents
I'm seriously considering moving back to the UK because the US is starting to feel scary. It's not fantastic back in the UK, but there's a certain level of services (even with the cuts) that makes it a far more civilized country. If you loose your job in the US it can get nasty fast as you loose healthcare too.
Sep 28th 2011, 3:26 pm
#13
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: Destitute Americans Living in Tents
Although I am liberal on many causes such as universal health insurance, I'm not sure how I stand on this issue. According to the article, she was making $100,000 per year (over double the medium US salary) before she lost her job and then lost her house. How much he was making was never stated but even if he was making the medium US salary, they were making about $150,000 per year.
Where did the money go? Should US taxpayers who make much less money now pay to take care of people who blew their money on frivolous things and expensive vacations?
Should the government impose mandatory savings for those making over a certain amount of money?
The situation seems to have been created by their freedom to chose how they spent their money when they had a good income.
That is also one of the reasons that I support mandated universal health care/insurance. For many younger people with no assets, it is much cheaper to not pay health insurance premiums (even if subsidized) when they are healthy and if they get seriously sick, someone will take care of him/her and all they need to do is file bankruptcy. So why would someone want to pay non-mandated health insurance premiums (even subsidized) when they can take expensive vacations and buy frivolous things instead since not paying health insurance premiums has always worked so well for them in the past?
In the latest republican debate, Ron Paul came the closest to say "let him die" when asked how to pay the hospital bills (crowd cheered) but backed off when asked directly whether we should let him die by stuttering and then saying "No" (crowd became quiet and some yelled "let him die"). The lady in the article could have possibly been one of those in the tea party crowd cheering if she hadn't lost her job.
Where did the money go? Should US taxpayers who make much less money now pay to take care of people who blew their money on frivolous things and expensive vacations?
Should the government impose mandatory savings for those making over a certain amount of money?
The situation seems to have been created by their freedom to chose how they spent their money when they had a good income.
That is also one of the reasons that I support mandated universal health care/insurance. For many younger people with no assets, it is much cheaper to not pay health insurance premiums (even if subsidized) when they are healthy and if they get seriously sick, someone will take care of him/her and all they need to do is file bankruptcy. So why would someone want to pay non-mandated health insurance premiums (even subsidized) when they can take expensive vacations and buy frivolous things instead since not paying health insurance premiums has always worked so well for them in the past?
In the latest republican debate, Ron Paul came the closest to say "let him die" when asked how to pay the hospital bills (crowd cheered) but backed off when asked directly whether we should let him die by stuttering and then saying "No" (crowd became quiet and some yelled "let him die"). The lady in the article could have possibly been one of those in the tea party crowd cheering if she hadn't lost her job.
Although I have seen people pay for premium cable and leased premium cars before they pay for their children's health insurance...
Sep 28th 2011, 3:54 pm
#14
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,518
Re: Destitute Americans Living in Tents
Yesterday I was volunteering and we were trying to give some help to a woman living out of a beat-up old car with 3 young kids and a dog.
Maybe she 'blew a fortune' and got herself into that situation
Maybe she 'blew a fortune' and got herself into that situation
Sep 28th 2011, 4:14 pm
#15
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: Destitute Americans Living in Tents
I wonder.
They are talking about Lakewood NJ
There is a Lakewood CO as well.
They are talking about Lakewood NJ
There is a Lakewood CO as well.