Report reveals that at least 2,250 Veterans are homeless in Canada - Polidicks

[url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/2250-canadian-veterans-homeless-1.3390674[/url] [QUOTE]For what's believed to be the first time, the federal government has estimated how many of Canada's homeless are former soldiers — but the department that compiled the report warns the data is far from complete. The March 2015 study by Employment and Social Development Canada estimates that 2,250 former soldiers use shelters on regular basis, about 2.7 per cent of the total homeless population that uses temporary lodging. The information in the report, released to The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, comes from a database that tracks 60 emergency shelters across the country and added veterans as an identifiable category in 2014. "It's shocking in Canada that we would have any veteran who is homeless, but it is a sad reality," Gen. Jonathan Vance, the country's top military commander, said in an interview with The Canadian Press.[/QUOTE] Its a shame that homelessness isn't a priority in our country. The conservative party gutted the offices that dealt with the welfare of veterans to save money (while not allowing bidding on unnecessary military contracts) and the liberal party turns a blind eye and builds houses for foreigners. I always thought that people with disabilities (and ptsd) at least got some free housing.

Whats with you foreign countries and your inability to take care of your veterans?

come on canada, step up your game, america's got 50,000

Atrocious.

[QUOTE=Sprockethead;49466927]Whats with you foreign countries and your inability to take care of your veterans?[/QUOTE] Politicians can get away with treating them badly.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49467922]Politicians can get away with treating them badly.[/QUOTE] Plus a lot of time the ones you see homeless are Combat Arms vets, people like Infantry and Tank Crew who don't really have equivalent job experience to take over to the civilian workforce.

Wow, so they gave home to 6000+ Syrian refugees but can't afford to do the same for 2000 veterans? :speechless:

[QUOTE=Megalan;49470604]Wow, so they gave home to 6000+ Syrian refugees but can't afford to do the same for 2000 veterans? :speechless:[/QUOTE] What are you? A racist? Don't you know it's not one or the other even though financial aid is a finite value? Yeah that was sarcasm

[QUOTE=Megalan;49470604]Wow, so they gave home to 6000+ Syrian refugees but can't afford to do the same for 2000 veterans? :speechless:[/QUOTE] there's a little more to it than that. not to mention refugee housing is more than likely sub-par and very cheap

[QUOTE=.Lain;49470762]there's a little more to it than that. not to mention refugee housing is more than likely sub-par and very cheap[/QUOTE] And homeless shelters are vastly more expensive or something? We, in BC, will double the budget spent on homeless to deal with the refugees. We have twice the homeless we have refugees. But to even suggest we help the homeless has been called a racist suggestion.

Is there something about being a veteran that makes it likely that you'll be homeless or are these just unlucky souls that had nothing waiting for them after military service?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49470911]And homeless shelters are vastly more expensive or something? We, in BC, will double the budget spent on homeless to deal with the refugees. We have twice the homeless we have refugees. But to even suggest we help the homeless has been called a racist suggestion.[/QUOTE] It presents the idea that you have a choice between homeless veterans and refugees, when in reality there are many, many other options for raising or reorganising funds. The two issues are largely separate and attempting to conflate them is pointless when it would be possible to house all of them if the political will were there.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49471981]It presents the idea that you have a choice between homeless veterans and refugees, when in reality there are many, many other options for raising or reorganising funds. The two issues are largely separate and attempting to conflate them is pointless when it would be possible to house all of them if the political will were there.[/QUOTE] But the political will isn't there because people barely give a fuck about the refugees besides the fact that it's seen as fucking racist to not care. People don't genuinely care about them. It took a fucking photo of a dead child to motivate the west to care, but do you know how many dead there were before that? Countless thousands, but we suddenly care because one dead boys corpse in one fucking photo on one beach was enough to make us go "Well I guess we should do something". I think the majority of people don't give two squirts of piss about helping their fellow man if their tax payements increase. We have 10,000 homeless here, and utterly refuse to help them. The political will isn't there. I think the issue is vastly more complicated than just "well you can do both". You don't have a choice between them, but the [B]fact[/B] is that resources to help the impoverished are [B]finite[/B] you can argue until you're fucking blue in the face that they aren't, but the resources to help the poor, and impoverished aren't infinite. Quite the opposite. They're very finite. If there's only so much help to go around, do you really think it's an unfair statement that it really is "One or the other" at this stage? For 25 fucking years we've had complete political apathy to the homeless and no major efforts have been made to help them. We cut their funds. We do it every year, they're living on more and more of a shoe string budget every year, so of course it's a matter of resources. People barely want to pay the taxes to help the refugees, do you think one of the most hated groups in north America will ever get political leeway to get the help they need? Will there ever be a photo of a dead child on a beach to motivate us to actually give a shit?

If you have such a problem with the lack of resources focus on that first and foremost. Creating some poverty Olympics between the homeless and refugees as to determine who should get what just belittles them. Seriously, make homelessness a big issue if you believe their treatment is atrocious (I do agree btw). Don't make it an issue at the expense of a different group. It's completely dishonest and hides that fact behind a veneer of fiscal limitations.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;49473001]If you have such a problem with the lack of resources focus on that first and foremost. Creating some poverty Olympics between the homeless and refugees as to determine who should get what just belittles them. Seriously, make homelessness a big issue if you believe their treatment is atrocious (I do agree btw). Don't make it an issue at the expense of a different group. It's completely dishonest and hides that fact behind a veneer of fiscal limitations.[/QUOTE]\ I've done what I personally can to make this an issue since 2005. I've argued that the money spent on our Olympics in 2010 was a gross mismanaging of money that fucked our homeless anymore. In the 1980's, we shuttered the only mental health care facility for the poor in the province and said "DEAL WITH IT CITIES". Do you know how the cities deal with that? They don't. They let 5,000 to 10,000 people wander Hastings street, day and night, increases in crime, in drug use, in everything are tied to this. And yet, when we ask "What can we do?" by and large, our politicians say nothing at all. If 25 fucking years of citizens in this city saying "HEY WE'VE GOTTA FUCKING DO SOMETHING THIS IS THE WORST POVERTY IN ALL OF NORTH AMERICA" isn't communicating to our society, city, and country as a whole that hey, maybe there are other fucking priorities that we've continually ignored for those 25 years is wrong, then I give up, I guess we should just round up the homeless and kill them because we sure as fuck are just letting them die daily on our streets. The "Veneer" of fiscal limitations is more like "THE BRICK WALL OF FISCAL LIMITATIONS".

So what are you trying to say? The lack of political will and money for the homeless existed before the refugee crisis. Why then bring refugees into the picture? They have nothing to do with the treatment of the homeless.

[QUOTE=Sprockethead;49466927]Whats with you foreign countries and your inability to take care of your veterans?[/QUOTE] thats actually a damn impressive number, america's is much higher, though as a % of military vets, its really small here too. The issue is that there will always be some % of people who cannot ever take care of themselves for many reasons and even though services exist for them they will refuse to take advantage of them

[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;49471910]Is there something about being a veteran that makes it likely that you'll be homeless or are these just unlucky souls that had nothing waiting for them after military service?[/QUOTE] Probably unlucky at finding a job because of the whole "no prior experience" bullshit, and maybe also bad medical history like ptsd and stuff of the sort. The kind of stuff that would afflict someone who went through a war. [editline]7th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49471981]The two issues are largely separate and attempting to conflate them is pointless when it would be possible to house all of them if the political will were there.[/QUOTE] That leads us to the "nearly year old point": its all about spotlights, and the refugees have them at the moment, so politicians will jump over every obstacle to look like good people by helping them.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;49473102]So what are you trying to say? The lack of political will and money for the homeless existed before the refugee crisis. Why then bring refugees into the picture? They have nothing to do with the treatment of the homeless.[/QUOTE] Because we had a large emotional reaction caused mostly from one photo, I remember because before that, there was not a word about "Help the Refugees" on talk radio, something I frequent. After that photo was posted, it was constant. It took seeing a dead child to spurn the west into an ultimately false reaction because this is the same society that steps over the homeless on their way to work, with living proof for their eyes to see on the daily of how little we actually care about them. Now, I work in a public relations job, so I hear a lot of people talk while they're waiting, or making idle chat with me while I process their paperwork, of all varieties. You want to know what, at least in our locality, is a consistent complaint I hear over, and over, and over again, from ethnic minorities, to white people(I should say that I live in a city with a larger asian population than white but I don't know how much that matters to some people). "Why doesn't anyone help the homeless?" Especially in light of the recent refugee crisis, I've heard this complaint more and more. "We're going to spend money on them but not the people here? Shouldn't we take care of our own?" I bring the refugees into the picture because it's an example of something getting valued over the other. I feel like it's not making sense to some people that there really is only a finite amount of tax money that goes out to aid, and it's almost always spoken for, and it's almost always cutting away at their funds to help the homeless. So i don't see how it isn't related. We're all taxed, and either thing costs tax dollars to do, and I'll pay more taxes, not many people will agree to that, but I'll do it, but can we help them too? I'm not sure how much of an overstatement it may be, because at least in my knowledge, in most places in north america, we treat our homeless like dirt. They rely almost entirely on volunteers and volunteer organizations because most places put homeless funds on the chopping block first. So I see it as massively disingenuous to say "There's money for both" when at least here, 25 years of them being hamstrung and cut at every corner says "Fuck no there's not enough money for both".

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;49473102]So what are you trying to say? The lack of political will and money for the homeless existed before the refugee crisis.[/QUOTE] Dunno, I voted for the party that would have done something about the homeless. [QUOTE]Creating some poverty Olympics between the homeless and refugees as to determine who should get what just belittles them. [/QUOTE] Governments should prioritize their citizens. This is just something held on principle.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49466988]come on canada, step up your game, america's got 50,000[/QUOTE] Living 25 years in Hampton Roads(like one of the biggest military places in the US), a big problem with vets is that they are trained for specific tasks in a specific field. Working in IT this was hugely apparent due to "Systems Engineers" not even knowing how to reset a password or install something like a driver in a PC. Mainly because they would work overseas just plugging in laptops and desktops to an ethernet cable and plug in a switch or something similar. I'm not joking I worked and replaced many vets who were "super qualified" but their experience in the army/navy was so narrow in skillset that real world application in the private sector was basically nothing. This doesn't apply to all vets however I have seen a good chunk of it growing up in the Norfolk, VA area.

[QUOTE=Megalan;49470604]Wow, so they gave home to 6000+ Syrian refugees but can't afford to do the same for 2000 veterans? :speechless:[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49470749]What are you? A racist? Don't you know it's not one or the other even though financial aid is a finite value? Yeah that was sarcasm[/QUOTE] What's so hard to understand about this: Refugees are under threat of death. Refugees are generally quite easy to help and function as members of society, and will bring economic growth in long term. Homeless people(in Canada) are homeless NOT because of their financial situation, but because they have problems like mental illnesses such as PTSD, and need huge amounts of support such as therapy to readjust to society. Your rent costs can be paid by welfare alone. Many cities(especially Ottawa, my city) have ample amounts of free food for the homeless or anyone who wants it. Anyone who is still homeless after receiving large social assistance cheques and free food, is usually struggling with alcoholism, gambling, or things related to their illness. In summary: "We should help the homeless first!" No, they're not in as bad a situation. "We can spend this money on refugees but not on homeless?" Yes, because we can do much more good this way. "If I suggest that we spend money on homelessness instead of refugees or try to tie this problem to refugees, I'm a racist?" There are two possible cases: You are either extremely ignorant of the issues surrounding homelessness and refugees, or you're racist and are trying to veil xenophobia. Usually, it's both. So yes, you're probably just racist.

[QUOTE=Sprockethead;49466927]Whats with you foreign countries and your inability to take care of your veterans?[/QUOTE] Warmongering politicians who want to see the 'positive' results of a war and outright ignore the massive negatives.

[QUOTE=willtheoct;49478110]What's so hard to understand about this: Refugees are under threat of death. Refugees are generally quite easy to help and function as members of society, and will bring economic growth in long term. Homeless people(in Canada) are homeless NOT because of their financial situation, but because they have problems like mental illnesses such as PTSD, and need huge amounts of support such as therapy to readjust to society. Your rent costs can be paid by welfare alone. Many cities(especially Ottawa, my city) have ample amounts of free food for the homeless or anyone who wants it. Anyone who is still homeless after receiving large social assistance cheques and free food, is usually struggling with alcoholism, gambling, or things related to their illness. In summary: "We should help the homeless first!" No, they're not in as bad a situation. "We can spend this money on refugees but not on homeless?" Yes, because we can do much more good this way. "If I suggest that we spend money on homelessness instead of refugees or try to tie this problem to refugees, I'm a racist?" There are two possible cases: You are either extremely ignorant of the issues surrounding homelessness and refugees, or you're racist and are trying to veil xenophobia. Usually, it's both. So yes, you're probably just racist.[/QUOTE] I have literally 0 issues with refugees coming here, I don't care that they're refugees. How the fuck am I racist? Because I have a different opinion of how my tax dollars should or could be spent? God damn. 25 years of putting them under the bus, and our only and continuing solution to the issue is "Keep using them as pavement".

Not all homeless are druggies. Finances are a bigger issue. Also, we as a society should help addicts.

[QUOTE=willtheoct;49478110]What's so hard to understand about this: Refugees are under threat of death. Refugees are generally quite easy to help and function as members of society, and will bring economic growth in long term. Homeless people(in Canada) are homeless NOT because of their financial situation, but because they have problems like mental illnesses such as PTSD, and need huge amounts of support such as therapy to readjust to society. In summary: "We should help the homeless first!" No, they're not in as bad a situation. "We can spend this money on refugees but not on homeless?" Yes, because we can do much more good this way. "If I suggest that we spend money on homelessness instead of refugees or try to tie this problem to refugees, I'm a racist?" There are two possible cases: You are either extremely ignorant of the issues surrounding homelessness and refugees, or you're racist and are trying to veil xenophobia. Usually, it's both. So yes, you're probably just racist.[/QUOTE] umm what Refugees are "quite easy to help"? Most of them don't even speak a word of the languages of the countries they're trying to move to. That alone is a huge hurdle, especially for adults who have a harder time learning new languages. Not to mention that coming from countries like Syria and Afghanistan, there's a good chance that they lack any useful education at all. On top of that, coming from a warzone/terrible situation, they also can suffer from PTSD and other mental health disorders. Those all pose huge issues and that's even before you bring the culture clash into play. What's wrong with someone wanting to first help their neighbors over strangers on the other side of the world? How in any way is that racist?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49474075]Because we had a large emotional reaction caused mostly from one photo, I remember because before that, there was not a word about "Help the Refugees" on talk radio, something I frequent. After that photo was posted, it was constant. It took seeing a dead child to spurn the west into an ultimately false reaction because this is the same society that steps over the homeless on their way to work, with living proof for their eyes to see on the daily of how little we actually care about them. Now, I work in a public relations job, so I hear a lot of people talk while they're waiting, or making idle chat with me while I process their paperwork, of all varieties. You want to know what, at least in our locality, is a consistent complaint I hear over, and over, and over again, from ethnic minorities, to white people(I should say that I live in a city with a larger asian population than white but I don't know how much that matters to some people). "Why doesn't anyone help the homeless?" Especially in light of the recent refugee crisis, I've heard this complaint more and more. "We're going to spend money on them but not the people here? Shouldn't we take care of our own?" I bring the refugees into the picture because it's an example of something getting valued over the other. I feel like it's not making sense to some people that there really is only a finite amount of tax money that goes out to aid, and it's almost always spoken for, and it's almost always cutting away at their funds to help the homeless. So i don't see how it isn't related. We're all taxed, and either thing costs tax dollars to do, and I'll pay more taxes, not many people will agree to that, but I'll do it, but can we help them too? I'm not sure how much of an overstatement it may be, because at least in my knowledge, in most places in north america, we treat our homeless like dirt. They rely almost entirely on volunteers and volunteer organizations because most places put homeless funds on the chopping block first. So I see it as massively disingenuous to say "There's money for both" when at least here, 25 years of them being hamstrung and cut at every corner says "Fuck no there's not enough money for both".[/QUOTE] Think of it this way HumanAbyss. If the refugee crisis didn't exist would the treatment of the homeless be any different? Because from my understanding of what you have posted, the erosion of public support structures for the homeless began a few decades ago, when refugees were not a concern. What I'm trying to get at is that political will has a very strong correlation with the availability of funds. When people try to tell you that there isn't enough money for both, they are saying no-one cares about the homeless enough to find the funds. If it were a make or break issue in an election, for example, the funds would be abundant. But, unfortunately, homelessness isn't a make or break issue. Bringing refugees into the equation just obfuscates this fact. What needs to be done, in this case, is to make it a make or break issue rather than skim funds from another down-and-out group like refugees. Because the second you do that you create second-class citizens and allow poverty to continue. There is a silver lining though, since it seems that more people are talking about homelessness in their own countries as you indicated.

[QUOTE=willtheoct;49478110] Refugees are generally quite easy to help and function as members of society, and will bring economic growth in long term.[/QUOTE] Lmao a large number of them doesnt even speaks english, let alone actually boost the economy. And why exactly does it sounds like whenever people say that exact phrase, it sounds like the refugees are 100% clean and ready to do something, which is far from the truth. As said, they might have their own problems, similar to the homeless. this is complete bullshit, the same as expecting both cultures not to clash with each other [editline]8th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;49480996]Think of it this way HumanAbyss. If the refugee crisis didn't exist would the treatment of the homeless be any different?[/QUOTE] Nope. Why? Because it doesn't earns the good grace of the majority of the people.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;49480996]Think of it this way HumanAbyss. If the refugee crisis didn't exist would the treatment of the homeless be any different? Because from my understanding of what you have posted, the erosion of public support structures for the homeless began a few decades ago, when refugees were not a concern. [B] What I'm trying to get at is that political will has a very strong correlation with the availability of funds. When people try to tell you that there isn't enough money for both, they are saying no-one cares about the homeless enough to find the funds.[/B] If it were a make or break issue in an election, for example, the funds would be abundant. But, unfortunately, homelessness isn't a make or break issue. Bringing refugees into the equation just obfuscates this fact. What needs to be done, in this case, is to make it a make or break issue rather than skim funds from another down-and-out group like refugees. Because the second you do that you create second-class citizens and allow poverty to continue. There is a silver lining though, since it seems that more people are talking about homelessness in their own countries as you indicated.[/QUOTE] Well that's kinda what I'm mad at in a way. I harbor absolutely no ill will to the refugees, I frankly want them to come. Canada's doing it very intelligently and hopefully it works out for us. What gets me mad at some level, and I'll admit it's an emotional response, is how quickly the refugees gained that political will. As I said earlier, it was all over one photo, it created that political will where before, it was very minimal. It was a pretty much over night emotional reaction from our countries, governments, and a portion of our peoples that demanded we help them. Merkels plan to allow the refugees in literally gained it's political will from that one photo. As I said earlier as well, it's this disturbing double think that gets me. People step over the homeless, ignore the homeless, some of us help them with volunteer time and organizations but I can't stand by the notion that this is enough help for them, when again, not that long ago, we actually had the funds to help them, and do more than we're doing now and we did fine doing that. That political will died, people got sick of paying lots of taxes, and governments cut things and homeless have always been one of those regularly cut things in many, many places. The political will, was so quick, and so sudden, I don't believe it to be genuine because I was well aware of how terrible it really was in Syria and the like long before that photo dropped. To see one photo suddenly make people aware was strange, and it seems like it was just an emotional ploy. Yes those people needed help, i'm glad they're getting it. Then I see explanations of why the homeless frankly don't deserve the same degree of help as another group of people and I find that a little strange too. I know people who were on the street, and escaped. They had to fight really, really, hard to do that, and they didn't have government help to the degree they might need. They know people on the street who can literally never escape it because they do suffer from mental health issues. To know that some people really think that 1) i'm racist for thinking the homeless need help and deserve it equally as much 2) that in order to deserve help from society, you can't suffer from mental illnesses, or PTSD, or any variety of such conditions as willtheoct made very clear. Simply having those problems means society [B]shouldn't[/B] help you. That gets me going as well. I genuinely want to help both groups of people. I know a lot more about both groups than has been assumed of me. I genuinely would pay more taxes to help both groups. I genuinely have helped the homeless before, and if I have an opportunity to help the refugees, I will do so here as well. I guess what gets me mad is how flimsy this kinda seems to me. The sudden rush to aid one group and literally demonize anyone opponents of it has me feeling uncomfortable. I'm frustrated by being called a racist, but I don't really care because none of you know me in real life, and know how almost all my friends aren't actually white, what beliefs I really hold. I've lived with seeing some of the most depressing sights on a daily basis, the absolute acceptance of poverty like the version we see in Vancouver is fucking disturbing to me. Maybe it's because of how horrible our poverty looks that I'm so affected and I carry this issue so closely to myself, maybe it's because I know people who were, or are homeless and I worry deeply about how we treat and will continue to treat them. I don't know. It just irks me and doesn't seem fully logical to me in every way.

[QUOTE=kweh;49481151]Lmao a large number of them doesnt even speaks english, let alone actually boost the economy. And why exactly does it sounds like whenever people say that exact phrase, it sounds like the refugees are 100% clean and ready to do something, which is far from the truth. As said, they might have their own problems, similar to the homeless. this is complete bullshit, the same as expecting both cultures not to clash with each other.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=elfbarf;49480016]umm what Refugees are "quite easy to help"? Most of them don't even speak a word of the languages of the countries they're trying to move to. That alone is a huge hurdle, especially for adults who have a harder time learning new languages. Not to mention that coming from countries like Syria and Afghanistan, there's a good chance that they lack any useful education at all. On top of that, coming from a warzone/terrible situation, they also can suffer from PTSD and other mental health disorders. Those all pose huge issues and that's even before you bring the culture clash into play. [/QUOTE] Again, not sure I can speak for all refugees, but Canada takes english or french-speaking ones. We also have huge arabic-speaking communities, and I find it hard to believe that resettling arabic speakers would be difficult. Economic growth comes from small businesses which, in Canada, (this is a subjective observation from someone in Ottawa) are stemming from immigration. We have always relied on immigration and refugees to grow. And they fit in perfectly. There's no cultural clash. Occasionally there's a native who gets angry at foreigners/blacks/jews/trudeau, but I wouldn't consider that a problem with the immigrants. The only real problem that refugees have is that their home is being destroyed and are in duress. Yeah it fucking sucks but it's not nearly as debilitating as the problems homeless people have. [QUOTE] What's wrong with someone wanting to first help their neighbors over strangers on the other side of the world? How in any way is that racist?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49478215]How the fuck am I racist? Because I have a different opinion of how my tax dollars should or could be spent?[/QUOTE] Please re-read: [QUOTE=willtheoct;49478110]What's so hard to understand about this: Refugees are under threat of death. Refugees are generally quite easy to help and function as members of society, and will bring economic growth in long term. Homeless people(in Canada) are homeless NOT because of their financial situation, but because they have problems like mental illnesses such as PTSD, and need huge amounts of support such as therapy to readjust to society. Your rent costs can be paid by welfare alone. Many cities(especially Ottawa, my city) have ample amounts of free food for the homeless or anyone who wants it. Anyone who is still homeless after receiving large social assistance cheques and free food, is usually struggling with alcoholism, gambling, or things related to their illness. In summary: "We should help the homeless first!" No, they're not in as bad a situation. "We can spend this money on refugees but not on homeless?" Yes, because we can do much more good this way. "If I suggest that we spend money on homelessness instead of refugees or try to tie this problem to refugees, I'm a racist?" There are two possible cases: You are[B] either extremely ignorant[/B] of the issues surrounding homelessness and refugees,[B] or you're racist and are trying to veil xenophobia[/B]. Usually, it's both. So yes, you're probably just racist.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;49480996]Think of it this way HumanAbyss. If the refugee crisis didn't exist would the treatment of the homeless be any different? Because from my understanding of what you have posted, the erosion of public support structures for the homeless began a few decades ago, when refugees were not a concern. What I'm trying to get at is that political will has a very strong correlation with the availability of funds. When people try to tell you that there isn't enough money for both, they are saying no-one cares about the homeless enough to find the funds. If it were a make or break issue in an election, for example, the funds would be abundant. But, unfortunately, homelessness isn't a make or break issue. Bringing refugees into the equation just obfuscates this fact. What needs to be done, in this case, is to make it a make or break issue rather than skim funds from another down-and-out group like refugees. Because the second you do that you create second-class citizens and allow poverty to continue. There is a silver lining though, since it seems that more people are talking about homelessness in their own countries as you indicated.[/QUOTE] I don't agree that this has much to do with politics. Solving homelessness is an extremely difficult issue and chalking it up to a "money problem" doesn't seem well thought out.