Coldhearted Sentiment? Essay, Research Paper

Coldhearted Sentiment? In streets and doorways across the country, a class war is brewing between angry indigents and the disgruntled citizens who are forced to shuffle through their cluttered presence. A study by psychologist Joyce Benson states that sixty million people in this country are living in poverty, half of which remain homeless (C5). Many of us are quick to sympathize with the homeless, but our reaction might not be as charitable after we carefully examine the issue. Homeless advocates often present the public with a distorted picture of this helpless lifestyle because they fear these destitute people will receive aid “only if they are deemed deserving” (Orr 36). In reality, not all of these homeless people are in desperate need of public financial assistance; they simply lack the responsibility and initiative necessary of maintaining a stable life. The pressure of this issue is placed upon our nation’s government. Is it really society’s obligation to support the homeless population? The analysis of this phenomenon begins with the classification of the homeless population. One group is known as the economically distressed (Orr 39). These people are able-bodied citizens who claim they would work if they could find the opportunity. The second assembly is the mentally ill, which consists of people who are unable to work (39). Finally, the third classification is the chemically dependent. In general, agents of this classification refuse to work (40). Each classification of this problem must be separately taken into consideration, for each requires a distinct action. Many homeless place the blame of their condition on the unavailability of employment opportunities. This theory is being repeatedly struck down by economic factors (Benson C4). Currently, our nation’s economy is booming, and jobs are plentiful. (C4). All signs indicate that times are ripe for vocational endeavors. However, for increasing numbers of Americans, work provides no escape from poverty. Difficult decisions must be made when limited resources cover only some of one’s necessities. Often, it is housing, which absorbs a large proportion of income, which must be dropped. Despite the recent minimum wage increase, housing is still out of reach for many workers. In fact, in the median state, a minimum-wage worker would have to work eighty-three hours each week to afford a two-bedroom apartment at 30 percent of his or her income, which is the federal definition of affordable housing (Link 1). As a dreaded last resort, these destitute beings end up finding themselves searching the streets for a place to call home. The connection between impoverished workers and homelessness can be seen in homeless shelters across the country, many of which house significant numbers of full-time wage earners (Orr 122). We live in a country where people are expected to work; the public’s tolerance of street inhabitants has plunged. Society is impatiently demanding a change in our homeless policies. Such change is not so easily simplified when incorporated with the homeless who are mentally ill. Deinstitutionalization, a devised means of helping the chronically ill by allowing them to reside outside the institutions, has tragically failed (Link 1). Its initial intent of providing the released patient with individualized attention from a community-based mental health center has never fully developed (Orr 138). As for these destitute mentally ill outcasts, our society needs to be willing to assert control, even if protection and treatment has to be given involuntarily. These people’s conditions cannot be cured out on the streets; institutionalized treatment is a necessity. Our nation must work to rebuild a successful mental health hospital system for such patients.

When it comes to correcting the lives of the chemically dependent homeless, the success rate remains low (Neuman B11). According to national surveys, alcoholics and drug addicts constitute half of our nation’s homeless population (B10). The majority of these substance abusers will never rise out of poverty (B10). Responsive action cannot be forced upon the homeless; overcoming an addiction requires one’s own initiative. With this hefty majority remaining homeless, a gratifying solution to this growing social phenomenon seems far from within our nation’s perspective. A current nationwide tactic of providing emergency shelter and food for the homeless addresses only the immediate enigma. It fails to address the problems that have rendered them homeless in the first place (Neuman B12). When the issue of homelessness first arose in the 80’s, the advocates presented it as just a lack of opportunity (Neuman B11). They considered housing to be the only true problem. Reality is finally breaking in, and people are realizing that the homeless are troubled people. They need individualized help, rather than a nationwide housing proposal. The governmental distribution of housing is far from being a solution to this vast phenomenon. Even the enactment of a larger welfare system could not solve our nation’s puzzling problems. Only one- third of the homeless population even takes advantage of the public benefits currently available to them (Neuman B12). The remaining substantial number of homeless people refuse to sign up for welfare and other enlistment programs for various reasons (Ferguson 53). They prefer to fend for themselves on the streets rather than get caught up in a dependency mentality and suffer the degradation of long welfare lines and condescending caseworkers. Heartless and pessimistic as this may seem, even dedicated providers to the homeless say that treating homelessness is a long process that often, in the end, yields few success stories (Gelles D9). The real solution to this dilemma is not glorified with a costly price tag. A federal takeover of the homelessness problem with gushing dollars and regulations may enable some members of Congress and society to appear compassionate, and it will assure a direct pipeline for the media star homeless advocates, but it will do little to actually help the homeless themselves (Orr 105). Their reliance on others has driven them into a hopelessness that robs them of their will to break the bonds of dependence. These social outcasts have developed a psychological dependence that must be replaced by feelings of self-worth and respect (Orr 115). Many homeless advocates are exaggerating the nature of this problem to fuel public hysteria and concern. The pressure on our government is overwhelming. Americans have every right to be weary and frustrated with the lack of results from national expenditures. Clearly, homelessness is often the result of a complex set of circumstances that push people into poverty and force impossible choices between food, shelter, and other basic needs (Ferguson 51). However, only a concerted effort to uproot the underlying sources of this social phenomenon will be effective. “You can’t just chip away at the problem” (Link1). Until these destitute beings take the first step toward a new beginning, our generous ventures are virtually hopeless. Our nation is aware of his hopelessness, but cold-heartedness in not in the American demeanor. Even after puzzling through the complex array of homeless rationale and the endless hopes of finding solutions, this social phenomenon is, and may always be, left on the shoulders of our government.