Ranks of homeless kids climb

*A national study released Monday finds that one in 50 children in America is homeless. They’re sharing housing because of economic hardship, living in motels, cars, abandoned buildings, parks, camping grounds or shelters, or waiting for foster care placement.

“That is something that I don’t think most people intuitively believe to be true,” said Ellen Bassuk, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and president of the National Center on Family Homelessness. *

Full Story:

sacbee.com/topstories/story/1685609.html

For this situation to exist for anyone is appalling, for it to be the case for children is haunting, and to apply to so many… so high a percentage?..
I am often painfully aware of the homeless, and of how the economic situation does and will affect badly so many people.

They have included just about every type of person who could possibly be called homeless in order to greatly inflate this statistic. One out of 50 children? Give me a break! Here it says that “According to the US Department of Education, only 35% of homeless children and youths lived in shelters. 34% were temporarily living with friends or relatives and 23% in cheap hotels. Very few of these people view themselves as homeless and choose to go to shelters or apply for assistance.” So that means that instead of one out of 50, we have one out of 150 children who could be called homeless, ie, living on the streets.

A tragic situation, yes, but not one that should be exaggerated like this.

“Homeless” to me means you don’t have a home - you might be living in a shelter, but it’s not a “home”. Some sleep in their cars - but they are still homeless. Temporary cheap/free hotels/shelters - these are transient. They may be a roof over the head but they aren’t homes. The lack of security as you go from place to place, looking for a bed for the night, is incredibly traumatic. Just because they don’t sleep on the street everynight doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be included in the stats. They are defacto homeless.

I have seen people live for years in hotels paid for by the government or homeless-helping groups. In fact, some of them lived longer there than I have at some of the places I have rented. So, they are renting a hotel room; I was renting a room in a house: was I homeless?

And sure, sometimes people need a place to stay and their relatives and friends put them up and sometimes those situations last a long time too.

Used to be that we worried about people whom we called homeless because they were living on the streets. Now we are worrying about people just because their living situation is precarious or temporary?

Life has its ups and downs, and I do feel sorry for children whose lives are not going smoothly, but I do not think that we should expand the definition of homelessness just to scare people. There’s enough bad news out there without twisting the truth to make it worse.

that “According to the US Department of Education, only 35% of homeless children and youths lived in shelters. 34% were temporarily living with friends or relatives and 23% in cheap hotels. Very few of these people view themselves as homeless and choose to go to shelters or apply for assistance.” So that means that instead of one out of 50, we have one out of 150 children who could be called homeless, ie, living on the streets.

A tragic situation, yes, but not one that should be exaggerated like this.
Wow, and you call yourself St. Francis. That is scary.

Shacking up with relatives is a hardship, for everyone. It is, at best, a temporary measure. And yes, it is just one step from being on the streets.

Is this better information? **What’s in a number? That depends on how you define ‘homeless.’ **foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509139,00.html

And yes, good does not result from sin (and lying in this circumstance is a sin). Even when the soldiers came to wrongly crucify Christ and do great evil and St. Peter tried to cut off a soldier’s ear, Christ stopped him.

Yep, that original statement was prepared in a way to frighten people even more about the economy and convince people have the governemtn steal even more of the money (also known as raising taxes.) However, in this case it would be theft because people would be going along with it based on a lie.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.