Current Events > Trump VA slashes funding for program that helps homeless veterans obtain housing

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://t.co/Gl2dd9VfN3

The Department of Veterans Affairs is slashing funding for a key program that helps provide housing to homeless veterans, according to a new report.

Politico reports the VA told advocates and state officials in a call last week that the $460 million program would essentially end.

VA Secretary David Shulkin reportedly told those on the call that the money for the program would now go to VA hospitals for use as they see fit. The hospitals must show that they are working to deal with homelessness as part of their work, according to Politico.

Activists and officials were reportedly furious about the decision, five people who listened in on the call told the news organization.
Elisha Harig-Blaine of the National League of Cities told Politico after the call that the VA was putting at risk the lives of men and women whove served this country.

The decision comes after a joint press conference between Shulkin and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson at a Washington, D.C., homeless shelter in which the two announced a new commitment to ending homelessness among the nations veterans.

The program provides housing vouchers to veterans via the Department of Housing and Urban Development while the VA continues helping veterans find more permanent housing.

More than half of the veterans housed via the program have problems like chronic illness or substance abuse, according to Politico.

Shulkin issued a statement to Politico Wednesday saying he would get input from local VA leaders on how best to target our funding to the geographical areas that need it the most.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who serves on the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, told Politico that the decision was a new low for the Trump administration.

This is the guy that used the veterans and the dumbasses that call themselves "patriots" to further fuel hatred towards protesting NFL athletes - I bet not a single one of those fake patriots will have shit to say about this because it's in their nature to double-down and back everything that goes against actual progress. Fucking stupid assed Americans.
---

And let's not forget that this asshole and his constituents forced through a military budget of over 700 billion that the soldiers fighting these actual wars probably won't see a penny of, but you fucks respect our military, right?

Fake assed conservative fucks.
---

It's pretty clear at this point that the Trump Administration's MO is to slash funding for everything except the top corporations.
---

VA Secretary David Shulkin reportedly told those on the call that the money for the program would now go to VA hospitals for use as they see fit. The hospitals must show that they are working to deal with homelessness as part of their work, according to Politico.

That doesnt sound like any funding was slashed.
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

It's pretty clear at this point that the Trump Administration's MO is to slash funding for everything except the top corporations.

And the morons that voted him in will still gargle him - but don't you dare disrespect the flag!

They fucking covet the flag more than the people fighting for it.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

VA Secretary David Shulkin reportedly told those on the call that the money for the program would now go to VA hospitals for use as they see fit. The hospitals must show that they are working to deal with homelessness as part of their work, according to Politico.

That sounds incredibly vague and not really what hospitals typically do
---

The government should help all homeless vets before helping one refugee!

Also fuck the homeless vets!
---

This "slashing" is not a reduction in the funds for veterans, it's a reallocation from an ineffectual welfare program into the VA hospital system.
---

The Admiral posted...

This "slashing" is not a reduction in the funds for veterans, it's a reallocation from an ineffectual welfare program into the VA hospital system.

Hospitals exist to treat patients not fucking house them.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

This "slashing" is not a reduction in the funds for veterans, it's a reallocation from an ineffectual welfare program into the VA hospital system.

Hospitals exist to treat patients not fucking house them.

_OujiDoza_ posted...

More than half of the veterans housed via the program have problems like chronic illness or substance abuse, according to Politico.

The program was not effective because half the vets have medical problems that are not being treated. So yes, it is a medical issue.
---

The Admiral posted...

This "slashing" is not a reduction in the funds for veterans, it's a reallocation from an ineffectual welfare program into the VA hospital system.

I figured it would be something like this when I saw who the TC is. I have him tagged as illiterate.
---

The Admiral posted...

The program was not effective because half the vets have medical problems that are not being treated. So yes, it is a medical issue.

And where does that put the other half, hmmmm?

Reallocating the money to another program still pushed out a large amount of homeless vets that weren't getting helped properly to begin with, and after approving an astronomical military budget you're telling me it's not a bad look to cut spending to the folks that serve? Fuck outta here.

The half that would have benefited from housing can't now just all pack into the damn hospital to take up residency - especially if they don't have a medical issue that needs to be addressed. This is the government failing the very people they parade around to get votes/legislation.
---

so how long can trump keep punishing his voterbase until they finally get sick of it

the answer is never because trumpists love being abused and lied to
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

The program was not effective because half the vets have medical problems that are not being treated. So yes, it is a medical issue.

And where does that put the other half, hmmmm?

Reallocating the money to another program still pushed out a large amount of homeless vets that weren't getting helped properly to begin with, and after approving an astronomical military budget you're telling me it's not a bad look to cut spending to the folks that serve? Fuck outta here.

The half that would have benefited from housing can't now just all pack into the damn hospital to take up residency - especially if they don't have a medical issue that needs to be addressed. This is the government failing the very people they parade around to get votes/legislation.

Painting these decisions as "cutting funding to veterans/children/disabled/environment etc" is dishonest and intentionally misleading. If programs are being funded that aren't actually fulfilling the purpose they are meant to do, then reallocation of the money is necessary even if "cutting funding to the Make Everyone Happy programs" sounds like a damning headline.

If you were paying for a job to be done, but that job wasn't getting done or the money was being used inefficiently, would you keep paying for it or seek more effective alternatives? That's what I thought.

_RETS_ posted...

If you were paying for a job to be done, but that job wasn't getting done or the money was being used inefficiently, would you keep paying for it or seek more effective alternatives? That's what I thought.

You would look into WHY the program wasn't working - about how much rhyme or reason do you suppose was put into why the housing initiative wasn't working? Knowing this admin. I doubt much.

Furthermore I ask again, what happens to the homeless that still aren't getting proper attention? If the initiative wasn't working and the money has now shifted, where does that put them? The VA was in shambles to begin with and not being properly addressed - this has been known for some time. The ONLY reason more funds have been put into it just now is because people were starting to finally speak out about how much of a dumpster our VA hospitals were. But they didn't shut it down and shift the money, they decided on putting in more funds to try and improve.

Where do the homeless that don't fall into the category of needing medical care go? That's what I thought, you goober.
---

Just remember it was Obama who hated veterans. Trump loves veterans.
---

Clutch posted...

VA Secretary David Shulkin reportedly told those on the call that the money for the program would now go to VA hospitals for use as they see fit. The hospitals must show that they are working to deal with homelessness as part of their work, according to Politico.

That doesnt sound like any funding was slashed.

That sounds better.
---

why are veterans so entitled

no one else expects their former employer to provide for them the rest of their life

i dont expect walmart to provide my health care and housing after i quit

why do veterans think the taxpayers should pay for them after theyre no longing working for the govt
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...

If you were paying for a job to be done, but that job wasn't getting done or the money was being used inefficiently, would you keep paying for it or seek more effective alternatives? That's what I thought.

You would look into WHY the program wasn't working - about how much rhyme or reason do you suppose was put into why the housing initiative wasn't working? Knowing this admin. I doubt much.

Furthermore I ask again, what happens to the homeless that still aren't getting proper attention? If the initiative wasn't working and the money has now shifted, where does that put them? The VA was in shambles to begin with and not being properly addressed - this has been known for some time. The ONLY reason more funds have been put into it just now is because people were starting to finally speak out about how much of a dumpster our VA hospitals were. But they didn't shut it down and shift the money, they decided on putting in more funds to try and improve.

Where do the homeless that don't fall into the category of needing medical care go? That's what I thought, you goober.

You are making a lot of assumptions. My point is you need to not just read a headline and decide a decision is evil without assuming "because of the administration" that the decision was made just to be evil and take money from homeless people.

You have no idea whether or not the issue has been analyzed and evaluated, you are just assuming it hasn't because you let yourself get riled up by headlines.

Not every problem is solved by throwing more money at it. Sometimes looking for new ways to spend that money for a more effective approach is necessary.

_RETS_ posted...
They literally told the hospitals - that have enough issues as is "here, take this extra funding, and while you're at it find homes for these people in your spare time."

It's not up to hospitals to find homes for people, fucking Christ.

Seriously ill vets don't apply to that scenario as Addy tried to suggest because hospitals at the very least should be equipped to deal with those situations, not full-on housing for capable but displaced individuals. Gimmie a fucking break.
---

yikes that's a melty
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...
They literally told the hospitals - that have enough issues as is "here, take this extra funding, and while you're at it find homes for these people in your spare time."

It's not up to hospitals to find homes for people, fucking Christ.

Seriously ill vets don't apply to that scenario as Addy tried to suggest because hospitals at the very least should be equipped to deal with those situations, not full-on housing for capable but displaced individuals. Gimmie a fucking break.

So instead of waiting to see the results of a decision made by people much better equipped to evaluate the situation, you hop right onto the outrage ban wagon. If that's how you want to live your life every day, that's on you.

If the decision proves to be a disaster, shit on it then. But if it doesn't, your outrage should embarrass you.

_RETS_ posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...
They literally told the hospitals - that have enough issues as is "here, take this extra funding, and while you're at it find homes for these people in your spare time."

It's not up to hospitals to find homes for people, fucking Christ.

Seriously ill vets don't apply to that scenario as Addy tried to suggest because hospitals at the very least should be equipped to deal with those situations, not full-on housing for capable but displaced individuals. Gimmie a fucking break.

So instead of waiting to see the results of a decision made by people much better equipped to evaluate the situation, you hop right onto the outrage ban wagon. If that's how you want to live your life every day, that's on you.

If the decision proves to be a disaster, shit on it then. But if it doesn't, your outrage should embarrass you.

...Are you seriously suggesting we should keep giving the Trump administration the benefit of a doubt? When it comes to the down-trodden no less?
---

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...
They literally told the hospitals - that have enough issues as is "here, take this extra funding, and while you're at it find homes for these people in your spare time."

It's not up to hospitals to find homes for people, fucking Christ.

Seriously ill vets don't apply to that scenario as Addy tried to suggest because hospitals at the very least should be equipped to deal with those situations, not full-on housing for capable but displaced individuals. Gimmie a fucking break.

So instead of waiting to see the results of a decision made by people much better equipped to evaluate the situation, you hop right onto the outrage ban wagon. If that's how you want to live your life every day, that's on you.

If the decision proves to be a disaster, shit on it then. But if it doesn't, your outrage should embarrass you.

...Are you seriously suggesting we should keep giving the Trump administration the benefit of a doubt? When it comes to the down-trodden no less?

Seems about right.

This is what it looks like when "waiting for the facts" is used for convenience.
---

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...
They literally told the hospitals - that have enough issues as is "here, take this extra funding, and while you're at it find homes for these people in your spare time."

It's not up to hospitals to find homes for people, fucking Christ.

Seriously ill vets don't apply to that scenario as Addy tried to suggest because hospitals at the very least should be equipped to deal with those situations, not full-on housing for capable but displaced individuals. Gimmie a fucking break.

So instead of waiting to see the results of a decision made by people much better equipped to evaluate the situation, you hop right onto the outrage ban wagon. If that's how you want to live your life every day, that's on you.

If the decision proves to be a disaster, shit on it then. But if it doesn't, your outrage should embarrass you.

...Are you seriously suggesting we should keep giving the Trump administration the benefit of a doubt? When it comes to the down-trodden no less?

Yeah man, you just gotta give him a chance!
---

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

How many times over the last year has immediate outrage been proven to be overblown?

I'm no Trump fan. He is a ridiculous character, a horrible speaker, has very little self control when it comes to making situations worse from his twitter use, etc, but regardless of who is making decisions they should still be looked at objectively and given time to prove to be successes or failures.

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...
They literally told the hospitals - that have enough issues as is "here, take this extra funding, and while you're at it find homes for these people in your spare time."

It's not up to hospitals to find homes for people, fucking Christ.

Seriously ill vets don't apply to that scenario as Addy tried to suggest because hospitals at the very least should be equipped to deal with those situations, not full-on housing for capable but displaced individuals. Gimmie a fucking break.

So instead of waiting to see the results of a decision made by people much better equipped to evaluate the situation, you hop right onto the outrage ban wagon. If that's how you want to live your life every day, that's on you.

If the decision proves to be a disaster, shit on it then. But if it doesn't, your outrage should embarrass you.

...Are you seriously suggesting we should keep giving the Trump administration the benefit of a doubt? When it comes to the down-trodden no less?

Seems about right.

This is what it looks like when "waiting for the facts" is used for convenience.

Don't attribute Trump's inconsistent standards of waiting for facts to me. Waiting for facts and not jumping to conclusions is always a good thing.

_RETS_ posted...

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

I was half joking when I said give him a chance, I didn't think the cultists actually used it...
---

_RETS_ posted...

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

How many times over the last year has immediate outrage been proven to be overblown?

I'm no Trump fan. He is a ridiculous character, a horrible speaker, has very little self control when it comes to making situations worse from his twitter use, etc, but regardless of who is making decisions they should still be looked at objectively and given time to prove to be successes or failures.

Yeah, no, this is Trump we're talking about here, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the worst and react accordingly.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

I was half joking when I said give him a chance, I didn't think the cultists actually used it...

"Cultist" My opinion applies to anyone in positions of decision-making.

There are several steps that should be taken before jumping to outrage. Look objectively at the reasons for and against, look at the efficacy of the current policy, let results of the new policy take shape, and be outraged or not based on the outcome.

It is unreasonable to look at it any other way. To suggest otherwise is you forming personal opinions based solely on being anti-Trump.

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

How many times over the last year has immediate outrage been proven to be overblown?

I'm no Trump fan. He is a ridiculous character, a horrible speaker, has very little self control when it comes to making situations worse from his twitter use, etc, but regardless of who is making decisions they should still be looked at objectively and given time to prove to be successes or failures.

Yeah, no, this is Trump we're talking about here, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the worst and react accordingly.

No it isn't. That is you falling for media narrative and having already resigned yourself to outrage no matter what. That is an unintelligent way to look at issues. Certain issues, like gay marriage and abortion rights for example, there is enough information to immediately oppose decisions against them. Other issues, not so much.

It's almost like every issue is different with its own nuances and reaction to them should be adjusted accordingly.

_RETS_ posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

How many times over the last year has immediate outrage been proven to be overblown?

I'm no Trump fan. He is a ridiculous character, a horrible speaker, has very little self control when it comes to making situations worse from his twitter use, etc, but regardless of who is making decisions they should still be looked at objectively and given time to prove to be successes or failures.

Yeah, no, this is Trump we're talking about here, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the worst and react accordingly.

No it isn't. That is you falling for media narrative and having already resigned yourself to outrage no matter what. That is an unintelligent way to look at issues. Certain issues, like gay marriage and abortion rights for example, there is enough information to immediately oppose decisions against them. Other issues, not so much.

It's almost like every issue is different with its own nuances and reaction to them should be adjusted accordingly.

Every issue is different, but when the outcome tends to always be the same with Trump its not absurd at this point to assume a certain way. When is the benefit of the doubt going stop and actual questions about what hes doing going to start? Hes given us no reason to believe itll definitely be different this time!...
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

How many times over the last year has immediate outrage been proven to be overblown?

I'm no Trump fan. He is a ridiculous character, a horrible speaker, has very little self control when it comes to making situations worse from his twitter use, etc, but regardless of who is making decisions they should still be looked at objectively and given time to prove to be successes or failures.

Yeah, no, this is Trump we're talking about here, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the worst and react accordingly.

No it isn't. That is you falling for media narrative and having already resigned yourself to outrage no matter what. That is an unintelligent way to look at issues. Certain issues, like gay marriage and abortion rights for example, there is enough information to immediately oppose decisions against them. Other issues, not so much.

It's almost like every issue is different with its own nuances and reaction to them should be adjusted accordingly.

Every issue is different, but when the outcome tends to always be the same with Trump its not absurd at this point to assume a certain way. When is the benefit of the doubt going stop and actual questions about what hes doing going to start? Hes given us no reason to believe itll definitely be different this time!...

You are told the outcomes are the same because every article on the internet immediately bitches about every decision like it's the end of the world. Conservative media I'm sure did the same with Obama. Attacking decisions simply because the opposition made them. It is unnecessary, counterproductive, rift-driving, and discourages critical thinking on individual issues.

The Jerusalem decision is a good example. Had Obama made that call, the left would praise, the right would be outraged, simply because the decision came from the other side of the aisle.

It is foolish to pre-determine that decisions are made just to be evil. That applies to the right or left and anyone in between. Again, the expectation of people not jumping to immediate outrage with everything isn't an unreasonable expectation to have.

No were told the outcome is the same because once the outcome comes...its the same.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

No were told the outcome is the same because once the outcome comes...its the same.

Nope. Many issues are overblown and misrepresented, just like they were under Obama by the right, which distorts the perception of the outcome.

The outcomes for situations that are not the same cannot all be the same.

_RETS_ posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

How many times over the last year has immediate outrage been proven to be overblown?

I'm no Trump fan. He is a ridiculous character, a horrible speaker, has very little self control when it comes to making situations worse from his twitter use, etc, but regardless of who is making decisions they should still be looked at objectively and given time to prove to be successes or failures.

Yeah, no, this is Trump we're talking about here, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the worst and react accordingly.

No it isn't. That is you falling for media narrative and having already resigned yourself to outrage no matter what. That is an unintelligent way to look at issues. Certain issues, like gay marriage and abortion rights for example, there is enough information to immediately oppose decisions against them. Other issues, not so much.

It's almost like every issue is different with its own nuances and reaction to them should be adjusted accordingly.

You're not being objective, just apologist.

If you want to be *that* goddamn naive/delusional and keep slurping the orange kool-aid, that's your fucking problem, but I know better than to trust that clown or his administration.
---

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

How many times over the last year has immediate outrage been proven to be overblown?

I'm no Trump fan. He is a ridiculous character, a horrible speaker, has very little self control when it comes to making situations worse from his twitter use, etc, but regardless of who is making decisions they should still be looked at objectively and given time to prove to be successes or failures.

Yeah, no, this is Trump we're talking about here, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the worst and react accordingly.

No it isn't. That is you falling for media narrative and having already resigned yourself to outrage no matter what. That is an unintelligent way to look at issues. Certain issues, like gay marriage and abortion rights for example, there is enough information to immediately oppose decisions against them. Other issues, not so much.

It's almost like every issue is different with its own nuances and reaction to them should be adjusted accordingly.

You're not being objective, just apologist.

If you want to be *that* goddamn naive/delusional and keep slurping the orange kool-aid, that's your fucking problem, but I know better than to trust that clown or his administration.

I'm not asking you to trust anything. I am asking that you reserve your outrage until it's proven to be justified. Immediate outrage seldom is, especially when information is filtered through so many layers of bullshit.

I have nothing to be an apologist for. I have no dog in the fight. It is not naive to wait for outcomes to happen before I decide I am outraged by what I assume the outcomes will be. It is sensible. I would think the same of any administration with most issues.

Again, if Trump pushed for laws banning gay marriage or criminalizing abortion, I would immediately oppose. There is nothing apologist about that.

Is this HUD-VASH that Trump is cutting? It certainly sounds like VASH.
---

And here ya go:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/veterans-affairs-homeless-vets-program_us_5a28fb8fe4b03ece03001ee9

Facing swift and stiff backlash from lawmakers and activists, the Department of Veterans Affairs has reportedly backtracked on a decision to slash funding for a successful program that helps provide housing to homeless veterans.

Politico first reported on Wednesday that the VA was planning to essentially end a $460 million program that supports veterans looking for permanent housing. The program, known as HUD-VASH, provides vets with case management and clinical services from the VA and rental assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The VAs plan had been to funnel money allocated for the program to local VA hospitals to use however they saw fit. The hospitals only had to show they were dealing with homelessness in some way, Politico reported.

VA officials reportedly shared news of the plan with advocates and state officials in a Friday call but anger exploded, said Politico. Advocates accused the VA of putting at risk the lives of men and women whove served this country.

Hours after Politicos report was published on Wednesday, The Washington Post revealed that the VA appeared to be second-guessing its decision, first described in an internal VA memo circulated in September.

VA Secretary David Shulkin said in a statement to the Post that there will be absolutely no change in the funding to support our homeless programs.

Over the next six months, I will solicit input from our local VA leaders and external stakeholders on how best to target our funding to the geographical areas that need it most, Shulkin said.

The reversal came after a torrent of criticism from advocates and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle.

The VA is taking its foot off the pedal, Leon Winston, an executive at Swords to Plowshares, an organization that supports homeless vets in San Francisco, told Politico this week.

In November, all members of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on military construction, veterans affairs and related agencies signed a letter, shared online by the Post, strongly urging to VA to pause any action on its plan so that its intention, consequences and implementation could be better understood.

The shift [of funds] could have tremendous unintended consequences, the senators cautioned.

Even former first daughter Chelsea Clinton chimed in this week to criticize the proposal

HUD-VASH is the largest homeless veteran housing program in the country. Since 2008, more than 111,000 homeless veterans have found permanent housing thanks to the program, according to a 2017 report compiled by the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans.

Nearly 40,000 veterans experiencing homelessness on any given night and HUD-VASH plays a big role in ending veteran homelessness and decreasing that number, especially for the chronically homeless, Randy Brown, a spokesman for the organization, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last month.

So yeah, @The_Admiral @_RETS_ that didn't take long. It was such a failing idea they were going to move upwards of $460 million to VA hospitals, but it wasn't enough of a failing idea - "proven with raw data" (/sarcasm) to support being annexed, for them to power through with it amid all the backlash.

A small victory for those who spoke out against this garbage.
---

And it was indeed HUD-VASH.

Glad this was reversed.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

And here ya go:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/veterans-affairs-homeless-vets-program_us_5a28fb8fe4b03ece03001ee9

Facing swift and stiff backlash from lawmakers and activists, the Department of Veterans Affairs has reportedly backtracked on a decision to slash funding for a successful program that helps provide housing to homeless veterans.

Politico first reported on Wednesday that the VA was planning to essentially end a $460 million program that supports veterans looking for permanent housing. The program, known as HUD-VASH, provides vets with case management and clinical services from the VA and rental assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The VAs plan had been to funnel money allocated for the program to local VA hospitals to use however they saw fit. The hospitals only had to show they were dealing with homelessness in some way, Politico reported.

VA officials reportedly shared news of the plan with advocates and state officials in a Friday call but anger exploded, said Politico. Advocates accused the VA of putting at risk the lives of men and women whove served this country.

Hours after Politicos report was published on Wednesday, The Washington Post revealed that the VA appeared to be second-guessing its decision, first described in an internal VA memo circulated in September.

VA Secretary David Shulkin said in a statement to the Post that there will be absolutely no change in the funding to support our homeless programs.

Over the next six months, I will solicit input from our local VA leaders and external stakeholders on how best to target our funding to the geographical areas that need it most, Shulkin said.

The reversal came after a torrent of criticism from advocates and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle.

The VA is taking its foot off the pedal, Leon Winston, an executive at Swords to Plowshares, an organization that supports homeless vets in San Francisco, told Politico this week.

In November, all members of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on military construction, veterans affairs and related agencies signed a letter, shared online by the Post, strongly urging to VA to pause any action on its plan so that its intention, consequences and implementation could be better understood.

The shift [of funds] could have tremendous unintended consequences, the senators cautioned.

Even former first daughter Chelsea Clinton chimed in this week to criticize the proposal

HUD-VASH is the largest homeless veteran housing program in the country. Since 2008, more than 111,000 homeless veterans have found permanent housing thanks to the program, according to a 2017 report compiled by the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans.

Nearly 40,000 veterans experiencing homelessness on any given night and HUD-VASH plays a big role in ending veteran homelessness and decreasing that number, especially for the chronically homeless, Randy Brown, a spokesman for the organization, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last month.

So yeah, @The_Admiral @_RETS_ that didn't take long. It was such a failing idea they were going to move upwards of $460 million to VA hospitals, but it wasn't enough of a failing idea - "proven with raw data" (/sarcasm) to support being annexed, for them to power through with it amid all the backlash.

A small victory for those who spoke out against this garbage.

Them responding to outrage doesn't mean anything. Relenting to public outrage, whether justified or not, is common. Nothing about this changes my point, it just shows that enough people were immediately outraged to make pursuing a decision, right or wrong, not worth it.

The Admiral posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

This "slashing" is not a reduction in the funds for veterans, it's a reallocation from an ineffectual welfare program into the VA hospital system.

Hospitals exist to treat patients not fucking house them.

_OujiDoza_ posted...

More than half of the veterans housed via the program have problems like chronic illness or substance abuse, according to Politico.

The program was not effective because half the vets have medical problems that are not being treated. So yes, it is a medical issue.

the admiral is really sipping the koolaid lately

good lord
---

How is this any different than donating canned food to relief organizations when donating funds they can allocate to changing needs instead would be more beneficial? Funds can be used for any needs that arise whereas canned goods can only be used for a single purpose.

Giving VA freedom to allocate the money to address various needs as they arise vs. having to use the money for a specific purpose doesn't seem so outrageous. Especially when it would be required that they show they are making progress with certain issues.

_RETS_ posted...

Them responding to outrage doesn't mean anything. Relenting to public outrage, whether justified or not, is common.

You say that as the tax bill was slid through in secret just so it couldn't be read by all members of congress - that just happened, man.

Not once has this regime responded to outrage by reversing until this very moment - take a moment to think about who could possibly have taken offense to this under-handed attempt? Could it maybe have been the veterans themselves? Hmmmm
---

_RETS_ posted...

How is this any different than donating canned food to relief organizations when donating funds they can allocate to changing needs instead would be more beneficial? Funds can be used for any needs that arise whereas canned goods can only be used for a single purpose.

One big difference is that it is money in different funds either way. So the differences in how fungible the funds are is totally different than the scenario you're proposing -- the two different institutions are still constrained in how they allocate their money.

_RETS_ posted...

Giving VA freedom to allocate the money to address various needs as they arise vs. having to use the money for a specific purpose doesn't seem so outrageous. Especially when it would be required that they show they are making progress with certain issues.

Again, it is not 'giving more freedom,' it is reallocating the funds from a housing program to hospitals. I guess one issue here is that most people probably think of the VA as simply a group of hospitals, but that is not the only program they administer. That is how you are talking about it at least.
---

_RETS_ posted...

Giving VA freedom to allocate the money to address various needs as they arise vs. having to use the money for a specific purpose doesn't seem so outrageous. Especially when it would be required that they show they are making progress with certain issues.

Are...are you serious?

They are openly dumping a ton of money into the VA's lap and telling them to house homeless families...I might be behind in the times, but as I recall hospitals aren't qualified to deal with housing the homeless, and putting pressure on them to do so seems unrealistic.

You keep trying to act like logic thought was put into this but continue to overlook that A HOSPITAL IS NOT QUALIFIED TO ACT AS A SOCIAL SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE.
---

_RETS_ posted...

How is this any different than donating canned food to relief organizations when donating funds they can allocate to changing needs instead would be more beneficial? Funds can be used for any needs that arise whereas canned goods can only be used for a single purpose.

Giving VA freedom to allocate the money to address various needs as they arise vs. having to use the money for a specific purpose doesn't seem so outrageous. Especially when it would be required that they show they are making progress with certain issues.

Except that HUD-VASH already requires such reports.
---

re: waiting for the evaluations, the preponderance of recent research strongly suggests that spending money on things like housing is more cost-effective and produces better health outcomes than funding for medicine or health directly does, particularly for the homeless population

e.g., (including a study of this very program!)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714600/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23929401

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1694.html
---

Balrog0 posted...

re: waiting for the evaluations, the preponderance of recent research strongly suggests that spending money on things like housing is more cost-effective and produces better health outcomes than funding for medicine or health directly does, particularly for the homeless population

e.g., (including a study of this very program!)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714600/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23929401

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1694.html

Yes. And HUD-VASH is also not only just housing, but specifically Permanent Supportive Housing. Gets them housed while they are connected to other VA services.
---