The article "Brother, Don’t Spare a Dime" by L. Christopher Awalt is geared toward people with homes. He is addressing primarily the people who pay for the homeless support, mainly taxpayers. He is also addressing people who care about the homeless and the politicians who develop programs to help the homeless. I think he is writing mainly to taxpayers to anger them, saying their money is basically wasted on the dregs of society.

The article is trying to prove that the truly homeless people are solely responsible for their condition. Mr. Awalt is trying to convince us that all chronically homeless choose not to look for work or use social programs designed to help them out. His credibility is damaged because he does not discuss why people blame the government, the legal system, bureaucracy, Democrats, Republicans, poverty, economy, drugs, alcohol, or mental illness. He is trying to convince us that helping the chronically homeless out is a waste of time and resources.

His article starts out by placing all the blame for the homeless situation on the homeless themselves. The opening definitely gets your attention and brings you into his conversation. In the main body he describes why he blames the homeless with his "evidence." His main body is inappropriate because of his lack of evidence; it leaves the reader wanting more information. He concludes, "Unless the homeless are willing to help themselves, there is nothing anyone else can do." That may be true, but his article lacks enough support for him to come to this conclusion.

The article states that "Homeless people are everywhere…" and "You can hardly step out of your house these days without meeting some haggard character who asks you for a cigarette or begs for "a little change." Maybe this is true in Austin, Texas, but not necessarily for the rest of the United States. He also calls the homeless "a danger to public safety", but never backs that claim up. Are the homeless in Austin mugging people at gunpoint?

He states that from what he has seen, homeless people are generally content with their situations. He says that the chronically homeless would rather take a trip through the welfare line than find a steady job and "…these homeless prefer a life of no responsibility." Mr. Awalt says "They are unwilling to do the things necessary to overcome their circumstances." From what he has seen, the temporarily homeless take responsibility and help out, apply for jobs, and do whatever else is necessary to get themselves off the streets. He claims that because of his experience with one alcoholic homeless man, all homeless people are a waste of time.

His homeless man is an alcoholic who has been on the streets for ten years. Mr. Awalt bought this man supplies and clothing, got him into an alcohol rehabilitation program, and even attempted to get him a job. After six months of the detoxification program, the homeless man was back on the streets. Mr. Awalt found him drunk again about a month later. Although Mr. Awalt is right that society or the economy had nothing to do with this man’s choice to leave his rehabilitation program and not even attempt to find work, he should have used more examples. He could have told stories of more homeless people, maybe included some statistics. I can tell stories about several encounters with homeless people, which I will do to show why I agree with Mr. Awalt despite his insufficient evidence.

My longest relationship with a homeless person is my current roommate. I call him homeless because if it were not for my generosity or the generosity of others, he would be on the streets with nowhere to stay. Since he moved out of his parent’s home at the age of sixteen, he has lived with friends or relatives for free. He is now twenty-one years old and still unemployed. He lives with people until they get tired of supporting him, and then he moves on. People buy his every need such as cigarettes, food, toiletries, alcohol, and anything else he can think of. He pays for very little of his own support.

Since I have known him, his longest period of unemployment is one year and six months; his longest period of employment is one month, with the average job lasting only a week or two. I have personally gotten him seventeen jobs, all of which he promptly quit. He wouldn’t even get or return the applications himself; I did that for him as well. When his car broke down I took the same jobs as he did so that he could get back and forth to work. He is such a bum that despite their love for him, his own parents will not help him out in any way. I’m sure that Mr. Awalt would agree that society or the economy had nothing to do with my roommate’s condition.

Besides my experience with my friend, I have had other experiences with homeless people. I was stopped by a man with a "Will work for food" sign at an interstate off ramp. He asked me only for money, no mention of work. When I replied that I only had a $100 bill on me, he said "No problem, I have change!" He pulled out a wad of cash bigger than I had ever seen, I estimate over $1,000. I wonder how many people it took giving money to this "broke" homeless man to build up a wad of cash that large. I have also had the occasional bum just wanting change or a cigarette, but I just look the other way now. It’s sad to say this, but for the average person who wants to help out, it is very difficult to distinguish between lazy bums and those who are just down on their luck, mainly because the two groups use the same sob stories. How can you tell if this person is sincere or a very good lying con artist?

The author’s tone indicates he has a negative view toward homeless people. Perhaps he has had only bad experiences with the homeless. His choice of the word "anecdotal" in paragraph 9 is appropriate, because his evidence is unscientific and perhaps not true in every case. In paragraph 3 he calls the homeless’ troubles "manifold", which accurately describes the variety and diversity of the problems facing the homeless.

Mr. Awalt tells us to go have our own experiences with homeless people if we don’t believe him. Bad choice, plain and simple. If he’s going to try and convince anyone to see his point of view he has to give plenty of examples and evidence, not tell us one story and then go do our own research if we don’t believe him. It is his responsibility as the writer to convince us, not our responsibility to convince ourselves. He simply throws an idea out and expects us to accept it because he’s spent two years trying to help the homeless. Sorry Chris, it just don’t work that way.