tonybigcharles as always this is an inaccurate picture of the homeless. TV told a lot of lies about panhandlers in the early 1990s and made everyone look bad, and claimed we all made over $100 a day when $20-40 a day was much closer to reality. when someone drove by where i held up a sign offering to work, and offered me work, i actually went and took the work if i was physically able.and if i would been offered the $100,000 id damned sure invested in in apt prepaid for at least 2 years, and kept most in the bank and still left myself $10-20000 for NL $1-2 and $2-5 cash games at the casinos. i usually always win and could win decent if i just had a bankroll. instead i win about $1000 a month is all playing in always minimum buying in due to not wanting to risk losing it all. i was only homeless cause i didn't wanna risk spending all my money and going broke, sometimes i had over $1000-2000 in my sock while i slept outside. anyone wanting to talk contact sevencard2003 on yahoo messenger.i admit i was different than most homeless people though, due to the fact i never drank smoke or took drugs. im no longer homeless, am now in govt housing for $177 a month and getting SSI and spend most of my time winning at online poker. mom and sunflower diversified worked hard to get me SSI. glad my days of hiding in under the stage in the convention center of the casino at night sleeping, worrying about getting caught by security are finally over. had this TV crew picked me theyd been over a lot sooner. its a shame how they don't better select who they pick.

voluptas What happens when you give a free man just enough money to trap him into the rat race and watch him squirm? Homeless people answer to no one. They have no mortgages, rent payments or idiot bosses. Homeless people don't have to worry about the IRS or performance reviews or credit card payments. But, give them just enough money to rent an apartment and buy a car and, suddenly, they have to worry about entering the rat race, buying gas for transportation, paying insurance on their car, and working for someone else. They get a chance to be a "productive citizens." This film was about as exploitive as a film can be. It's a way for the rich and middle-class sheeple to say "see what happens when you try to help the poor?" and it vindicates capitalistic arrogance.Why not a film that asks, "What happens when you take away everything a rich man has?"

John Chambers The only thing wrong with this documentary is that is didn't follow Ted around a little bit longer. If it would have, I am almost certain he would have ended up back on the streets.It's like he really didn't believe he deserved the money, and he could not cope with the responsibilities of it. He needed a great deal of guidance and therapy.It was certainly nice of him to buy his friend a car, but he could have just as easily given him $5,000.00 and said, "Go buy a car." Instead of taking on the entire $11K ...BUT WHEN HE PURCHASED HIS OWN $35,000.00 vehicle, I KNEW then it as all over. I thought, there Ted goes-- back to life under the bridge.Saddest part was his sisters seemed so willing to help without wanting any thing from him, but he kept accusing them-- saying "Everybody wants something from me." Dumbo...your sisters only wanted you to succeed. And, this 100K, was the beginning of what could have been a life changing event, instead of a six month party, carefree, I'll spend what I want, when I want, type of sad experience. What a shame. Truly.

Knuckle "What happens when you give a homeless man $100,000?" As if by asking that question they are somehow morally absolved of what is eventually going to happen. The creators of "Reversal of Fortune" try to get their voyeuristic giggles while disguising their antics as some kind of responsible social experiment.They take Ted, a homeless man in Pasadena, and give him $100,000 to see if he will turn his life around. Then, with only the most cursory guidance and counseling, they let him go on his merry way.What are they trying to say? "Money can't buy you happiness?" "The homeless are homeless because they deserve to be?" Or how about, "Lift a man up - it's more fun to watch him fall from a greater altitude." They took a man with nothing to lose, gave him something to lose, and then watched him dump it all down the drain. That's supposed to be entertainment? They dress this sow up with some gloomy music and dramatic camera shots, but in the end it has all the moral high ground of car crash videos - only this time they engineered the car crashes and asked, "What happens when you take down a stop sign?"