# Forget "going green", Liberal cities have gone "brown"



## morvoran (Sep 21, 2019)

Everyday, it seems that more and more Democrat ran cities are becoming way too liberal in their policies. These policies just so happen to reverse the positivity that the left is actually striving for such as cleaner oceans, no litter, less air pollution, and making sure everybody is given warm places to sleep/eat and keep them from getting sick (or falling through the cracks of society).

Unfortunately, with how these cities are ran, it almost seems like the progressives are more "regressive".  If you just look at the homeless situation of cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Portland, you would think these cities, which happen to be some of the wealthiest cities in the US, are in 3rd world countries instead of the USA.  

It's ironic that California has the toughest environmental and public health laws while its cities happen to be the biggest polluters of the ocean, have overwhelming amounts of trash on their streets, has a severe rodent problem, and are even re-introducing diseases such as the bubonic plague, typhus, and leprosy to American citizens.  All this while preventing their police force from enforcing laws to keep people from urinating, defecating, sleeping, and doing drugs on the streets.  It's a shame that people take the risk of getting infected with multiple diseases, bit, robbed, etc everyday while just trying to live their lives in a city they love too much to leave.

Here is a story about the issues Portland police are dealing with in their city:

*Portland Police Say They’re Not Allowed to Stop People From Pooping in the Street*

Source: Here
*Portland has a serious poop problem. The Oregon city recently acknowledged that it removed 3,300 gallons of human waste from the streets in the past year alone. *

However, the police say they’re powerless to stop homeless people from relieving themselves in public, even if it happens right in front of them.
Sgt. Kevin Allen, a public information officer with the Portland Police Bureau, told Pluralist: “It is a topic officers that work downtown hear about somewhat regularly.”

The complication, he said in an email exchange, is that an Oregon court last year barred authorities from using a state law in cases of public urination and defecation.
“I’m not aware of a legislative fix, so at this point we are unable to address the behavior from a law enforcement standpoint,” Allen said.

With the police paralyzed, Portland has resorted to expensive cleanup efforts after the fact.
According to a recent analysis by the city, as many as 450 reports of human waste are filed with Portland’s homeless complaint system every week. Each time a crew responds, it costs taxpayers $316.
Fearing urban blight or an outbreak of infectious disease, Democratic Mayor Ted Wheeler and the Portland City Council agreed to spend some $900,000 on portable toilets and bathrooms for the homeless in the coming fiscal year, The Oregonian reported in June.

The larger issue, of course, is homelessness itself. As Portland has grown into a hipster mecca, the homeless population has become increasingly desperate and increasingly visible.
In 2015, Portland declared a state of emergency in hopes of securing additional federal and state funding to respond to its homeless crisis. Yet over the past two years, Multnomah County, where Portland is located, has recorded a nearly 40 percent increase in the number of “chronically homeless” people.
In a profile of the problem last month, Fox News found that conditions have “gotten so bad that it’s hardening even the most liberal of bleeding hearts.”
“I put blinders on a lot,” said a local bagel shop employee identified only as Shannon. “Like tunnel vision. I choose not to acknowledge it.”

*A national homelessness crisis*
Portlanders are not alone. While federal statistics show homelessness trending downward nationwide, a number of American cities have struggled with vagrancy ― and the attendant toll of human waste.
Bloomberg Businessweek reported in November that at least 10 West Coast cities, from Los Angeles to Seattle, have in recent years declared states of emergency because of out-of-control homelessness.

Every city is different, and diagnoses of the problem vary by ideology. Liberal wonks tend to blame rising costs of living, slow wage growth and lack of affordable housing. Conservatives point to over-generous welfare programs, cultural decay and liberals’ reluctance to crackdown on people they view as victims.
Earlier this month, business owners in one Seattle neighborhood told local media that a single homeless woman staying in a nearby illegal encampment has been terrorizing their block with her feces for months.
“It’s a health hazard,” grocer Mike Sandberg said to KOMO News. “It’s just something I can’t believe is allowed to happen. It seems like there is no law.”

Seattle police said they’re empowered to punish people for public defecation, but only if they catch the person in the act. They said no one on the block had been arrested or cited.
A spokesperson for Seattle’s Democratic Mayor Jenny Durkan said she was aware of the complaints and the city was trying to move the people living in the encampment to safer spaces. But any illegal dumping on private property is the responsibility of the owner, not the city, the mayor’s office said.

*Why Portland police can’t stop people from pooping in the street*
With the possible exception of San Francisco, no city embodies the conservative caricature of progressive administration more than Portland, where officials tolerate semi-regular clashes between antifa protestors and right-wing activists.

When it comes to public defecation, the Oregon Court of Appeals decided in State v. Corcilius that a 2017 state law against littering does not cover public urination. Alex Hamalian, a criminal defense attorney who works in the Portland area, told Pluralist that the Multnomah County Prosecutor’s Office may be wary of applying the law to cases of public defecation for fear of costly legal challenges based on the court’s ruling.

Similar calculations may also prevent enforcement of two Portland ordinances that directly prohibit urination and defecation in public, Hamalian said. He doubted, though, that the ruling actually applies to the municipal code, which “specifically addresses urination and defecation.”
Anyway, Hamalian said, the Oregon Legislative Assembly could easily pass a law to empower police to bust public defecators. But in his estimation, lawmakers are too busy fighting over “pie in the sky legislation,” so they “kind of let it hang.”
Others have blamed Portland’s liberal politics. Last July, Mayor Wheeler announced an investigation of the Portland Police Bureau based on activists’ claims that officers were systematically harassing homeless people. The probe by the police watchdog agency ultimately proved inconclusive.
The Portland Police Association responded at the time by slamming Wheeler for allegedly scapegoating hardworking officers for his own “failed policies” on homelessness while leaving the department underfunded.
As a result, “Our City has become a cesspool,” they charged.

Pluralist reached out to the Multnomah County Prosecutor’s Office, the Portland Mayor’s Office and the Portland Police Association for comment, but did not hear back by time of publication.

Hamalian, a registered Democrat, said that politics aside, the police union was right about the state of the city.
“The amount of public urination and defecation has risen to just a sickening and unhealthy level,” he said. “You see it. It’s just everyday.”
“I find it odd for somebody of my politics to be saying this,” Hamalian added. “There needs to be something done, either through the criminal justice system or through the social services program. I have an infant and it’s horrifying to me that I could let my infant walk down the street in Portland and they might step in pee or feces.”


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 21, 2019)

Well, ain't that some shit.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Sep 22, 2019)

That's Amazin'!


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The complication, he said in an email exchange, is that an Oregon court last year barred authorities from using a state law in cases of public urination and defecation.
> “I’m not aware of a legislative fix, so at this point we are unable to address the behavior from a law enforcement standpoint,” Allen said.


That does seem ridiculous, it's illegal in every other state that I'm aware of.  Even in California, indecent exposure and public urination are both misdemeanors should you be caught.

That said, I'd still rather live anywhere in Oregon than some Republican stronghold like Alabama.  The economic policies and the shallow gene pools have already turned those states into shitholes, so defecating in public there would just be redundant.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 22, 2019)

tell me more about how conservativism can solve this and all of our problems. I also am buying bridges if you got one to sell me.


----------



## ghjfdtg (Sep 22, 2019)

*sees title and immediately thinks "not the trump dude again"*


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> tell me more about how conservativism can solve this and all of our problems. I also am buying bridges if you got one to sell me.


Don't worry, trickle-down economics will DEFINITELY work this time, and it DEFINITELY won't generate even more homeless people, unlike the last hundred times it's been tried.  /s


----------



## KirovAir (Sep 22, 2019)

I don't really see the relation between public pooping and pollution? Human "bio" waste is 10000x more easier to get rid of then human plastic.
Also, the homeless problem is unrelated to public defecating laws. Why bother describing shit?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

Why do conservatives complain about homelessness in California when a.) Homelessness is in part caused by the economic inequalities that only the progressives seem willing to fix, and b.) The conservatives haven't offered a single plan to curb homelessness?


----------



## PanTheFaun (Sep 22, 2019)

We should stop being divided and come together to try to fix these problems. There has to be some middle ground.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> All this while preventing their police force from enforcing laws to keep people from urinating, defecating, sleeping, and doing drugs on the streets.


I'd like to add I live in the bay area, yes there is a homeless problem, yes you see them sleeping in the street, but I've never seen anyone peeing or pooping, or saw random poop in the streets of San Francisco, the news is making it seem much worse then it is.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Why do conservatives complain about homelessness in California when a.) Homelessness is in part caused by the economic inequalities that only the progressives seem willing to fix, and b.) The conservatives haven't offered a single plan to curb homelessness?


you have to do away the liberal establishment. duh!
we all need to wear suits and and become christians because we are not degenerates. Then we all root for good ole fashioned deregulation. I as a minority need to learn my place while de-regulation and little oversight does away with any chance i may have at a better future. oh well atleast, we all have bald eagles perched on our shoulders. 
it will solve everything. Those who question otherwise are entitled crybabies.

By the way seriously talking though the bitter pill to swallow:
Housing market needs to devalue to solve this issue. Everyone likes their houses to be worth "theoretically hundreds of thousands of dollars" but then cry when markets bust and they go to what they should probably cost. good times.

Also helping the poor helps with this. Programs for jobs should be part of the solution as well obviously.



PanTheFaun said:


> We should stop being divided and come together to try to fix these problems. There has to be some middle ground.



This shouldnt be partisan but the big queso in chief said that it was the liberals fault, so guess how helpful that ends up being?



Ericthegreat said:


> I'd like to add I live in the bay area, yes there is a homeless problem, yes you see them sleeping in the street, but I've never seen anyone peeing or pooping, or saw random poop in the streets of San Francisco, the news is making it seem much worse then it is.


we live in an age where some loser complains about something on twitter and 10 news outlet runs with it as "news" so yeah not surprising.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

PanTheFaun said:


> We should stop being divided and come together to try to fix these problems. There has to be some middle ground.


There are no half-measures that will solve this problem.  The solution is that we house the homeless.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/housing-all/

Inb4, "hOw ArE yOu GoNnA pAy FoR iT?"


----------



## DarthDub (Sep 22, 2019)

Arrest them, all of them.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That does seem ridiculous, it's illegal in every other state that I'm aware of. Even in California, indecent exposure and public urination are both misdemeanors should you be caught.


 Whoa.... mind blown!  You didn't just blame this on corporate greed and boot licking.



WD_GASTER2 said:


> tell me more about how conservativism can solve this and all of our problems. I also am buying bridges if you got one to sell me.


  Look up "New York City Rudy Giuliani homeless".  Also, read my other thread on this - here



ghjfdtg said:


> *sees title and immediately thinks "not the trump dude again"*


  The one and only.... who else would it be?  I guess my avatar being right next to the title didn't give me away?



Xzi said:


> Don't worry, trickle-down economics will DEFINITELY work this time, and it DEFINITELY won't generate even more homeless people, unlike the last hundred times it's been tried. /s


Was the "/s" for the first part or the second part?  I'm going with the "unlike the last hundred times it's been tried." part.



KirovAir said:


> I don't really see the relation between public pooping and pollution? Human "bio" waste is 10000x more easier to get rid of then human plastic.
> Also, the homeless problem is unrelated to public defecating laws. Why bother describing shit?


  Seriously? Do you have poop all over your house because that isn't "being dirty"?  Also, not only can public poop make you sick and is very nasty to step in, when you poop on the street, it gets washed into the drains that go straight to the ocean.  This means if you go into the ocean to swim, you might find brown trout swimming with you.  Besides the homeless, who else do you think is pooping on the streets?  People with homes just go outside and defecate on the street because they are too lazy to go in their restroom?  Ain't nobody got time for that!  I would rather pick up 10000 plastic straws than one piece of human fecal matter.



Lacius said:


> Why do conservatives complain about homelessness in California when a.) Homelessness is in part caused by the economic inequalities that only the progressives seem willing to fix, and b.) The conservatives haven't offered a single plan to curb homelessness?


  Yeah, tell that to the Trump admin going into California to actually do something about the homeless problem which the liberals have been unwilling to fix.  You, obviously, missed my thread HERE that answers all your questions/concerns.



Ericthegreat said:


> I'd like to add I live in the bay area, yes there is a homeless problem, yes you see them sleeping in the street, but I've never seen anyone peeing or pooping, or saw random poop in the streets of San Francisco, the news is making it seem much worse then it is.


  I guess you didn't hear about this - HERE
Or this: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






Xzi said:


> Inb4, "hOw ArE yOu GoNnA pAy FoR iT?"


 hOw ArE yOu GoNnA pAy FoR iT?

Damn, too late!  I bet you beat up little white kids for their bikes, cell phones, and money because "they stole it from minorities".


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Was the "/s" for the first part or the second part? I'm going with the "unlike the last hundred times it's been tried." part.


The entire sentence was sarcasm, with a bit of exaggeration there at the end.  Between the national and state level, we're definitely up to double digits with the number of times trickle-down has been implemented and then failed, though.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Between the national and state level, we're definitely up to double digits with trickle-down being implemented and then failing, though.


  Trickle-down works better than all democrat policies put together.  Just ask me, I'll tell ya. Excuse me, Pa and me is making some shine in the back. Yee-haw.

If we get rid of the failing policies on the left, trickle-down will work.  We can't expect business owners to invest into their business to hire more employees and give them raises when they are being taxed to death by the dems.


----------



## Mythical (Sep 22, 2019)

I'm tired of these political threads that don't have an actual purpose. Time to put the ignore function to good use


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

MythicalData said:


> Time to put the ignore function to good use


Start with me, please!!!!!


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Whoa.... mind blown!  You didn't just blame this on corporate greed and boot licking.
> 
> Look up "New York City Rudy Giuliani homeless".  Also, read my other thread on this - here
> 
> ...


The Trump administration has not offered any viable way to curb homelessness in California or anywhere else. I saw your thread. It wasn't worth responding to too much.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The Trump administration has not offered any viable way to curb homelessness in California or anywhere else. I saw your thread. It wasn't worth responding to too much.


Hes a troll. I wouldnt even respond to him. Anyone with even an ounce of brain knows that Trump is a corrupt idiot, and anyone who supports him is literally a dumbass. I mean that as a literal statement, not as an insult.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Sep 22, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> Hes a troll. I wouldnt even respond to him. Anyone with even an ounce of brain knows that Trump is a corrupt idiot, and anyone who supports him is literally a dumbass. I mean that as a literal statement, not as an insult.


You can make a point without insulting people based on their opinions.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Sep 22, 2019)

PanTheFaun said:


> You can make a point without insulting people based on their opinions.


I thoroughly believe there's a point in which one can make statements, which sound as though they could be insults, when something is just so ridiculous. I have stated, however, that it is NOT an insult which I have written, it is a factual statement. So don't confuse the two, I was saying what I had as fact, not insult. And it was justified, given the topic at hand. There comes a time in which it becomes "obvious" that one is right, and if one believes it's an "equal opinion vs equal opinion", then they're really not smart. That's a fact. This is one of those cases. So what I said was fine.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> We can't expect business owners to invest into their business to hire more employees and give them raises when they are being taxed to death by the dems.


"The problem is that we're only LICKING the boot.  If we'd just try DEEP-THROATING the boot, things would be different!"

Corporations will only ever hire the bare minimum number of people they need to keep things running smoothly.  And they'll only ever pay the bare minimum that the market/law requires.  They aren't benevolent entities which will solve problems that they aren't obligated to.  They couldn't possibly care less even if their own employees are homeless or living out of their cars.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Sep 22, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> I thoroughly believe there's a point in which one can make statements, which sound as though they could be insults, when something is just so ridiculous. I have stated, however, that it is NOT an insult which I have written, it is a factual statement. So don't confuse the two, I was saying what I had as fact, not insult. And it was justified, given the topic at hand. There comes a time in which it becomes "obvious" that one is right, and if one believes it's an "equal opinion vs equal opinion", then they're really not smart. That's a fact. This is one of those cases. So what I said was fine.


What you said is not factual at all. Sorry.
I don't have much of an opinion on Trump but just because someone supports him doesn't mean they are a dumbass. It's immature to even say such a thing.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Sep 22, 2019)

PanTheFaun said:


> What you said is not factual at all. Sorry.
> I don't have much of an opinion on Trump but just because someone supports him doesn't mean they are a dumbass. It's immature to even say such a thing.


Oh, it 100% means that if one supports him, they're not smart. They are ignoring facts for bias, and that's a PROVEN FACT. It's the same as saying that "mountains are made of hot chocolate and unicorn blood". If you believe this, you're not smart, and you're ignoring facts. It's the exact same thing as this. It's not based on opinion, it's literal fact. And if you believe in what that orange muffin is saying, then you're not very smart. There's literally no way around that. Sorry, but you're wrong. What I said was not an "insult", it was a justified fact.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Sep 22, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> Oh, it 100% means that if one supports him, they're not smart. They are ignoring facts for bias, and that's a PROVEN FACT. It's the same as saying that "mountains are made of hot chocolate and unicorn blood". If you believe this, you're not smart, and you're ignoring facts. It's the exact same thing as this. It's not based on opinion, it's literal fact. And if you believe in what that orange muffin is saying, then you're not very smart. There's literally no way around that. Sorry, but you're wrong. What I said was not an "insult", it was a justified fact.


Incorrect.
You can say whatever you want to make yourself feel better. As I have stated before you have said nothing factual and have shown no statistical data to prove your point. Stop.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Sep 22, 2019)

PanTheFaun said:


> Incorrect.
> You can say whatever you want to make yourself feel better. As I have stated before you have said nothing factual and have shown no statistical data to prove your point. Stop.


So you're saying you have belief in what the orange man says? If you think he's being honest, then you're not smart. That's the point I'm making. It's not an insult, it's a FACT. If you're trying to justify your trust in him, then your trust is misplaced, and your'e not very smart to put trust in that guy. Sorry, but that just means you're not the brightest bulb in the shed. Again. Not an insult, it's a fact. Any rational person who's of average intelligence knows that he's an idiot and lies all the time, and is an untrustworhty con artist and manipulative criminal. And if you think otherwise, your'e not smart. Sorry.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Sep 22, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> So you're saying you have belief in what the orange man says? If you think he's being honest, then you're not smart. That's the point I'm making. It's not an insult, it's a FACT. If you're trying to justify your trust in him, then your trust is misplaced, and your'e not very smart to put trust in that guy. Sorry, but that just means you're not the brightest bulb in the shed. Again. Not an insult, it's a fact. Any rational person who's of average intelligence knows that he's an idiot and lies all the time, and is an untrustworhty con artist and manipulative criminal. And if you think otherwise, your'e not smart. Sorry.


I never said that I have trust for him at all and you shouldn't make such broad assumptions. All I am saying is that just because someone may support him doesn't mean they are a dumbass.
We can agree to disagree.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Sep 22, 2019)

PanTheFaun said:


> I never said that I have trust for him at all and you shouldn't make such broad assumptions. All I am saying is that just because someone may support him doesn't mean they are a dumbass.
> We can agree to disagree.


Actually, it does. There's a DIRECT correlation between having a low intellect and being a Trump supporter.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 22, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> you have to do away the liberal establishment. duh!
> we all need to wear suits and and become christians because we are not degenerates. Then we all root for good ole fashioned deregulation. I as a minority need to learn my place while de-regulation and little oversight does away with any chance i may have at a better future. oh well atleast, we all have bald eagles perched on our shoulders.
> it will solve everything. Those who question otherwise are entitled crybabies.
> 
> ...


Build more Homes. That's a way to devalue Housing prices. Which means deregulation so that people can be allowed to build more homes.
Rich people are using land restriction laws to their advantage to create artificial scarcity. They buy homes for cheap then put in place land restriction laws to raise the price of their homes. This creates an all exclusive community where only wealthy people can live there and it keeps minorities that can't afford them out, then when its time to sell they can sell it a much higher value then when they bought it.

So people have a choice, preserve land which then raises housing prices, or be allowed to build more houses on that land and prices will come down. Most of what people are paying is basically the land that their houses are on. Population is getting bigger and we need to build more homes, not preserve land for environmentalism and have people fight over limited homes trying to outbid each other.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Sep 22, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> Actually, it does. There's a DIRECT correlation between having a low intellect and being a Trump supporter.


Proof?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> Hes a troll. I wouldnt even respond to him. Anyone with even an ounce of brain knows that Trump is a corrupt idiot, and anyone who supports him is literally a dumbass. I mean that as a literal statement, not as an insult.


Don't worry. I usually don't respond to this one.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Population is getting bigger and we need to build more homes, not preserve land for environmentalism and have people fight over limited homes trying to outbid each other.


This is not an issue of environmentalism, there's plenty of flat land with nothing but dead grass/weeds across much of the Midwest.  It's not like we need to pave over national parks land to house the homeless, we just need to be willing to invest the required federal funding.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This is not an issue of environmentalism, there's plenty of flat land with nothing but dead grass/weeds across much of the Midwest.  It's not like we need to pave over national parks land to house the homeless, we just need to be willing to invest the required federal funding.


Then they should be allowed to build on that. Land restriction is the reason housing prices go up. The solution is to be allowed to build more homes.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Sep 22, 2019)

PanTheFaun said:


> Proof?


First, if you're asking about "proof" for such an obvious statement, then again, your'e not very bright. Again, not an insult, just logic and common knowledge. It's not something you can "quanitfy", but if you actually take your time and research, you'd find the direct correlation.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=correlation+between+low+intellect+and+trump+supporter

Go ahead and see what you can find. If you believe it's the opposite, then it's clear you're not very intelligent. 

For example, you look at many northern states (Where people tend to be more educated - again, more schooling, more industrialized environment in the north, where there's far more importance on schooling, which is a FACT), those states tend to hold a much higher priority on education, whereas, in the south, in America, less people study at university, less people go to university, less people are educated. Again, this isn't an "opinion", it's an actual fact, backed by studies, that northern states and the people from northern states, have a far higher affinity for knowledge and education - and those states tend to vote more-so, against Donald Trump. That alone should show the inclination of those educated, voting more against Trump, whereas, you find more southern states are dominated by republicans (many of which are gun nuts who use their bias, and lack of intellect to justify their support for Trump - again, not all, but there's certainly a trend).

I'd like you to actually do some research into the subject, so that you can actually understand from an intelligent and factual point of view, as opposed to a, "this is my bias, herp, so I'm closing my ears, shouting 'la la la'" stand-point. Thanks.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Build more Homes. That's a way to devalue Housing prices. Which means deregulation so that people can be allowed to build more homes.
> Rich people are using land restriction laws to their advantage to create artificial scarcity. They buy homes for cheap then put in place land restriction laws to raise the price of their homes. This creates an all exclusive community where only wealthy people can live there and it keeps minorities that can't afford them out, then when its time to sell they can sell it a much higher value then when they bought it.
> 
> So people have a choice, preserve land which then raises housing prices, or be allowed to build more houses on that land and prices will come down. Most of what people are paying is basically the land that their houses are on. Population is getting bigger and we need to build more homes, not preserve land for environmentalism and have people fight over limited homes trying to outbid each other.


The best way to reduce homelessness is to give them homes, and where it has been done, house values don't go down. Give the homeless apartments, help them to get jobs to keep the apartments, and homelessness goes down approximately 90%. At least, that's what happened when it was done.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Sep 22, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> First, if you're asking about "proof" for such an obvious statement, then again, your'e not very bright. Again, not an insult, just logic and common knowledge. It's not something you can "quanitfy", but if you actually take your time and research, you'd find the direct correlation.
> 
> https://lmgtfy.com/?q=correlation+between+low+intellect+and+trump+supporter
> 
> ...


Thanks for proving nothing again. I appreciate it.
You're still incorrect.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The best way to reduce homelessness is to give them homes, and where it has been done, house values don't go down. Give the homeless apartments, help them to get jobs to keep the apartments, and homelessness goes down approximately 90%. At least, that's what happened when it was done.


And giving them homes will be expensive on the government which means expensive on us the tax payers if those house prices don't go down.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Then they should be allowed to build on that. Land restriction is the reason housing prices go up. The solution is to be allowed to build more homes.


Crony capitalism and foreign investment is the reason housing prices go up.  There are already more empty houses owned by banks than there are homeless people in this country.  The issue isn't solely one of needing more homes, but needing AFFORDABLE homes and homes for people who can't work at all.

Crony capitalism caused this problem, so it's the people who profited most from that system of exploitation and corruption who should pay for the solution.  That's exactly what Bernie Sanders has proposed.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Sep 22, 2019)

PanTheFaun said:


> Thanks for proving nothing again. I appreciate it.
> You're still incorrect.


There's that bias. Keep ignoring factual statements because of your idiotic and immature bias. We need less people like you in this world, since you cannot separate logic and opinion, in a mature and factual manner. I've actually stated things in that last post, which show the correlation. If your'e just shutting your ears, singing, 'la la la', then you're the problem in this world, and you're the problem, and part of the issue of your country. You're the one ruining your country, keeping people dumber. Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Sep 22, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> There's that bias. Keep ignoring factual statements because of your idiotic and immature bias. We need less people like you in this world, since you cannot separate logic and opinion, in a mature and factual manner. I've actually stated things in that last post, which show the correlation. If your'e just shutting your ears, singing, 'la la la', then you're the problem in this world, and you're the problem, and part of the issue of your country. You're the one ruining your country, keeping people dumber. Thanks for proving my point.


Learn that you can be incorrect without being such a crybaby about it. 
I would be more than happy to change my opinion if I saw any statistical data that showed such things but you have yet to offer any. I'm not going to debate you any longer.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> And giving them homes will be expensive on the government which means expensive on us the tax payers if those house prices don't go down.


Yes. It costs money from taxes. Taxing the rich and using the money to give the homeless homes is the solution that demonstrably decreases homelessness by 90%. The Republicans won't do this, which is why they should not be taken seriously when they talk about reducing homelessness.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Crony capitalism and foreign investment is the reason housing prices go up.  There are already more empty houses owned by banks than there are homeless people in this country.  The issue isn't solely one of needing more homes, but needing AFFORDABLE homes and homes for people who can't work at all.
> 
> Crony capitalism caused this problem, so it's the people who profited most from that exploitation and corruption who should pay for the solution.  That's exactly what Bernie Sanders has proposed.


It's simple economics of supply and demand. I'm telling you the solution to bring down housing prices making them more affordable, build more homes. Please stop defaulting to talking points of blaming crony capitalism, it becomes harder to talk to you when you are like that. It hard to make progress on anything when you have such type of thinking. 


https://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/QR2005.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottb...ulations-increase-housing-costs/#7553beb44162
http://faculty.washington.edu/te/papers/Housing051608.pdf


----------



## SG854 (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Yes. It costs money from taxes. Taxing the rich and using the money to give the homeless homes is the solution that demonstrably decreases homelessness by 90%. The Republicans won't do this, which is why they should not be taken seriously when they talk about reducing homelessness.


Doing this without getting rid of bad land restriction laws will be a bad thing. Housing assistant programs will be constricted by governmental limits on density, and limits on the size and number of units. Basically your way is, "who cares about inefficient use of land and prices of homes become expensive because we'll just get rich people to pay for it."


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It's simple economics of supply and demand. I'm telling you the solution to bring down housing prices making them more affordable, build more homes.


According to multiple sources, there are six empty houses for every homeless person.  Making that ratio seven/eight to one doesn't solve the problem if all we're doing is building more 10,000 sq ft Mcmansions in affluent neighborhoods.  We need a national program specifically designed for housing the homeless, tailored to that objective.



SG854 said:


> Please stop defaulting to talking points of blaming crony capitalism, it becomes harder to talk to you when you are like that. It hard to make progress on anything when you have such type of thinking.


I'm sorry if pointing out the cause of the issue is inconvenient for you, but the cause is also potentially the solution in this case.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Doing this without getting rid of bad land restriction laws will be a bad thing. Housing assistant programs will be constricted by governmental limits on density, and limits on the size and number of units. Basically your way is, "who cares about inefficient use of land and prices of homes become expensive because we'll just get rich people to pay for it."


As I said already, housing prices didn't go up when this was done. Aside from the price, there didn't appear to be a downside.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> According to multiple sources, there are six empty houses for every homeless person.  Making that ratio seven/eight to one doesn't solve the problem if all we're doing is building more 10,000 sq ft Mcmansions in affluent neighborhoods.  We need a national program specifically designed for housing the homeless, tailored to that objective.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry if pointing out the cause of the issue is inconvenient for you, but the cause is also potentially the solution in this case.


I don't see how controlling so many empty homes will benefit the bank. With those are empty homes they are not making a profit on. Why were they abandoned in the first place? How did they becomes so expensive? Wouldn't you think that they would've caught on that if they were greedy and raising housing prices too high to the point people stopped buying homes they wouldn't be making any money and that's wasted money building those homes.

Corporate Greed just doesn't seem like a good explanation for this. There has to be another explanation why those homes are too expensive for people to own, then be abandoned. No smart person would waste money like that building those homes then to screw themselves over with ridiculous prices.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The Trump administration has not offered any viable way to curb homelessness in California or anywhere else. I saw your thread. It wasn't worth responding to too much.


 You could have just said, "No, I didn't read your thread since it doesn't fit my agenda."  I already knew you didn't due to the question you asked.



Xzi said:


> Corporations will only ever hire the bare minimum number of people they need to keep things running smoothly. And they'll only ever pay the bare minimum that the market/law requires. They aren't benevolent entities which will solve problems that they aren't obligated to. They couldn't possibly care less even if their own employees are homeless or living out of their cars.



Have you ever heard of "mom and pop stores"?  You do know that not all business owners are corporations.  Due to democrat policies, that also include letting the homeless sleep on the sidewalk in front of the stores of entrepreneurs along with doing nothing about them pooping and urinating on their doorstep, they are also taxed to the point they cannot raise enough capital to invest back into their company to offer raises and employ more people.  Trickle-down won't work if the money they save is just taken away from them in unnecessary taxation.  Try stepping out of your comfort zone and accept there is more out there than what CNN tells you.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Have you ever heard of "mom and pop stores"?


What about them?  They're allowed to turn a meager profit until they become a threat/nuisance to corporations, and then they're bought out, willingly or by force.  Completely irrelevant to the topic of finding a solution for homelessness, though.



morvoran said:


> they are usually taxed to the point they cannot raise enough capital to invest back into their company to offer raises and employ more people.


Tax brackets exist for a reason.  This is like the tenth time I've had to tell you to educate yourself about them.  Small businesses thrived far more prior to the 1980s when the top tax bracket was at a much higher rate.



SG854 said:


> I don't see how controlling so many empty homes will benefit the bank. With those are empty homes they are not making a profit on.


They're not losing anything on them, either.  They just wait until the right investor comes along, whether foreign or domestic.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You could have just said, "No, I didn't read your thread since it doesn't fit my agenda."  I already knew you didn't due to the question you asked.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of "mom and pop stores"?  You do know that not all business owners are corporations.  Due to democrat policies, that also include letting the homeless sleep on the sidewalk in front of the stores of entrepreneurs along with doing nothing about them pooping and urinating on their doorstep, they are also taxed to the point they cannot raise enough capital to invest back into their company to offer raises and employ more people.  Trickle-down won't work if the money they save is just taken away from them in unnecessary taxation.  Try stepping out of your comfort zone and accept there is more out there than what CNN tells you.


I said it wasn't worth responding to, not that I didn't read it. Apparently, you didn't read my post.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> What about them? They're allowed to turn a meager profit until they become a threat/nuisance to corporations, and then they're bought out, willingly or by force. Completely irrelevant to the topic of finding a solution for homelessness, though.


 When they put all of their life savings into their business and then have to close shop due to over taxation and unfair laws from the liberals in charge, they become homeless (and have to poop in the street).  This isn't that hard.



Xzi said:


> Tax brackets exist for a reason. This is like the tenth time I've had to tell you to educate yourself about them. Small businesses thrived far more prior to the 1980s when the top tax bracket was at a much higher rate.


 Yeah, and maybe when you realize how that is complete nonsense, you'll stop using that as a talking point.  If the small business was in a tax bracket that would allow them to survive, then how are they being taxed to death?  I mean "come on, give me a break!"



Lacius said:


> I said it wasn't worth responding to, not that I didn't read it. Apparently, you didn't read my post.


  If you did read it, then you would know what Trump's admin was planning on doing to fix the issue, but I digress.  This isn't that hard.  I'm not sure if you were one of those people to say this, but so much for "good faith debates".


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Yeah, and maybe when you realize how that is complete nonsense, you'll stop using that as a talking point. If the small business was in a tax bracket that would allow them to survive, then how are they being taxed to death?


They aren't being taxed to death.  You didn't even provide a single example to back this bullshit claim.  Like I said, most are swallowed up by larger businesses/corporations, unless they fail early on due to providing a product or service that nobody wants.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> They're not losing anything on them, either. They just wait until the right investor comes along, whether foreign or domestic.


 Not to jump into both of yours' conversation, but most, if not all, the abandoned homes in Baltimore are owned by the city, not banks or investors.  Nobody in their right mind would invest in those communities unless they had people to live in them.



Xzi said:


> They aren't being taxed to death. You didn't even provide a single example to back this bullshit claim. Like I said, most are swallowed up by larger businesses/corporations, unless they fail early on due to providing a product or service that nobody wants.


  I was just replying to your nonsense without proof with my good sense that doesn't need it.  

Plus, here - That said, California is not all easy living for small business owners. In particular, business taxes in California are some of the most oppressive of any state. High taxes, combined with the onerous business regulations for which California is also known, have led many business owners in the 21st century to flee the state for places they perceive as more friendly operating grounds, such as Texas and Florida. 

Hmm, so where is the highest population of homeless in the US?  Could it be California?  It's not easy to start a company or compete with corporations when you are already at a disadvantage due to liberal policies.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 22, 2019)

Yeah, public housing seems like a better idea than building more houses that people can just arbitrarily jack up prices. 

As for having rent caps, I'm not sure about that. Is there any cons?


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 22, 2019)

you should do research on your sources https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pluralist/ 48th of 108 on the World Press Freedom Rank is nothing to cheer about it's almost extreme right stuff barely not ER

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

aim for right center or center news an unbias source


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> you should do research on your sources https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pluralist/ 48th of 108 on the World Press Freedom Rank is nothing to cheer about it's almost extreme right stuff barely not ER
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> aim for right center or center news an unbias source



Yeah, but a lot of news sites out there are biased to the left and don't report the news that doesn't fit their agendas.  This means that I have to use sources that may offend the weaker minds on this site that can't be open to the views of others.  Also, if I were to use an independent source, I'm accused of using blogs as sources. 
Unless I post stories that outright praise liberals and their policies, I won't make most of the commenters on my threads happy.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Plus, here - That said, California is not all easy living for small business owners.


It's not surprising that competing in the state with the largest economy doesn't come cheap.  Then again, all you need in California is one good app idea or a luxury dog hotel to hit it big.



morvoran said:


> Hmm, so where is the highest population of homeless in the US?  Could it be California?


So let's solve the problem by relocating many of them and housing everybody nationwide.



morvoran said:


> It's not easy to start a company or compete with corporations when you are already at a disadvantage due to liberal policies.


Corporations have had the system rigged in their favor for decades thanks to both neoliberal and neoconservative policies.  Since you're a part of the latter group, the image of Spider-Man pointing at Spider-Man comes to mind.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Corporations have had the system rigged in their favor for decades thanks to both neoliberal and neoconservative policies. Since you're a part of the latter group, the image of Spider-Man pointing at Spider-Man comes to mind.


 now that you're finally being civil, I'll throw you a bone.  I agree that "corporate personhood" and the Citizens United decision are both big mistakes as they give corporations too much power since they are now considered "people" with the same rights and protections just with a lot more money and influence.   I don't believe that a non-human entity should have human rights to persuade an election or other matters.  They should not be allowed to grow bigger than the government but should be protected from theft by the government.



Xzi said:


> So let's solve the problem by relocating many of them and housing everybody nati


 I also agree with you here, but people still have the right to choose where to live unless they break the law or are mentally unsound.  I guess if politicians are trying to take away their first and second amendment rights, why not more?   
The one thing that needs to happen in these liberals cities is to keep or make new laws making sleeping on the street/sidewalks illegal, as well as defecating, and to enforce those laws.  Once they are processed into the system, then it can be decided what's best for them.
It would probably also make sense to start changing city statutes that would make it easier to afford to live there.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I also agree with you here, but people still have the right to choose where to live unless they break the law or are mentally unsound.


I'm not suggesting we force anyone to relocate, but offering individual rent-free housing should be enough to convince a lot of homeless to relocate.



morvoran said:


> The one thing that needs to happen in these liberals cities is to keep or make new laws making sleeping on the street/sidewalks illegal, as well as defecating, and to enforce those laws.


If you agree that we need a national housing for all program, then this shouldn't be necessary.  Additionally, what you're describing are basically debtors' prisons, which would create a vicious cycle of never-ending poverty.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> offering individual rent-free housing should be enough to convince a lot of homeless to relocate


 Giving away "free stuff" is never the answer.  You can allow people a chance to get on their feet with temporary free or low rent, but they must work towards earning their own way and eventually move into their own place away from government assistance.  If they are not taught to live on their own accord and have personal responsibility, they will end up back on the street.



Xzi said:


> If you agree that we need a national housing for all program, then this shouldn't be necessary. Additionally, what you're describing are basically debtors' prisons, which would create a vicious cycle of never-ending poverty.


 Not debtors prison, poopers prison.  If someone is caught defecating on the street, they must have consequences or some form of deterrent to keep them from doing it in the first place.  Prison is a lot better than the streets if all you need is 3 hot meals and a bed to sleep in.  

I am more for the detention center idea than giving them free houses to stay in that they won't take care of.  Not to lock them up, but more of a center where they can stay and be supervised to make sure they get the care and amenities they need in order to step out of their condition.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Giving away "free stuff" is never the answer. You can allow people a chance to get on their feet with temporary free or low rent, but they must work towards earning their own way and eventually move into their own place away from government assistance. If they are not taught to live on their own accord and have personal responsibility, they will end up back on the street.


We've already had this discussion.  Those who can work will want to do better for themselves than a tiny studio apartment, but a third of homeless people are mentally ill and likely cannot work.  They still need shelter like any human being.



morvoran said:


> I am more for the detention center idea than giving them free houses to stay in that they won't take care of. Not to lock them up, but more of a center where they can stay and be supervised to make sure they get the care and amenities they need in order to step out of their condition.


An even greater percentage of US prisoners are mentally ill - roughly half - and they certainly do not get the care they need or deserve while behind bars.  I'm all for funding a new national mental healthcare infrastructure, but expecting prisons to fill that role is never going to produce a good end result.  Especially considering how many homeless veterans we'd be imprisoning in the process.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> What about them?  They're allowed to turn a meager profit until they become a threat/nuisance to corporations, and then they're bought out, willingly or by force.  Completely irrelevant to the topic of finding a solution for homelessness, though.
> 
> 
> Tax brackets exist for a reason.  This is like the tenth time I've had to tell you to educate yourself about them.  Small businesses thrived far more prior to the 1980s when the top tax bracket was at a much higher rate.
> ...


It doesn’t seem like the right investors are coming since there is still a lot of empty houses.

And who’s willing to invest in houses that no one want’s to buy. The point of the investor is to buy homes them quickly sell them at a higher price. If no is buying them now, who’s willing to buy them after an investor gets to them?



KingVamp said:


> Yeah, public housing seems like a better idea than building more houses that people can just arbitrarily jack up prices.
> 
> As for having rent caps, I'm not sure about that. Is there any cons?



If they arbitrarily jack up prices houses won’t sell. Xzi provides evidence of that. It won’t be a smart move and their greed plan won’t work.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It doesn’t seem like the right investors are coming since there is still a lot of empty houses.


I suppose it just highlights how much the wealthiest individuals and corporations enjoy hoarding wealth and land.  At some point it becomes so obscene that they detach from reality and it's simply a game to them.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> When they put all of their life savings into their business and then have to close shop due to over taxation and unfair laws from the liberals in charge, they become homeless (and have to poop in the street).  This isn't that hard.
> 
> Yeah, and maybe when you realize how that is complete nonsense, you'll stop using that as a talking point.  If the small business was in a tax bracket that would allow them to survive, then how are they being taxed to death?  I mean "come on, give me a break!"
> 
> If you did read it, then you would know what Trump's admin was planning on doing to fix the issue, but I digress.  This isn't that hard.  I'm not sure if you were one of those people to say this, but so much for "good faith debates".


If the plan isn't giving homeless people homes before working with them to get jobs to keep their homes, it's unlikely to be very effective. Any plan that doesn't also address our systemic income inequality problems with progressive policies like additional spending on social programs is also likely to fail. In fact, Trump and the Republicans have cut social programs, which will likely exacerbate our income inequality issues and increase homelessness. For example, mental health care is sometimes a factor when it comes to homelessness, and the Trump administration has made that harder to receive.

Trump and the Republicans know what's effective, but they won't do it because of the cost and the need to tax the rich. Any time you bring up Trump and the Republicans and how they're going to deal with homelessness in California or anywhere else, you're actually immortalizing a policy and moral failing on their part. The plan I'm seeing you bringing attention to is essentially homeless internment camps, and I thank you for immortalizing and bringing attention to this one of many policy failures.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



morvoran said:


> Giving away "free stuff" is never the answer.  You can allow people a chance to get on their feet with temporary free or low rent, but they must work towards earning their own way and eventually move into their own place away from government assistance.  If they are not taught to live on their own accord and have personal responsibility, they will end up back on the street.
> 
> Not debtors prison, poopers prison.  If someone is caught defecating on the street, they must have consequences or some form of deterrent to keep them from doing it in the first place.  Prison is a lot better than the streets if all you need is 3 hot meals and a bed to sleep in.
> 
> I am more for the detention center idea than giving them free houses to stay in that they won't take care of.  Not to lock them up, but more of a center where they can stay and be supervised to make sure they get the care and amenities they need in order to step out of their condition.


The data shows that giving homeless people "free stuff" in the form of apartments before helping them get jobs to keep the apartments reduces homelessness by about 90%. So, no, giving away free stuff is actually sometimes the answer.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I suppose it just highlights how much the wealthiest individuals and corporations enjoy hoarding wealth and land.  At some point it becomes so obscene that they detach from reality and it's simply a game to them.


That's a lot of rich people though. They can't all of sudden just stop critical thinking that they become detached from reality. Those homes are probably ghetto ass homes that's nothing like their million dollar mansions. What use are they to them just to have them lying around for the sake of hoarding. That is a lot of homes, 6 to 1 homes for every homeless person, it's a lot of money just being thrown away. If they get new homes it'll be as big as their multi million dollar homes and not these ghetto ass places. They becoming so greedy that they screw themselves over and become detached from reality I just don't buy that answer.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> We've already had this discussion. Those who can work will want to do better for themselves than a tiny studio apartment, but a third of homeless people are mentally ill and likely cannot work. They still need shelter like any human being.


  Yes, which is why I can't tell if you just skim over what I say or are just forgetful.  Mentally ill people can't get jobs if nobody will hire them due to their illness.  Just like a lot of mentally ill people, the government can hire them them for the DMV or to run the future government ran "free clinics" that were once hospitals if single payer insurance is ever a reality.



Xzi said:


> I'm all for funding a new national mental healthcare infrastructure, but expecting prisons to fill that role is never going to produce a good end result.


 I already expressed my disagreement on your idea of re-implementing insane asylums and lobotomies.



yuyuyup said:


> The guy who's father got him addicted to MORPHINE cares more about fake poo maps then he cares for his own healing (or lack-there-of ROFLMAO)


  Have you ever thought of trying stand up because you are a riot?  You are very funny (but looks aren't everything).  Trolls gotta troll, I guess.



Lacius said:


> Trump and the Republicans know what's effective, but they won't do it because of the cost and the need to tax the rich. Any time you bring up Trump and the Republicans and how they're going to deal with homelessness in California or anywhere else, you're actually immortalizing a policy and moral failing on their part. The plan I'm seeing you bringing attention to is essentially homeless internment camps, and I thank you for immortalizing and bringing attention to this one of many policy failures.


 Trump and his admin do know what's effective thanks to Rudy Giuliani.  They also know what's ineffective thanks to the democrats and their liberal policies that only create more homeless.  That's why Trump is going to try something other than what Gavin Newsom, and the other democrats who have failed their cities, have been doing all along.  
I'm not sure why you can't be open to new ideas that will work rather than depending on your dem leaders that don't care about their constituents.



Lacius said:


> The data shows that giving homeless people "free stuff" in the form of apartments before helping them get jobs to keep the apartments reduces homelessness by about 90%. So, no, giving away free stuff is actually sometimes the answer.





morvoran said:


> You can allow people a chance to get on their feet with temporary free or low rent,


  It's hard to take you seriously when you don't even read what I say.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It's hard to take you seriously when you don't even read what I say.


What's the Republican solution to homelessness?


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> What's the Republican solution to homelessness?



I hope you take the chance to read this - HERE

It basically says that Rudy made the policy that if you want to remain homeless, you get out of the city, you start doing something with your life, or we cut you off from the shelters and possibly arrest you.  In other words, teaching them to have some "personal responsibility" for their choices/actions.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I hope you take the chance to read this - HERE
> 
> It basically says that Rudy made the policy that if you want to remain homeless, you get out of the city, you start doing something with your life, or we cut you off from the shelters and possibly arrest you.  In other words, teaching them to have some "personal responsibility" for their choices/actions.


That's not a real solution to homelessness. It either a.) moves the homeless to another place, which doesn't actually reduce homelessness, or b.) creates internment camps for the homeless in the form of prisons.

As I already said, there is no Republican solution to homelessness. I told you what the solution to homelessness is.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> That's not a real solution to homelessness.


  It worked for NYC before the De Blasio let loose his liberal policies that caused the homeless population to blow up.



Lacius said:


> As I already said, there is no Republican solution to homelessness. I told you what the solution to homelessness is.


  I give you the truth, and you deny the truth.  I can't help you if you base your opinions of feelings rather than facts.  Just keep trying the same methods over and over again, maybe one day the liberals will get lucky.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It worked for NYC before the De Blasio let loose his liberal policies that caused the homeless population to blow up.
> 
> I give you the truth, and you deny the truth.  I can't help you if you base your opinions of feelings rather than facts.  Just keep trying the same methods over and over again, maybe one day the liberals will get lucky.


I explained the two reasons why that wasn't a real solution to homelessness. Forcing the homeless to leave the city or putting them in jail doesn't do anything to actually address the rate of homelessness.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Forcing the homeless to leave the city or putting them in jail doesn't do anything to actually address the rate of homelessness.


 How so?  Putting them in prison gives them a warm place to stay, 3 meals a day, and free healthcare.  All on the tax payers tab.  Sounds better than your idea that has been tried for the past 12+ years in California and has only made the problem worse.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> How so?  Putting them in prison gives them a warm place to stay, 3 meals a day, and free healthcare.  All on the tax payers tab.



They're in prison, which isn't a good place to be, for no reason other than being homeless. By your logic, we should just put people without health insurance into prison.
Prison is much more expensive for the taxpayer than handing out homes and helping people get jobs to keep their homes.
When people leave prison, they're homeless again.
It's not a solution to homelessness, and it's immoral. I think it's likely that you're being intentionally nonsensical. If so, good on you demonstrating the absurdity of conservatism.



morvoran said:


> Sounds better than your idea that has been tried for the past 12+ years in California and has only made the problem worse.


What are you talking about? Where it was done, homelessness went down 90%. It isn't something that has substantially taken off in California or anywhere else, since a lot of people are for some reason resistant giving out homes.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> They're in prison, which isn't a good place to be, for no reason other than being homeless. By your logic, we should just put people without health insurance into prison.
> 
> Prison is much more expensive for the taxpayer than handing out homes and helping people get jobs to keep their homes.
> 
> When people leave prison, they're homeless again.



1. No, but I can't see anybody that would give up living in a shelter for living on the streets.  Internment camps(or how sane people call them - detention centers) can be used to keep the homeless off the streets to clean themselves up, find them work, and proper housing.
2. I would like to see some data to back this up.
3. When you leave prison, people have the opportunity to live in "half-way" homes to help them reintegrate back into society.  They don't have to go live on the street.  If they are released on parole, they have to go through this process or go back to prison.



Lacius said:


> Where it was done, homelessness went down 90%.


  I would like to see where this has happened.  Most likely, it was a republican leader and was not just due to giving free housing.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> 1. No, but I can't see anybody that would give up living in a shelter for living on the streets.


I imagine a lot of people would prefer the streets over forced incarceration in prison.



morvoran said:


> Internment camps(or how sane people call them - detention centers) can be used to keep the homeless off the streets to clean themselves up, find them work, and proper housing.


The data shows that largely doesn't work. It's difficult to get a job while homeless, and the job-finding and house-finding assistance is largely nonexistent. We know what works: Give people homes and help them find jobs to keep the homes.



morvoran said:


> 2. I would like to see some data to back this up.


Here.



morvoran said:


> 3. When you leave prison, people have the opportunity to live in "half-way" homes to help them reintegrate back into society.  They don't have to go live on the street.  If they are released on parole, they have to go through this process or go back to prison.


It's difficult to find a job while in prison, it's difficult to find a job with a criminal record, and "halfway houses" often cut a person loose after some amount of time. Halfway houses also have their own problems.



morvoran said:


> I would like to see where this has happened.  Most likely, it was a republican leader and was not just due to giving free housing.


See above.


----------



## DarthDub (Sep 22, 2019)

I had a friend who used to be homeless and he intentionally got himself arrested just so he could have a warm place to stay.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

DarthDub said:


> I had a friend who used to be homeless and he intentionally got himself arrested just so he could have a warm place to stay.


This is evidence of a moral failing on the part of society. We're also talking about going to prison for the crime of being homeless, not spending the night in jail.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> It's difficult to find a job while in prison, it's difficult to find a job with a criminal record, and "halfway houses" often cut a person loose after some amount of time. Halfway houses also have their own problems.


 These things are only true if the person doesn't accept job training (which some prisons offer), look for a job (construction jobs are hiring people straight after they are released depending on their crime), or follow the guidelines/rules of the half-way house before being kicked out.  All has to do with personal responsibiltiy.  Of course, a bank robber isn't going to get a job at a bank, or pedo isn't going to get a job as groundskeeper at a school, so I agree it could be hard to find a job in the fields you're interested in after being released.


Lacius said:


> I imagine a lot of people would prefer the streets over forced incarceration in prison.


  Some people released from prison mostly try to go back rather than dealing with the "outside" and/or being homeless.  It's better than nothing.



Lacius said:


> The data shows that largely doesn't work. It's difficult to get a job while homeless, and the job-finding and house-finding assistance is largely nonexistent. We know what works: Give people homes and help them find jobs to keep the homes.



Yeah, to this and your #2 point, I'll just leave this here

Also, it's easy to say you defeated 92% of your homeless when you house 92% of your homeless, but it's how long it lasts afterwards, that is the true measure of success.

Also, this here


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> These things are only true if the person doesn't accept job training (which some prisons offer), look for a job (construction jobs are hiring people straight after they are released depending on their crime), or follow the guidelines/rules of the half-way house before being kicked out.  All has to do with personal responsibiltiy.  Of course, a bank robber isn't going to get a job at a bank, or pedo isn't going to get a job as groundskeeper at a school, so I agree it could be hard to find a job in the fields you're interested in after being released.


You don't seem to understand the job discrimination against former prisoners that exists, and you're wanting to add that extra hurdle to homeless people.



morvoran said:


> Some people released from prison mostly try to go back rather than dealing with the "outside" and/or being homeless.  It's better than nothing.


And you're wanting to add people to that cycle.



morvoran said:


> Yeah, to this and your #2 point, I'll just leave this here


Did you read the article? The reason homelessness increased is because they stopped the policy.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

snip



Lacius said:


> You don't seem to understand the job discrimination against former prisoners that exists, and you're wanting to add that extra hurdle to homeless people.


Oh, I understand completely.  I don't know how many ex-cons you're friends with, but I have several and know what it's like for them.  Just like the homeless, they have to at least try to get a job if they want to survive.  If they don't want to get jobs, we have to do something with them to help.  Giving them homes with no guidance is not helping them.



Lacius said:


> Did you read the article? The reason homelessness increased is because they stopped the policy.


  Yeah, they stopped it because it wasn't working.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Oh, I understand completely.  I don't know how many ex-cons you're friends with, but I have several and know what it's like for them.  Just like the homeless, they have to at least try to get a job if they want to survive.  If they don't want to get jobs, we have to do something with them to help.  Giving them homes with no guidance is not helping them.


If you understood completely, you wouldn't want the homeless to have to deal with the same systemic barriers to getting a job as ex-cons have.



morvoran said:


> Yeah, they stopped it because it wasn't working.


That's not at all true, and that's not at all what the article said. If you're going to just make things up, we can't have a discussion.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Being locked up for "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct" are not convictions that will keep you from getting jobs as the are misdemeanors and not felonies.  They are not going to be treated the same as ex-cons.


Are we talking about a night in jail, or are we talking about time in prison? A night in jail does even less to curb the homelessness problem. A homeless person is no better off after leaving jail.


----------



## DarthDub (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> This is evidence of a moral failing on the part of society. We're also talking about going to prison for the crime of being homeless, not spending the night in jail.


After that he went to Job Corps, got training for Automotive-related work and got a job while also living in his own place.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Are we talking about a night in jail, or are we talking about time in prison? A night in jail does even less to curb the homelessness problem. A homeless person is no better off after leaving jail.


*Disorderly Conduct Penalties*
Disorderly conduct is almost always punished as a misdemeanor offense, though it qualifies as a felony in certain circumstances, such as when a person makes a false report of a fire. State laws differ in the potential penalties involved for a conviction of disorderly conduct, but they typically include one or more of the following:


*Jail:* Jail time for a conviction of disorderly conduct is typically short, though state laws can allow for up to a year for a misdemeanor conviction. While many disorderly conduct convictions involve no jail time, especially for first-time offenders, courts often suspend a jail sentence or order a person to “time served,” meaning the jail sentence is satisfied by the time the person already spent in jail after the initial arrest. *For repeat offenders or more serious instances of disorderly conduct, short jail terms of several days, weeks, or even months are possible.* Felony convictions bring with them the possibility of a year or more in state prison.
They can be held for months if they are constantly being apprehended giving them plenty of time to be rehabilitated.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> *Disorderly Conduct Penalties*
> Disorderly conduct is almost always punished as a misdemeanor offense, though it qualifies as a felony in certain circumstances, such as when a person makes a false report of a fire. State laws differ in the potential penalties involved for a conviction of disorderly conduct, but they typically include one or more of the following:
> 
> 
> ...


That's going to make getting a job harder, as I've already discussed.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 22, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Did you read the article? The reason homelessness increased is because they stopped the policy.


  You must have missed the other article I edited in after that first one.

"Although overall homelessness has actually increased slightly over the past decade in Utah, such a large reduction in chronic homelessness is still an impressive achievement. But is it real?

Unfortunately, no. I spent some time studying Utah’s data and found that the miraculous 91 percent reduction in chronic homelessness appears to be driven by changes in how people were counted, rather than by how many there were."

Also, in the first article I posted, the housing plan was way too expensive to keep running and one guy stating that he pays subsidized rent.  He wasn't given free housing.  What do you think would happen if he stopped paying his rent?




Lacius said:


> That's going to make getting a job harder, as I've already discussed.


 Misdemeanors are not as taboo as felonies when it comes to job searching.  Plus, the homeless are not going to get jobs as CEO's.  They will most likely go for low skilled jobs in which case the illegal alien situation is more harmful than a conviction to them.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You must have missed the other article I edited in after that first one.
> 
> "Although overall homelessness has actually increased slightly over the past decade in Utah, such a large reduction in chronic homelessness is still an impressive achievement. But is it real?
> 
> ...


Utah is not the only place practicing Housing First, and the data is consistent.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 22, 2019)

I respectfully disagree with the moderation of my comments; topics like these are NOT tailored to stoke actual discussion, they are created to "trigger the libturds."  The very "triggering" itself is often used as an excuse to dismiss counter arguments "REEEEE triggered" etc.  He doesn't even hide his dirty intentions, he has his intentions displayed RIGHT THERE in his profile box.  I think that by pointing out morvoran's character flaws, I am providing necessary context to morvoran's narrative.  Thank you for your consideration.


----------



## Chary (Sep 22, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> I respectfully disagree with the moderation of my comments; topics like these are NOT tailored to stoke actual discussion, they are created to "trigger the libturds."  The very "triggering" itself is often used as an excuse to dismiss counter arguments "REEEEE triggered" etc.  He doesn't even hide his dirty intentions, he has his intentions displayed RIGHT THERE in his profile box.  I think that by pointing out morvoran's character flaws, I am providing necessary context to morvoran's narrative.  Thank you for your consideration.


*Flaming, Trolling & Harassment*

Do not "flame", "bash", "troll" or harass others. Blatantly offensive comments or actions directed at others will not be tolerated. While we do allow members to debate and voice their own opinions, there will be a limit to how far a heated debate can go before it is closed by staff. If you harass someone you will be disciplined. Period.


If you want to take things to PM with staff over his behavior, you're free to do so. But there is no need to throw personal disparaging remarks at someone. Future moderation over types of inflammatory-titled propaganda threads has already been discussed.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 22, 2019)

morvoran said:


> How so?  Putting them in prison gives them a warm place to stay, 3 meals a day, and free healthcare.  All on the tax payers tab.  Sounds better than your idea that has been tried for the past 12+ years in California and has only made the problem worse.


making it a crime to be less fortunate. You have no argument here dude. I am sure you will troll, try to post something that deflects or that in your own mind makes you sound witty, but just admit that you have no suggestion of a real solution here.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There are no half-measures that will solve this problem.  The solution is that we house the homeless.
> 
> https://berniesanders.com/issues/housing-all/
> 
> ...


I agree 100%, but many of the homeless have mental issues and feel they want to be outside, and in CA as soon as someone ask to leave a mental health facility they are let go, whereas we need to keep them for a bit, put them on meds, then let them make that decision, it is truly the crueler choice to let them die (and let other horrible things happen to them) in the street.


----------



## th3joker (Sep 23, 2019)

just have the homeless poop in planters and gardens. free fertilizer.


----------



## SANIC (Sep 23, 2019)

As some who passes through Downtown LA daily,  can't say things have gotten worse. They have improved but they definitely are still bad
 Homelessness has really gone down, and DTLA has been cleaned up drastically.


----------



## Deleted member 397813 (Sep 23, 2019)

aww, crap.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 23, 2019)

Conservatives organize a massive clean up for Los Angeles and Baltimore. 
https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/22/presler-los-angeles-clean-up/


But hey guys conservatives are racist and evil, they don't care about helping the unfortunate or helping bad conditions, they are just doing this as a massive PR stunt to get Trump more votes. So any good they do just right it off as them doing it for evil intentions and don't praise them. Spread this message of their evil.


----------



## Spring_Spring (Sep 23, 2019)

I can't believe there's a political ideology which thinks people are deliberately evil, or deliberately doing bad things, simply because of how much money they have. That counts for both the rich businessmen and homeless individuals.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Sep 23, 2019)

The police aren't allowed to stop people from shitting in public but it's ok for them to shoot unarmed people and lock others up for victimless "crimes".


----------



## Bullseye (Sep 23, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> Actually, it does. There's a DIRECT correlation between having a low intellect and being a Trump supporter.



Admins, close this thread, and the forums, and the internet while you are at it... We have found the smartest brain in the universe.

And this is a FACT. 

XD


----------

