# Trump admin looks to fix homeless issues in California



## morvoran (Sep 11, 2019)

*Update for all those members who are so eager to know what Trump's preliminary plans are and so hangry for the details:  *

*Update 1:*
*Trump pushing for major crackdown on homeless camps in California, with aides discussing moving residents to government-backed facilities *
*Source: The Washington Post via MSN*

The planning has intensified in recent weeks. Administration officials have discussed using the federal government to get homeless people off the streets of Los Angeles and other cities and into new government-backed facilities, according to two officials briefed on the planning.

Trump’s directive is part of his broader effort in recent months to shine a light on problems in California and a number of major U.S. cities, including Baltimore and Chicago. He has complained about what he says are years of failed Democratic leadership that have led to sustained poverty and crime.

Top officials representing the White House and the Department of Housing and Urban Development arrived in California this week for a round of meetings. A particular focus has been the skid row section of Los Angeles, officials said. The president is directly involved with the initiative, officials said, and has asked for updates.

Among the ideas under consideration are razing existing tent camps for the homeless, creating new temporary facilities and refurbishing existing government facilities, two other officials said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the planning hasn’t been publicly revealed. The changes would attempt to give the federal government a larger role in supervising housing and health care for residents. 

The talks are fluid and concrete plans had not been reached. 

Planning also involves officials from the Department of Health and Human Services. An administration official cited the need to act based on concerns about disease and sewage problems affecting the homeless.

A White House spokesman said Trump signed an executive order in June that pertained to affordable housing regulations, and that the administration is continuing to seek new solutions for homelessness. Trump’s executive order created a new White House council on eliminating “regulatory barriers” that White House officials believe increase the cost of building new housing. Developers have said these restrictions drive up prices on housing and limit the supply. 

“Like many Americans, the president has taken notice of the homelessness crisis, particularly in cities and states where the liberal policies are combining to dramatically increase poverty and public health risks,” said Judd Deere, a White House spokesman. “President Trump has directed his team to go further and develop a range of policy options for consideration to deal with this tragedy.” 

Housing experts say homelessness in California has risen alongside housing and rental prices. That problem has been exacerbated by cuts to federal support for housing programs. 

Trump previously hinted at potential unilateral federal action over homelessness, telling Fox News that he was “very seriously” considering acting on the issue. 

“You take a look at what’s going on with San Francisco, it’s terrible. So we’re looking at it very seriously. We may intercede. We may do something to get that whole thing cleaned up. It’s inappropriate,” Trump told Tucker Carlson in July. “Now, we have to take the people and do something. We have to do something.” 

*Update 2:*
*Trump officials tour unused FAA facility in California in search for place to relocate homeless people*
Source: The Washington Post via MSN

A team of Trump administration officials toured a California facility once used by the Federal Aviation Administration this week as they searched for a potential site to relocate homeless people, according to three government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private tour.

Trump is expected to visit California on Tuesday and Wednesday. One administration official with knowledge of Trump’s visit to California said there were discussions about an announcement related to California’s growing homeless problem next week, but a second official said that any decision could be premature and that it was not on the current schedule for the trip.

Some administration officials expressed skepticism that the federal government wanted to get in the business of operating a large homeless shelter in Los Angeles. There were also questions about the feasibility of turning the FAA facility into a shelter and how it could legally be done.

Senior administration officials said that forcing people into new facilities was not under consideration, with one official telling The Washington Post: “We’re not rounding people up or anything yet. You guys in the media get too ahead of yourselves.”

Well, I hope that satisfies all those complaining that the original OP story didn't cover enough of Trump's great plan to fix this issue the Democrats have been sitting on for year.  You're welcome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Original post:*

After years of Democrat leadership failing to come up with (or maybe even look for) any working solutions for the homeless issues in the state of California, the current administration has decided that it's time for them to step in and offer assistance.  Unfortunately, instead of just accepting new ideas that may help to fix the problem, the Democrats are accusing Trump of pushing an agenda and are only insisting that he stay out of their state.  They are requesting that he just send them more money.  
Instead of slapping another repeatedly used, non-working band-aid on the problem, why do they refuse to repair this wound in our communities with working solutions?  Like Einstein stated, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

It's a shame that, in such a prosperous economy we have now, people are unwilling to help our fellow man (and woman) to rise out of their situations instead of just stepping over them and moving on with their day.  I thank the president, and those involved, in finally deciding to work towards the goal of solving this matter and hope they succeed.

Homelessness is a horrible situation that I had gone through myself in my late teens that I never would have gotten out of myself without "tough love" making me work to overcome the issue myself.  I had people just give me money or offer a place to stay for the night, but this was only enabling my problems.  It wasn't until somebody who truly cared about me had offered me money for doing work for them, such as yard work or cleaning their garage, etc., and giving me goals to reach for, was I able to rise above and get my own place.  Today, I own my own business, have a comfortable life in a nice house that I own, and work hard to make sure I never live on the streets again. 

Now, I know that a lot of homelessness is due to mental illness and drug use, but these people still need better help than just giving them money and temporary shelter to help them off the streets.

You don't have to love Trump or even like him, but this is an issue we should all be able to stand behind him on.


*Trump Administration Weighs Action to Combat Homelessness in California*

The Trump administration said it may try to help get homeless people in California off the streets, a move that comes after the president has criticized the state’s cities for their handling of the growing problem.

White House spokesman Judd Deere said that President Trump “has taken notice of the homelessness crisis,” without specifically mentioning California. A team of federal officials visited Los Angeles Tuesday on a fact-finding mission, a spokesman for the administration said, a week before Mr. Trump visits the state on a fundraising trip.

“The spike in homelessness we are seeing in places like L.A. and San Francisco is alarming,” a spokesman for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. “While there are many state and local issues at play here, we’re looking at a range of options available to us at HUD—as well as other agencies—for possible federal action, if and where appropriate,” a spokeswoman said.

The administration didn’t make clear what types of action it is considering. Nor is it clear what type of measures the administration legally can take.

Alex Comisar, a spokesman for Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a Democrat, said the mayor’s office hosted the delegation of federal officials in an attempt to show them “our work to confront this humanitarian emergency.”

“We learned very recently of their plans to learn about our strategies,” Mr. Comisar said. “We welcomed them.”

The homeless population has risen this year in major California cities despite efforts by local and state governments to deploy billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded efforts. California hasn’t built enough apartments and homes to keep up with population growth, and many critics say regulations should be eased to spur construction. Paying for outreach programs and new affordable housing simply isn’t enough to match decades of underbuilding, they argue.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a state budget in June investing $1.75 billion in efforts to spur new housing and about $1 billion aimed at helping cities and counties combat homelessness.

Homelessness jumped 12% and 16% from a year ago in the county and city of Los Angeles, respectively, according to figures released this summer based on a count conducted in January. Other localities in California saw substantial increases compared with 2017, when they last conducted a count. In San Francisco, the number rose 17%, while Alameda County, which includes Oakland, saw a 43% increase.

Both Los Angeles and San Francisco have struggled with efforts to build housing for the homeless, with residents objecting to facilities being built in their neighborhoods. San Francisco Mayor London Breed blamed part of the problem on a decline in federal resources.

“We need federal support and resources to build more housing for people living on our streets,” she said. “But simply cracking down on homelessness without providing the housing that people need is not a real solution and will likely only make the situation worse.”

In a letter to the White House, Mr. Garcetti asked Mr. Trump to step up funding for affordable housing, mental-health programs and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Deere noted that the president signed an executive order aimed at affordable housing in June and said he has asked aides to “develop a range of policy options for consideration to deal with this tragedy.” Mr. Trump has suggested that California policies are to blame for the crisis, in keeping with his broader clash with Democratic leaders in the state on issues such as immigration and climate change.

In an interview Tuesday before Mr. Trump’s administration announced its plans, Mr. Newsom rejected criticism that California’s policies were the cause of homelessness.

“People are right to criticize the homeless crisis in the state, it’s unacceptable. They’re right to criticize the affordability issue, it is unacceptable,” he said. “I’m deeply searching for strategies and solutions…for our critics, please offer constructive criticism as opposed to ideological critique.”

Mr. Trump will make a swing through California Sept. 17-18, with donor events scheduled in the Bay Area, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, and San Diego. The White House hasn’t announced any nonpolitical events during the trip.

Source: Click here


----------



## notimp (Sep 13, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Like Einstein stated, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."


As Einstein stated - 'I could not have imagined, how my quotes would be used out of context - and by whom'. 

Sorry.  Reaction to seeing this quote used as an excuse for everything.

As Obama said 'change is what we need'.

US, the land of change (Einstein said change) and same/same, and Einstein quotes against federal tax raises. And route 66.

edit: On topic - if they get it done, good.

If thats another chance for a blame game of 'the other side didn't let us the way we wanted to' I'm not interested. Reason for that almost always is 'its more complicated than you think' or 'democracy broken again'. One or the other. 

In this case more likely 'democracy broken again' - because the most vulnerable usually don't have big lobbies. So by default - they are not political capital. To do something for them has to happen, as a common act of decency (bipartisan effort, without even the effort), or it will not happen.


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 13, 2019)

My only gripe about this post is the generalization that democrats are failing or not looking to it. It's usually fairly region specific. I can give an example for instance for the South Bay, in which the general creation of the Office of Supportive Housing is doing its efforts to cull down homelessness. The South Bay went under scrutiny when it closed down The Jungle back in 2014 but immediately after closure of the jungle is when they stepped in to help. Many of the residents who were part of the Jungle now were placed in a homes. Along with the efforts of non profits like First Community Housing, it's an ongoing issue being tackled.

Heck even watching some of the measures that go in Santa Clara county, you know that it's heavily focused on housing. Even unrelated community pushes such as the community push to convice google to invest in housing as San Jose already has a deal with google to let them invest in creating a transit center/town in downtown San Jose. The city itself is pushing pretty hard on the idea of trying to get more affordable housing into the city as possible.

I don't speak for the entire Bay Area, but this is not a Democrat/Republican issue at all, and the failures of one city doesn't necessarily apply to the others. It's just that some cities are planning better than others. In the case of Oakland, it's putting many of its efforts into housing as well. West Oakland is getting gentrified causing people to move eastward and their focus has been on the city. It becomes extremely evident as the city of Oakland chose the city than to keep the sports teams in town. (Warriors moving to SF, Raiders moving to Las Vegas, A's financing their own stadium)

At least from what I know, other locations that are more moderately liberal like the Fresno region fairly recently put up several homeless shelters.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2019)

GBADWB said:


> My only gripe about this post is the generalization that democrats are failing or not looking to it.


Additionally, there are no specifics to the Trump administration's "plan" here, meaning they essentially don't have a plan at all.  It's therefore hard to see this as anything but political mudslinging meant to boost his donations from California Republicans and rile up his base in other states.



morvoran said:


> The administration didn’t make clear what types of action it is considering. Nor is it clear what type of measures the administration legally can take.





morvoran said:


> Mr. Trump will make a swing through California Sept. 17-18, with donor events scheduled in the Bay Area, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, and San Diego. *The White House hasn’t announced any nonpolitical events during the trip.*


----------



## Subtle Demise (Sep 13, 2019)

Why is government responsible for solving homelessness? They are likely the ones responsible for it happening in the first place. The cost of living in California is pretty extortionate from what I've heard. What little they haven't banned is taxed to hell and back. I think they'd be better off hitchhiking to the next state over to get back on their feet honestly.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> Why is government responsible for solving homelessness? They are likely the ones responsible for it happening in the first place.


They are indeed responsible due to neglecting the needs of our working class and veterans.  That's all the more reason why they should be the ones to fund the solution.



Subtle Demise said:


> The cost of living in California is pretty extortionate from what I've heard. What little they haven't banned is taxed to hell and back. I think they'd be better off hitchhiking to the next state over to get back on their feet honestly.


True, but most are not originally from California anyway.  The mix of a favorable climate and a generous populace attract people to the state AFTER they've become homeless.  The solution does need to be a national one.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Sep 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> They are indeed responsible due to neglecting the needs of our working class and veterans. That's all the more reason why they should be the ones to fund the solution.


I agree, however government solutions usually make things worse; especially when their "solution" involves just creating another tax.


Xzi said:


> True, but most are not originally from California anyway. The mix of a favorable climate and a generous populace attract people to the state AFTER they've become homeless. The solution does need to be a national one.


Seems strange to be homeless and then move to the single most expensive state in the nation. It would make more sense to move to a less in-demand state like Mississippi that hands out welfare like candy at a parade, and the weather is still nice. I'm glad you said it needs to be a national solution, because I was going to point out that federal interference in California's affairs would violate the tenth amendment.. But what is the solution? Giving millions of people $100k+ homes is not feasible or sustainable. Maybe pay security deposit and first month's rent at an apartment or other rental home, but that only helps for the first month, and if they  can't get a job by then, yep back out on the street. Also it's not like you can force businesses to hire people they don't find desirable. There are a lot of people who aren't even qualified to be a janitor at McDonald's. The type of people who have 30 jobs over the course of a year, and quit them all the first time something goes wrong or they have a disagreement with their boss or coworkers.


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 13, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> Why is government responsible for solving homelessness? They are likely the ones responsible for it happening in the first place. The cost of living in California is pretty extortionate from what I've heard. What little they haven't banned is taxed to hell and back. I think they'd be better off hitchhiking to the next state over to get back on their feet honestly.



It's part of the reasons why many of the larger cities have the bus program to send people back to where they are from mosstly at the cities budget. It has worked for some people, notable people who still have ties with their family whose capable of helping them get off their feet, but not for everyone. Specifically SF, the hardest hurdle is trying to keep the drugs off the street, as it puts the homeless in a state where they are almost unhelpable.

Policy directly involving homeless was always a lose-lose debate sometimes, as the options presented never had a very clear and good outcome, as good was already relative to whose affected. For those capable of low wage work, government funded/aided-fund housing works on giving them permanent roofs (has helped out some friends and family). But there are still homeless that more or less refuse to work. Having a chat with some occasionally on the street usually ends in an outcome where they'll beg. Other than being homeless, some were completely functional in ability(e.g no apparent drug problem, capable of walking), they just refuse to get a job.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 13, 2019)

notimp said:


> As Einstein stated - 'I could not have imagined, how my quotes would be used out of context - and by whom'.
> 
> Sorry.  Reaction to seeing this quote used as an excuse for everything.



Einstein was referring to doing the same thing over and over during an experiment.  Solving the homeless crisis is an experiment as nobody has found the correct solution, and politicians keep trying the same techniques over and over again while expecting the problem to eventually go away which is insane.  This puts the quote in context with this matter.

For example, I watched a town hall meeting in Texas where one of the reps admitted they spent millions of tax dollars by just moving the homeless camps from one place to another.  Never trying anything else to fix the problem.  Now that's what I'd call "insanity".  The citizens were not happy to hear that.



GBADWB said:


> My only gripe about this post is the generalization that democrats are failing or not looking to it.


  Well, can you say this is not true?  Jjust using New York City as an example, Rudy Giuliani fixed the homeless situation there by getting them off the streets.  Granted, I can't say where he put them, but it appeared that he was successful.  Now, with De Blasio in charge, the problem is coming back.  Banning plastic straws and hotdogs while preventing the police from doing their job is not going to fix the issue

In California, homelessness has always been an issue, but no where as bad as it is now with people sleeping on sidewalks, blocking businesses, shooting up in the open during the day, and biting people.
What has Gavin Newsom done to solve this issue?  Keep the police from arresting drug users and people pooping on sidewalks?  Making Cali a sanctuary state allowing poor illegals to stay there and use resources that could go to citizens?  He just wants to throw money at the issue and hire a small group of people to pick up syringes and power wash the poo off the sidewalks while he sits in his nice mansion with tall gates around it to keep the homeless out.  Why would he care when he doesn't have to look at, or deal with, the issue everyday?



Xzi said:


> Additionally, there are no specifics to the Trump administration's "plan" here, meaning they essentially don't have a plan at all. It's therefore hard to see this as anything but political mudslinging meant to boost his donations from California Republicans and rile up his base in other states.


  They are thinking about building facilities similar to the detention centers holding the illegal aliens that were caught crossing the border waiting to be processed, so they do have ideas.  They haven't even had the chance to investigate the situation, yet, so give them time.
Regardless of what Ben Carson and his delegates come up with, it has to be better than tossing money at the issue while hiding in a mansion and making policies that only make the problem worse.  I agree that this may appear to be convenient timing for this situation, but unless you can prove that this is just pandering by Trump, you can't say it is a bad proposition.



Subtle Demise said:


> Why is government responsible for solving homelessness? They are likely the ones responsible for it happening in the first place.


  I agree that the government is, mostly, the cause of these problems by letting them get out of control.  The problem is that it is also the government preventing these issues from being fixed with a lot of red tape.  Police are not allowed to tell anybody to not sleep on the sidewalk and offer to take them to a shelter, or arrest them for using drugs or defecating/urinating on the street/sidewalk.  It's hard to get permits to build shelters to house the homeless.  Hordes of illegals are being brought in making the impoverished population greater.  The governor seems like he doesn't even want the problem to be fixed.
Unfortunately, the government makes these laws and only they can change these laws, so they have to be the ones to begin fixing the issues.



Xzi said:


> They are indeed responsible due to neglecting the needs of our working class and veterans. That's all the more reason why they should be the ones to fund the solution.


 If the government is the ones who need to fund the solution, in other words, you are saying the citizens must pay for the solution as the money will come out of taxes, not the politician's pockets.  I'm not saying I have the best solution, but I feel this problem should be fixed with charity to provide housing/shelters


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 13, 2019)

morvoran said:


> In California, homelessness has always been an issue, but no where as bad as it is now with people sleeping on sidewalks, blocking businesses, shooting up in the open during the day, and biting people.
> What has Gavin Newsom done to solve this issue?



I'm not the biggest fan of Newsom, but I believe in the last budget outline that was placed in July, he has increased the amount of funds used to help homeless which took effect in July. IIRC details saying that large cities were supposed to get a budget and counties in general also get a budget. Some cities like Fresno  are already pushing out homeless shelters since then. The other thing that I reacall reading about the bill was that there was a mandatory housing goal requirement with these funds, and citites who fail to meet the housing requirements would get fined. Because most of this stuff was effective July, there hasn't been enough time yet to judge the effectiveness of the plan.

edit: Bill in question


----------



## ut2k4master (Sep 13, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Einstein was referring to doing the same thing over and over during an experiment.


the quote isnt by einstein anyway...


----------



## notimp (Sep 13, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Einstein was referring to doing the same thing over and over during an experiment. Solving the homeless crisis is an experiment as nobody has found the correct solution, and politicians keep trying the same techniques over and over again while expecting the problem to eventually go away which is insane. This puts the quote in context with this matter.


Good on you for looking up the reference. 

Essentially this boils down to you filling in an argument about "urgently needed change", with that Einstein quote.

So in the logic this become - "we need change, because look - Einstein said so".

Thats cheap. 

(Take a beloved, dead, cultural figure, that people associate with being intelligent, and well meaning, attach it to your argument - pronto - dinner is ready..  )

I'm taking (small) offense to that.  (Because that particular quote is really overused.)  Mostly jokingly. To point out, how attribution works here (through emotion, not argumentative 'closeness').

In essence - you are making a change vs stability argument - which is at the heart of american politics (two party system), for as long as I'm alive. You don't need Einstein for that.. 

On the argument itself I'm still pro getting homeless people the help they need to maybe escape that reality in a way that doesnt lead them down the path of drug abuse - regardless of which party 'is responsible' for doing so.

But it usually gains you few 'cheerers' - even if you are doing it - because people still don't feel 'personally related' enough. So its usually seen as 'maintenance politics'. If you manage to change that - all props to you - but it maybe turn out not to be something that constituencies remember. Thats why its better done the bypartisan way. I could be wrong, though.

Also this would be an argument against the defensive position of whoever pushes against that politically. If you've managed to 'charge' that issue politically (= 'which party does it matters to both parties - for the PR effect'), you almost are doing it wrong. (Hindering it taking place.)


----------



## morvoran (Sep 13, 2019)

GBADWB said:


> I believe in the last budget outline that was placed in July, he has increased the amount of funds used to help homeless which took effect in July


  I know you included the part about shelters, but this part alone makes it sound like they're just throwing more money at the problem hoping it will stick this time.  I guess we'll see, but regardless, I'm sure the Trump admin's help can't hurt the situation.



ut2k4master said:


> the quote isnt by einstein anyway...


 Um, I was referring to Albert Einstein, the theoretical physicist.  Not sure what Einstein you are thinking of.



notimp said:


> Good on you for looking up the reference.


  I always knew the reference.  It was you that didn't know mine.  Sometimes, it takes looking past your nose to see the intentions of others.



notimp said:


> Essentially this boils down to you filling in an argument about "urgently needed change", with that Einstein quote.
> 
> So in the logic this become - "we need change, because look - Einstein said so".


 Wow, I have used a lot of different substances in my time to expand my mind, but I must be missing out on whatever you're on.  Please share your secret.
I think actual actions should be used to fix problems, not just spewing quotes at them.  I don't see a poor person and say, "A penny saved is a penny earned." hoping that will make them rich. 



notimp said:


> Thats cheap.


 Well, that's just who I am.  I always look for the best bargain.


----------



## ut2k4master (Sep 13, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Um, I was referring to Albert Einstein, the theoretical physicist. Not sure what Einstein you are thinking of.


the same one, genius


----------



## morvoran (Sep 13, 2019)

ut2k4master said:


> the same one, genius


*“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”*
A favorite of politicians (and pretty much everybody else), this quote has been wrongly attributed to Benjamin Franklin as well as—but there’s no evidence either of them said it.
Source: here
Sounds like we both might be correct.  Lack of evidence is not lack of circumstance.  He may have said it in passing to somebody which is why it's attributed to him.  This article only claims that it can't be proven or dis-proven that he said it.   The rest of the internet seems to believe that he did.


----------



## Seliph (Sep 13, 2019)

Einstein's "existence" is a hoax propagated by our communist government to make people feel better about failing Math class.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Sep 13, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Now, I know that a lot of homelessness is due to mental illness and drug use, but these people still need better help than just giving them money and temporary shelter to help them off the streets.



If "better help" does not include shelter and cover for basic survival expenses, then it's as good as nothing. Telling someone who sleeps on cardboard under a dirty rag to work hard and get a job is an absolute joke, and not a very good one at that, when they most likely:

Cannot afford basic personal hygiene (e.g. showering, shaving) to look remotely presentable and therefore employable
Do not have the means to search for employment and make contact (nowadays almost exclusively involves a laptop and/or phone with internet access)
Have not had quality sleep in forever
Are in poor physical health which negates their ability to work
Are so damaged by their living conditions that they have either been made to believe that the pursuit of anything resembling a good life is not worth it/nigh impossible, or that they have done something to deserve the circumstances they find themselves in
To deny these factors is to justify greed.

Yet another thread to the effect of "bla bla democrats stink and make the world worse [source?], damn leftists", even where the general sentiment conveyed is otherwise pure.

BTW, the USA does not have a leftist party. The Democrats are slightly left of centre at best.

Homelessness is one of those issues that I think just about everyone, regardless of political leaning, can acknowledge and sympathise with. Whatever legislative changes are underway, I can only hope they benefit those who need it the most.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> Seems strange to be homeless and then move to the single most expensive state in the nation. It would make more sense to move to a less in-demand state like Mississippi that hands out welfare like candy at a parade, and the weather is still nice.


Well, there are homeless people in every state.  It's just a matter of proximity and convenience.  It's mostly homeless people from the Western half of the country that wind up in California.  Most of the homeless from the Eastern half end up in Florida.



Subtle Demise said:


> But what is the solution? Giving millions of people $100k+ homes is not feasible or sustainable. Maybe pay security deposit and first month's rent at an apartment or other rental home, but that only helps for the first month, and if they can't get a job by then, yep back out on the street.


Funding and building small, permanent one bedroom houses or apartments is actually far cheaper than the cost to clean up after and care for each homeless person on the streets.  Utah does the former and they've decreased the number of homeless by 72 percent. 

Also, there are 1.5 million empty houses in the US (not even counting empty apartments), and only a bit over 550,000 homeless.  The solution is obvious, it's just a question of whether we value capitalist gain over human lives.



Subtle Demise said:


> Also it's not like you can force businesses to hire people they don't find desirable. There are a lot of people who aren't even qualified to be a janitor at McDonald's. The type of people who have 30 jobs over the course of a year, and quit them all the first time something goes wrong or they have a disagreement with their boss or coworkers.


True, there are a lot of homeless people with mental illness or other types of disabilities which would prevent stable employment.  We need to start funding mental healthcare facilities in this country again, with a focus on rehabilitation and independence training/education.  Not only for our homeless, but because there is a separate mental health crisis in this country happening right now as well.



morvoran said:


> I agree that this may appear to be convenient timing for this situation, but unless you can prove that this is just pandering by Trump, you can't say it is a bad proposition.


I'm not saying it's a bad proposition, I'm saying it's no proposition at all lol.  It's like if MLK Jr had said, "I have a dream..." and left it at that.



morvoran said:


> If the government is the ones who need to fund the solution, in other words, you are saying the citizens must pay for the solution as the money will come out of taxes, not the politician's pockets. I'm not saying I have the best solution, but I feel this problem should be fixed with charity to provide housing/shelters


Charity comes just as much from average citizens as taxes do.  And as I pointed out above: leaving the homeless on the streets puts more of a burden on taxpayers than simply providing them a decent living inside studio apartments.  If we're gonna re-direct money from military projects to build a wall in the middle of the desert which will never be completed, surely we could instead re-direct some of that money to solving the homeless crisis.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 13, 2019)

So is there an actual plan, or is the suggestion to just cut funding and put them in concentration camps? Cutting corners on housing to build more at a faster pace isn't a solution, just a recipe for disaster.

The UBI would be ideal here.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 13, 2019)

Lucifer666 said:


> The Democrats are slightly left of centre at best.


 Yeah, ok, I don't know what it's like in the Mary Poppin's world you live in, but it, obviously, doesn't have US tv news channels or Youtube. If you watch a portion of the democrat debate from yesterday, your mind will be overwhelmed with leftist chatter and socialism overload.



Lucifer666 said:


> If "better help" does not include shelter and cover for basic survival expenses, then it's as good as nothing.


 Just to repeat what I already said, giving someone temporary shelter or money will not help the underlying cause of their situation.  Sure, it's a first step, but they need more than those two things to improve themselves, such as structure in their life to help them build.



Xzi said:


> I'm saying it's no proposition at all lol


  Let me put it in terms you can understand, "They are going to build internment camps and lock the homeless up", except they won't be internment camps nor will they be locked up.



Xzi said:


> It's like if MLK Jr had said, "I have a dream..." and left it at that.


It seems that the left of today did stop listening after that part.  They might have skipped over the rest of it and caught something about judging people.



Xzi said:


> Charity comes just as much from average citizens as taxes do.


 Yeah, but charity is not a forced form of payment.  Also, private charities, while a lot of money is wasted by them, are more likely to do a better job for the communities, compared to government ran options, as they don't suffer from as much government bureaucracy.



osaka35 said:


> The UBI would be ideal here.


The problem with UBI is that it won't help anybody.  The drug users will buy more drugs, the homeless will buy more booze, etc.  These people are not living on the streets because they were good at money management.  Why look for a job or place to live when I get free money to do what I please?  I'll look for a home next month...yeah right, suckers!!   UBI has been tried many times, and everytime has failed to do as it was intended to.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Let me put it in terms you can understand, "They are going to build internment camps and lock the homeless up", except they won't be internment camps nor will they be locked up.


First, there was no mention of this in the article you linked.  Second, it solves nothing in the long term.  What you're suggesting is basically the same as building more/larger homeless shelters.



morvoran said:


> It seems that the left of today did stop listening after that part. They might have skipped over the rest of it and caught something about judging people.


I certainly do judge the "white moderate" as harshly as MLK Jr did, I'll grant you that.



morvoran said:


> Yeah, but charity is not a forced form of payment. Also, private charities, while a lot of money is wasted by them, are more likely to do a better job for the communities, compared to government ran options, as they don't suffer from as much government bureaucracy.


The government has guaranteed annual income in the form of taxes, and it's the government that's meant to be taking care of its own citizens.  If relying on charity hasn't solved the problem yet, it isn't going to in the future, either.  All the federal government has to do is provide funding to individual state governments for the express purpose of building communities with multiple rent-free studio apartment complexes.  With permanent addresses, those capable of working can start seeking employment again.

It's as simple as repealing Trump's corporate tax cuts to fund it.  Not a single worker would have to see their taxes go up.


morvoran said:


> The problem with UBI is that it won't help anybody. The drug users will buy more drugs, the homeless will buy more booze, etc. These people are not living on the streets because they were good at money management.


I agree with this to some extent.  UBI is more of a solution to the problem of automation rather than the homeless crisis.  To fix homelessness, you give people homes.  The government used to do just that during the New Deal era.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Yeah, ok, I don't know what it's like in the Mary Poppin's world you live in, but it, obviously, doesn't have US tv news channels or Youtube. If you watch a portion of the democrat debate from yesterday, your mind will be overwhelmed with leftist chatter and socialism overload.



Is "Mary Poppins World" what you call the United Kingdom? Or perhaps you didn't even bother to look at the country flag under my thumbnail before making that comment? I live in the UK, and access to US tv news channels or YouTube is exactly why I say that the Democrats are hardly left of centre at best.

A lot of the issues that the USA faces as a 'developed country', with the largest economy in the world no less, are literally issues that pretty much every other developed country has figured out. Just this year a mum lost her son because his insulin costs $1,300 a MONTH. There are countless more stories like this in recent times. That's more than I pay for rent and all bills for my entire flat, in one of the biggest cities in the world. The USA is a country that has been beaten and battered by a combination of two things: a largely ignorant, 'closed-off-from-the-world' populace, and the late stage of capitalism. With the latter we see corporate greed en masse: enormous income inequality and a shift in perception of tax money from a personal sacrifice for the welfare of your own functioning society to the illusion that they are the reason you can't afford anything, when the reason, of course, is a hell of a lot more expenses to pay for yourself. THIS is also what's at the heart of the homelessness crisis.

The result is hundreds of millions of people being conditioned to believe that every four years, they have quite a say about who the next leader should be, when the reality is it's just picking between the shitty person and the slightly less shitty person to become President.


----------



## PityOnU (Sep 14, 2019)

Lucifer666 said:


> Is "Mary Poppins World" what you call the United Kingdom? Or perhaps you didn't even bother to look at the country flag under my thumbnail before making that comment? I live in the UK, and access to US tv news channels or YouTube is exactly why I say that the Democrats are hardly left of centre at best.
> 
> A lot of the issues that the USA faces as a 'developed country', with the largest economy in the world no less, are literally issues that pretty much every other developed country has figured out. Just this year a mum lost her son because his insulin costs $1,300 a MONTH. There are countless more stories like this in recent times. That's more than I pay for rent and all bills for my entire flat, in one of the biggest cities in the world. The USA is a country that has been beaten and battered by a combination of two things: a largely ignorant, 'closed-off-from-the-world' populace, and the late stage of capitalism. With the latter we see corporate greed en masse: enormous income inequality and a shift in perception of tax money from a personal sacrifice for the welfare of your own functioning society to the illusion that they are the reason you can't afford anything, when the reason, of course, is a hell of a lot more expenses to pay for yourself. THIS is also what's at the heart of the homelessness crisis.
> 
> The result is hundreds of millions of people being conditioned to believe that every four years, they have quite a say about who the next leader should be, when the reality is it's just picking between the shitty person and the slightly less shitty person to become President.



I am an American, living in the Bay Area, and I approve this message.

Big changes need to happen in this country in the very near future, or things are going to go from bad to worse. The main issues being healthcare and education.

How best to solve these issues, I do not know. But I do know that it will take a fundamental change in how this country views itself and the systems we have. Will not be easy.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The problem with UBI is that it won't help anybody.  The drug users will buy more drugs, the homeless will buy more booze, etc.  These people are not living on the streets because they were good at money management.  Why look for a job or place to live when I get free money to do what I please?  I'll look for a home next month...yeah right, suckers!!   UBI has been tried many times, and everytime has failed to do as it was intended to.





Xzi said:


> I agree with this to some extent.  UBI is more of a solution to the problem of automation rather than the homeless crisis.  To fix homelessness, you give people homes.  The government used to do just that during the New Deal era.



This is one of those "we're not 100% sure of all the positives or negatives" situations. All the research I could find on long term implementations would seem to indicate alleviating financial burdens creates an environment and culture where greater risk can happen (leading to more startup business creation, taking that dream job you've always wanted, investing, donating, etc). short-term efforts have been helpful, but since it couldn't be relied on to be sustained, it wasn't really helpful in bolstering economic growth.

As far as it only helping folks feed their vices, those who would just laze around and do nothing aren't actually normal. Studies have been done on this. People tend to want to be productive and make something of their lives. It's the hurdle of "there's no way forward" or "too many roadblocks to even try" which generally makes people wallow into doing nothing. Booze and drugs alleviate the pain when they feel they can't go anywhere in life. Removing those roadblocks, which UBI should help with the more fundamental one of basic necessities, would lead to less abuse of vices. Other roadblocks, mainly other basic human needs and rights, would mean the problem still exist...but UBI would go a long way in helping. Really, humans are weird. That's why we have to science to figure things out.

With the coming automation replacing many many jobs (from some lawyer and musician work to cook and truck-driver), we'll have to have some sort of system in place or else have massive issues in every area of life. UBI addresses all the issues automation brings up. But we need to figure out what issues UBI creates and create a system which can negate or accommodate issues.

UBI would ultimately remove a great deal of governmental red-tape and unnecessary management. Smaller government, less bloat, and more direct support of economic growth. Definitely the path forward, it's just a matter of figuring out the shape and form of it. A fun discussion to have.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> After years of Democrat leadership failing to come up with (or maybe even look for) any working solutions for the homeless issues in the state of California


Truthfully, they make more money from people being homeless--how? It's usually because these people have "issues" and the cost of dealing with those "issues" costs more than just letting them "be" or let them become "violent" "criminals" to make money from their labor.
Of course, sometimes, the individual can become "rehabilitated", though, not often.




morvoran said:


> I had people just give me money or offer a place to stay for the night, but this was only enabling my problems


Personally, I'd have given you the path to walk on your own, but you live in an area that doesn't have people like me--I'd have given you the truth of what will better you over what will fill you for a night.

This is life, I apologize you didn't know me when  could have helped you.

Regardless, I hope you do for others, now, what those would not do for you, from the kindness of your heart with the understanding of how hard life on Earth has become.





morvoran said:


> Both Los Angeles and San Francisco have struggled with efforts to build housing for the homeless



Too bad your "emperor" is building a wall, rather than building infrastructure and homes for Americans.

I don't really feel like nitpicking, but, seriously, I would have made America more forgiving for people down on their luck (which it is, ultimately--the _cards_ that have been drawn at birth can define everything; as well as the people in charge of the "table"), while simultaneously empowering those who could/would take charge to keep the momentum at a peak.....unlike your "emperor", who chooses to act like a seven-year-old entitled, mentally retarded child at every chance "his" asshole can open.
No offense for the people who take offense to the harsh words; I profusely apologize.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> First, there was no mention of this in the article you linked.


 Well, I'll give you this one.  I read several articles on a subject to make sure it isn't too biased for some readers *cough*you, xzi*cough* or too long to read.  I thought this was the one that mentioned some early brainstorming from the Trump admin.  Ooops.



Xzi said:


> The government has guaranteed annual income in the form of taxes, and it's the government that's meant to be taking care of its own citizens.


 In a way, government is supposed to offer a "safety net" for those whom have fallen on hard times, but it's main responsibility is to protect us from dangers inside and out.  The US government was never meant to coddle its people to keep them poor. 



Xzi said:


> If relying on charity hasn't solved the problem yet, it isn't going to in the future, either.


  Charities would work if the government didn't tax everyone so excessively.  Maybe, if we were allowed to keep our money to use on the services we deem necessary, more people would donate.  Plus, like I mentioned before, too much bureaucracy hinders people from starting charities or making them as helpful.



Xzi said:


> It's as simple as repealing Trump's corporate tax cuts to fund it.


  Wrong, this may help, but that is not an end-all solution.  Chances are that the most it will do is chase more corporations away from the US and cause more unemployment, thus making more homeless.  



Lucifer666 said:


> erhaps you didn't even bother to look at the country flag under my thumbnail before making that comment?


 Yes, I saw it.  I thought you were kidding, so I replied back with a "bad?" joke.



osaka35 said:


> This is one of those "we're not 100% sure of all the positives or negatives" situations. All the research I could find on long term implementations would seem to indicate alleviating financial burdens creates an environment and culture where greater risk can happen (leading to more startup business creation, taking that dream job you've always wanted, investing, donating, etc). short-term efforts have been helpful, but since it couldn't be relied on to be sustained, it wasn't really helpful in bolstering economic growth.


I need to make a clarification to my previous reply.  Where I said UBI won't help anybody, I should have said it may help few people.  The problem with giving people "free stuff" is that when we receive something without earning it, we don't value those things as much.  Take section 8 housing, I have seen multiple occasions where the tenants absolutely destroyed the house.  Most likely because they didn't have to pay or pay much for it.  Granted, some people are homeless for making a bad decision and may need a hand up, but hand outs are more likely to hinder the person's recovery than help.
You have valid points, but unfortunately, UBI is not the best solution.



H1B1Esquire said:


> Too bad your "emperor" is building a wall, rather than building infrastructure and homes for Americans.


 So let's say your house was on fire on one side.  Would you start to rebuild on the other side before putting the fire out to keep it from destroying more of your home?  I hope not.  
We have to slow the destruction caused by our loose borders and immigration laws before we can really start to fix the other internal issues.  The food line never ends when more mouths to feed keep lining up at the end.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> So let's say your house was on fire on one side. Would you start to rebuild on the other side


That analogy was bad; I want to show you alternative views, but I know you won't see it from the side I want to show you.

To directly answer your question in a hypothetical scenario, I would have paid for home insurance, so I would not mind.
I would make sure my neighbors were informed (this is hypothetical), called the appropriate bodies, and slowed the fire to the best of my ability.

As for "immigration", I have a plan, just like I have a counter to those who intentionally "mislead people"--if you mislead those who have "trust" in you, *you lied*, regardless of which wording you prefer.

Although, just like your "emperor", my plan is a "secret".
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&biw=984&bih=626&tbm=vid&ei=BjV8Xe2oBu7L5gLniZbwDg&q=donald+trump+it's+a+secret+plan&oq=donald+trump+it's+a+secret+plan&gs_l=psy-ab.3...26353.30992.0.31328.8.8.0.0.0.0.182.1369.0j8.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.6.1046...33i299k1j33i160k1.0.r6-WwmYfG68


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> In a way, government is supposed to offer a "safety net" for those whom have fallen on hard times, but it's main responsibility is to protect us from dangers inside and out. The US government was never meant to coddle its people to keep them poor.


Homelessness is what keeps people poor.  You need a permanent mailing address to apply for nearly any job.



morvoran said:


> Charities would work if the government didn't tax everyone so excessively. Maybe, if we were allowed to keep our money to use on the services we deem necessary, more people would donate.


This doesn't make any sense.  Charitable organizations are already tax exempt, and in most cases, donations to charity are tax deductible.  Also, tax rates are about as low as they've ever been right now, and it hasn't improved the homeless situation at all.



morvoran said:


> Wrong, this may help, but that is not an end-all solution. Chances are that the most it will do is chase more corporations away from the US and cause more unemployment, thus making more homeless.


The vast majority of jobs in the US fall under the service industry, they can't be outsourced.  Additionally, at the customer-facing level, most businesses already run on skeleton crews to maximize profit.  The threats of corporations "leaving" the US have always been hollow, as they can't afford to let another business fill that gap.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I need to make a clarification to my previous reply.  Where I said UBI won't help anybody, I should have said it may help few people.  The problem with giving people "free stuff" is that when we receive something without earning it, we don't value those things as much.  Take section 8 housing, I have seen multiple occasions where the tenants absolutely destroyed the house.  Most likely because they didn't have to pay or pay much for it.  Granted, some people are homeless for making a bad decision and may need a hand up, but hand outs are more likely to hinder the person's recovery than help.
> You have valid points, but unfortunately, UBI is not the best solution.



That's an assumption that isn't really seen when it's researched properly. I've seen loads of people pay for an over-priced apartment and completely destroy the apartment. Reasons can be varied and vast. Though there is a reason for what you're observing. When we look at affordable housing and other related programs, we find while it keeps people from being homeless, it doesn't really set them up for success.

To quickly cover a complex topic: under our current system, if you work harder to better your condition, which most everyone will want to do naturally as humans, your situation and income actually decline. To get affordable housing or any other assistance, your income generally has to be under a certain amount. And even then, it's pretty difficult to qualify and jump through all the hoops. Making over that amount and you get nothing. If you start making just over that amount, you are not making enough to get the same kind of (or any) place, or getting the same kind of quality of life. So why get a job and work hard at a part-time job when it's just going to make your life worse? Most people just get trapped and find it impossible to get out of the situation.

UBI would remove this problem, partly or completely, as any increase in work would add to your benefits. In other words, our current system traps people in a downward cycle, which can lead to depression, anxiety, apathy, etc. I mean, why try when it's just going to make life worse? Remove that hurdle and you're going to find most people will try harder to make money, contribute more, and have better outlook in life. This is what the research indicates. So it's more about understanding the whole picture rather than just seeing governmental support leading to apathy and assume any governmental support would have the same result. We Just need a better system. UBI may be it.


----------



## Mama Looigi (Sep 14, 2019)

Homeless people in Cali are just ridiculous. When I say ridiculous I mean try going to los angeles. Walk around for a minute and you'll see several hundred homeless people in some areas. It's a big problem


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 14, 2019)

@morvoran

Mai du, you wouldn't be "in this situation" if you had "diplomacy"skills--you need to understand the "wording" is more than "grammar" because it relates to what others "interpret".

You can't blame it on anything other than, "You opened it for yourself to be attacked"--which is why I word things in a certain way, pertaining to grammar, because, there are members of GBAtemp who will view it as such--you need to have a world-view that is inclusive to all peoples.

You also need to understand, we are people, all of us. We interact in real-time; account for that.

Peccadilloes are one thing, but you shouldn't make a "big thing" (like, replying to an answer you left), only for you to "edit" your feelings, which a mod may deem "offensive", while you edit  your post.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 14, 2019)

"The administration didn’t make clear what types of action it is considering. Nor is it clear what type of measures the administration legally can take." Sounds just like everything else, big plans with no action. Like his amazing health care plan that to this day still has zero details. Yet I'm supposed to believe stable genius has some magic trick up his sleeve for the Cali homeless problem? And what about the homeless problem in the rest of the US?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2019)

Mr. Looigi said:


> Homeless people in Cali are just ridiculous. When I say ridiculous I mean try going to los angeles. Walk around for a minute and you'll see several hundred homeless people in some areas. It's a big problem


As I pointed out earlier in the thread, most homeless people in California aren't from California.  The homeless rate in Florida is also very high.  It's because it's warm enough to sleep outside year round in these states.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 14, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> That analogy was bad; I want to show you alternative views, but I know you won't see it from the side I want to show you.


 They way you think and talk, it's almost like you could be my lost twin brother, except I got all the good genetic material, and you got the rest.

Here's what a family photo would look like if we ever met. I'm the one on the right:


Spoiler
















Xzi said:


> Homelessness is what keeps people poor. You need a permanent mailing address to apply for nearly any job.


 SMH, no, no, no..... come on, guy!  The can get mailing addresses at shelters that offer mail boxes like that of an apartment complex.  Try again.



Xzi said:


> This doesn't make any sense. Charitable organizations are already tax exempt, and in most cases, donations to charity are tax deductible. Also, tax rates are about as low as they've ever been right now, and it hasn't improved the homeless situation at all.


  Ok, so I want to give money to charity, but I had to give most of my disposable income to taxes.  Now I can't donate.



Xzi said:


> The vast majority of jobs in the US fall under the service industry, they can't be outsourced.


  Other than by illegal aliens, you mean?  Service jobs like customer service are going overseas, fast food restaurants are replacing humans with robots, etc.   I have robots that vacuum my floors and massage my neck (not the same robots, just to clarify).  I could go buy a robot that cuts my grass, so service jobs are not safe at all.



H1B1Esquire said:


> @morvoran
> 
> Mai du, you wouldn't be "in this situation" if you had "diplomacy"skills--you need to understand the "wording" is more than "grammar" because it relates to what others "interpret".
> 
> You can't blame it on anything other than, "You opened it for yourself to be attacked"--which is why I word things in a certain way, pertaining to grammar, because, there are members of GBAtemp who will view it as such--you need to have a world-view that is inclusive to all peoples.


  Ok, "victim blame" much?  I share my opinion, people reply with hate, it's my fault... hmm, ok.  Maybe, when somebody bashes me, I should just say "thank you, sir. May I have another?"



Xzi said:


> As I pointed out earlier in the thread, most homeless people in California aren't from California.  The homeless rate in Florida is also very high.  It's because it's warm enough to sleep outside year round in these states.


Don't forget about all the free stuff they get in those states, too.  That attracts them, also.



osaka35 said:


> To quickly cover a complex topic: under our current system, if you work harder to better your condition, which most everyone will want to do naturally as humans, your situation and income actually decline. To get affordable housing or any other assistance, your income generally has to be under a certain amount. And even then, it's pretty difficult to qualify and jump through all the hoops. Making over that amount and you get nothing. If you start making just over that amount, you are not making enough to get the same kind of (or any) place, or getting the same kind of quality of life. So why get a job and work hard at a part-time job when it's just going to make your life worse? Most people just get trapped and find it impossible to get out of the situation.


  This is a problem with a certain party's policy on taxing the rich at a higher rate than other people when it should be a flat tax for all.  Why try to achieve in life when you're just going to be cut down when you reach the top?



osaka35 said:


> UBI would remove this problem, partly or completely, as any increase in work would add to your benefits.


  Just a personal, theoretical question for you and without giving any personal details, what would you do if the government gave you $1000, and you knew you would get another $1000 next month.  Try to be truthful.  You don't have to answer that here, but at least think about it.
Just guessing, you would either make a credit card/house payment, buy yourself or family member a gift, and/or go out to eat at a nice place.  How much of that would you save?  If your credit card bill was for $900 at a high interest rate, would you pay it off or just the minimum?  A lot of people end up poor because they can't manage money or have fallen into credit debt hell.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> it's warm enough to sleep outside year round in these states.



A literal solution to a literal problem that actual animals face--they migrate. 

I have a solution for everything, aside from the trust we hold "dear to "us".

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



morvoran said:


> except I got all the good genetic material, and you got the rest.



Buddy, you have no clue. 
You literally and factually have no idea and I did this on purpose. 

I could tell you the saddest story on Earth, but I realize Hollywood would either steal it, underpay me, or kill me for it.

I really can save every human from suffering, while helping every mammal at the same time--I'm not like 99.99999999999999999999% of people; I am on a different level that most human begins can never comprehend. Ever.

Think of me as "It", but instead of killing people and using fear, I use logic and compassion as a source of "food/sustenance".

Btw, I accounted for shallow human behavior--I make those panties wet......and I guess I give dudes boners....but I never really asked a  dude if I have him a boner.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> SMH, no, no, no..... come on, guy!  The can get mailing addresses at shelters that offer mail boxes like that of an apartment complex.  Try again.


*Permanent* mailing addresses.  Most businesses will not accept a PO Box or other temporary addresses, they'll just throw the application out.



morvoran said:


> Ok, so I want to give money to charity, but I had to give most of my disposable income to taxes.  Now I can't donate.


It's almost as if you didn't read a single sentence you quoted.  And all you're doing by suggesting that charity should pay to house the homeless is shifting the burden away from the people who could most easily afford it.  One of the richest people in this nation could afford to house them all and still be a billionaire.  You can't expect capitalists to just give away money like that, however.  A social safety net funded by taxation is a necessity.



morvoran said:


> Other than by illegal aliens, you mean?  Service jobs like customer service are going overseas, fast food restaurants are replacing humans with robots, etc.   I have robots that vacuum my floors and massage my neck (not the same robots, just to clarify).  I could go buy a robot that cuts my grass, so service jobs are not safe at all.


Eventually we will need a UBI paid for by taxing automation, otherwise the consumer economy crashes due to consumers losing all their buying power.  That's a different issue that needs to be addressed IN ADDITION to the homeless issue.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> May I have another?


You don't have to--there are alternatives:


You don't understand your role yet.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 14, 2019)

If all it took for you to get out of homelessness is some "tough love," then you were never really in much trouble to begin with.  What, were you living in a dumpster behind a gourmet restaurant?


----------



## morvoran (Sep 14, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> I am on a different level that most human begins can never comprehend. Ever.


  Well, can't argue with you on this fact. 



Xzi said:


> *Permanent* mailing addresses. Most businesses will not accept a PO Box or other temporary addresses, they'll just throw the application out.


  Just like apartment complexes, they don't have mailboxes at every door, so they use those mail slot doohickeys. 



Xzi said:


> You can't expect capitalists to just give away money like that, however. A social safety net funded by taxation is a necessity.


  I don't expect them to, but they do it anyways.  Look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, how much of their wealth did they donate?  They sure are not socialists.  
A safety net is necessary, true.  I said that in one of my previous replies, also.



Xzi said:


> Eventually we will need a UBI paid for by taxing automation, otherwise the consumer economy crashes due to consumers losing all their buying power. That's a different issue that needs to be addressed IN ADDITION to the homeless issue.


  I believe this also.  The only thing I can't figure out is why corporations are trying to destroy themselves by getting rid of potential consumers.  Who is going to buy their stocks, their goods, or their services?  Robots sure are not since they don't get paid (unless they become sentient and revolt against their creators).  Oh, maybe because people are demanding a higher wage than what the job is worth?


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The only thing I can't figure out is why corporations are trying to destroy themselves by getting rid of potential consumers.



You truly can not understand this; you haven't dined with both sides--even when you "agree" with the "right"; you cannot comprehend what all of "this", "is".

You do not/can't understand "how and what", when you haven't been at what the "top" and "bottom", feel.
It goes deeper than you're willing to dive in to.

Sexual jokes arise.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I don't expect them to, but they do it anyways.  Look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, how much of their wealth did they donate?  They sure are not socialists.


And it's still barely enough to fund the operation of soup kitchens.  Like I said, if charity could have solved the problem, it never would have been a problem to begin with.  Veterans are on the streets while corporations make record profits.  It's completely asinine.



morvoran said:


> I believe this also.  The only thing I can't figure out is why corporations are trying to destroy themselves by getting rid of potential consumers.  Who is going to buy their stocks, their goods, or their services?  Robots sure are not since they don't get paid (unless they become sentient and revolt against their creators).  Oh, maybe because people are demanding a higher wage than what the job is worth?


It has nothing to do with the demand for a living wage.  Automation will save corporations money even in parts of the country where minimum wage is at its lowest.  Machines don't need breaks or days off, you don't have to pay them ANY hourly wage, and they don't get sick or require healthcare coverage. That's why they're pushing for it.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 14, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> If all it took for you to get out of homelessness is some "tough love," then you were never really in much trouble to begin with. What, were you living in a dumpster behind a gourmet restaurant?


 Shoot, I wish I was fancy enough to have a dumpster to live in.   No, I lived in several places such as underpasses, parks, and sometimes stayed with old friends.  It wasn't until I realized that I was causing my own problems (with the help of a true friend that refused to coddle me) and found a little thing nobody seems to know much about today - "Personal Responsibility", that I was able to overcome my problems.  He let me stay in the basement as long as I helped out around the house, gave me a month to clean up my act and find work to pay rent or else I was back out in the cold.  If it wasn't for him caring about me in the right way, I wouldn't be where I am today.  Everybody else just gave me a few bucks to get rid of me like I was just any homeless person on the sidewalk.




H1B1Esquire said:


> You truly can not understand this; you haven't dined with both sides--even when you "agree" with the "right", you cannot comprehend what all of "this", "is".
> 
> You do not/can't understand "how and what", when you haven't been at the "top" and "bottom" feel.
> It goes deeper than you're willing to dive in to.
> ...



I don't know what it is, but I have this urge for "anus pounders" right now. Hmm.



Xzi said:


> And it's still barely enough to fund the operation of soup kitchens. Like I said, if charity could have solved the problem, it never would have been a problem to begin with. Veterans are on the streets while corporations make record profits. It's completely asinine.


 Ok, if you say so.  I guess you didn't catch the line I said earlier (not to you, I don't think) about how the food line never ends because people keep lining up at the end.  We need to fix our immigration issue before we can truly start fixing our poverty/homeless issues.  If we keep letting in people who won't work for themselves or sneak in with no intention of assimilating, and the democrats keep giving them priority over our own citizens, we will never put a dent in this problem.  



Xzi said:


> It has nothing to do with the demand for a living wage. Automation will save corporations money even in parts of the country where minimum wage is at its lowest. That's why they're pushing for it.


  Yeah, of course, corporations are made to make money.  The problem with increasing the minimum wage too fast is that these corporations just have to move quicker in their "plans".  

Here is an example of what raising the minimum wage can cause from 3 years ago. It is a reality today and only getting worse: 
* Ex-McDonald's CEO suggests replacing employees with robots amid protests *
Ed Rensi mentions bringing in robots as thousands of McDonald’s workers demand a union and $15 an hour minimum wage at the shareholders meeting. 
As thousands of low-wage workers plan to protest at McDonald’s annual shareholder meeting in Chicago on Thursday the company’s former US boss has warned them: if the minimum wage goes up, McDonald’s is likely to replace them with robots.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I have this urge for "anus pounders"



I fuck everything, but in a way so loving, the world begs for it. Seriously, I make the world better because I am the chosen.

I have literally been at the top and the lowest of the low; I feel what every single human cries out for...I even have a way planned that everyone gets what they want without giving up what they hold dear. 

The time isn't right...I understand what "this" actually is.
I really feel like you probably know me, in a way, and therefore, we know each other....-"ish"-ish.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 14, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> I fuck everything, but in a way so loving, the world begs for it.


Hey, just remember this song when you do that:


You might need to sign in with an adult's account as it may be restricted.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Ok, if you say so.  I guess you didn't catch the line I said earlier (not to you, I don't think) about how the food line never ends because people keep lining up at the end.  We need to fix our immigration issue before we can truly start fixing our poverty/homeless issues.  If we keep letting in people who won't work for themselves or sneak in with no intention of assimilating, and the democrats keep giving them priority over our own citizens, we will never put a dent in this problem.


Homelessness, automation, and immigration are three entirely separate issues.  Though I do agree we need a better system for legal immigration, I don't see the Trump administration as poised to solve any of these problems.  They've only helped to exacerbate them.



morvoran said:


> Yeah, of course, corporations are made to make money.  The problem with increasing the minimum wage too fast is that these corporations just have to move quicker in their "plans".


They can't possibly move any quicker on automation than they already are.  If the technology was ready and user-friendly enough in the 1980s, they would've automated in the 1980s.  It's still not quite ready now, though it's very close.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 14, 2019)

if he (trump) want's to fix homelessness maybe fix the programs (section 8, Social security) fix those would help the homelessness problem by a lot and not just in california but nation wide, for instance I'm on SSI myself but the wage earning rule of $60 a month before they throw you under the bus i admit some people are abusing SSI but those who need it cant make anything or they'll get penalized, yes you need to take it away eventually if too much is made but to have your check cut to a third just on 7.25/hr 20hr's a week (PERSONAL EXPERIANCE) i only made 230 or so bi weekly and well thank god i still lived at my parents who lowered my rent during the lowered period of my check I am not at home now I have a real landlord who doesn't give a shit,basicly i work (unless it's a 6 figure salery) i would be homeless by next month the system is broken


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You might need to sign in with an adult's account as it may be restricted.



The 1st amendment protects that, thankfully, of a D lover, lel.
Serously, just add "repeater" to youtube_____.com/ to skip that. YW.

I agree, and I agree with your sense of humor...which is why lost a few friends.

This is life.
One day, you'll understand everything, soon™
Alt+0153 for the non-coded.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> This is a problem with a certain party's policy on taxing the rich at a higher rate than other people when it should be a flat tax for all.  Why try to achieve in life when you're just going to be cut down when you reach the top?



...wut. I don't think you understand how tax brackets work. Or how graduated taxes work.



morvoran said:


> Just a personal, theoretical question for you and without giving any personal details, what would you do if the government gave you $1000, and you knew you would get another $1000 next month.  Try to be truthful.  You don't have to answer that here, but at least think about it.
> Just guessing, you would either make a credit card/house payment, buy yourself or family member a gift, and/or go out to eat at a nice place.  How much of that would you save?  If your credit card bill was for $900 at a high interest rate, would you pay it off or just the minimum?  A lot of people end up poor because they can't manage money or have fallen into credit debt hell.



The thing is, you WANT people to spend the money. You WANT people to invest into new enterprises. This is how you grow an economy. You DON'T want people to just put it into a savings account and spend no money. We want people to spend that money to grow the economy. That's why "trickle-down economics" doesn't work. The rich just put it away and pull it out of the economy. Once you become rich enough you could never actually spend all of it, getting more money hardly helps the economy. Give the money to the middle class and the poor, they actually spend it and grow the economy. UBI would help bolster a lot of new businesses and ventures.


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 14, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> The thing is, you WANT people to spend the money. You WANT people to invest into new enterprises. This is how you grow an economy. You DON'T want people to just put it into a savings account and spend no money. We want people to spend that money to grow the economy.



And this is the key part about how the economy works which is stopped by some people. The republican trickle-down economics can be a viable model if it is done right. the problem is, it puts liability on the top of the company to trickle down their profits to the lower part, as its the lower part that invest back into the economy. The problem of why I think there is a schism between people who take the tax brackets offensively and don't is that in an ideal situation, we want people who spend. Yeah its okay to get rich, but by not spending the money if you're up there and storing it into an account(especially if its hidden/not being taxed) just puts the economy in a worse position than it is. It's arguably as bad as outsourcing labor as all it does is funnel money to places that wont get spent back into the economy.


to take an old example to a modern front. the internet infrastructure money that was given to ISPs to make internet lines faster and better. If they actually spent that money and upgraded lines, more people would have had jobs(installing the new lines), and these workers would have had extra income to spend on other goods. Instead ISPs pocketed the money which more or less wont see the light of day in the economy.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 14, 2019)

GBADWB said:


> just puts the economy in a worse position than it is.




I FUCKING HATE the song, the beat makers, the performers, and the technology behind it, but the hidden truth is one of _____. Can you dissect the "higher" meaning of the future? Can you see what "they" have created? Do you see why?

In any event, the future only cares for itself, while the past cares for everyone it couldn't understand--the present isn't a gift--it's an opportunity in-between.

You'd be mildly-surprised by my role in this "life"...and why I'm pretty anger-y why it was "given" to me.




GBADWB said:


> If they actually spent that money and upgraded lines, more people would have had jobs


You'd be surprised by this, as well...or maybe not, but those jobs, as well as training, are out there, waiting for people, but there are "reasons" why all of this isn't "advertised".

The world is so fucked beyond comprehension for ridiculous "purposes" and ridiculous "reasons"; you're meant to not see it and diligently "live your life", although, "*that*" is coming to an End.

I dislike being so secretive a person, but there are *ramifications* to the truth.
That, and people don't believe you with as many facts as gravity, yet they believe a fraudster to the point of physical violence, so I have an April fool's joke to myself.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I don't see the Trump administration as poised to solve any of these problems. They've only helped to exacerbate them


 That's been the whole problem with your side, you don't, and refuse to, see what the Trump administration IS doing to solve these issues, but yet, you somehow know they exacerbate them, hmm.



chrisrlink said:


> if he (trump) want's to fix homelessness maybe fix the programs (section 8, Social security) fix those would help the homelessness problem by a lot and not just in california but nation wide, for instance I'm on SSI myself but the wage earning rule of $60 a month before they throw you under the bus i admit some people are abusing SSI but those who need it cant make anything or they'll get penalized, yes you need to take it away eventually if too much is made but to have your check cut to a third just on 7.25/hr 20hr's a week (PERSONAL EXPERIANCE) i only made 230 or so bi weekly and well thank god i still lived at my parents who lowered my rent during the lowered period of my check I am not at home now I have a real landlord who doesn't give a shit,basicly i work (unless it's a 6 figure salery) i would be homeless by next month the system is broken



I completely agree these systems need reworked.  They were intended as safety nets for the few who are unable to work or just need some temporary help.  Instead, they have been abused by too many able bodied people which puts a damper on their real purpose of helping the ones that really do need it.



osaka35 said:


> ..wut. I don't think you understand how tax brackets work. Or how graduated taxes work.


 Uh, yeah, I know.  I took 2 semesters of tax accounting, so I'm an expert now.



osaka35 said:


> The thing is, you WANT people to spend the money. You WANT people to invest into new enterprises. This is how you grow an economy. You DON'T want people to just put it into a savings account and spend no money. We want people to spend that money to grow the economy.


  I thought this thread was about the homeless, not the economy.  I had to check the thread title to make sure.

This is the problem with threads going off topic as we run way off track.  Geez, there's never a mod around when you need one.


(  yes, I'm kidding.  We are all having a good time here. I hope.)

The fact that spending does improve the economy isn't the main focus of UBI.  It's too keep people out of poverty by giving them a "living salary" in other terms.  It is hard to know without giving everybody a UBI, oh wait a minute, Obama did something similar in 2008 with the tax rebate stimulus.  How did that turn out for the economy?

Did the 2008 Tax Rebates Stimulate Spending?
Because of the low *spending* propensity, the *rebates* in *2008* provided low "bang for the buck" as economic stimulus. Putting cash into the hands of the consumers who use it to save or pay off debt boosts their well-being, but it does not necessarily make them *spend*.

Hmm, just like the test runs for UBI, it failed horribly as will Yang's plan(s) to help the economy and the poor.

It failed in Finland - Finland would have been forced to raise their income tax by nearly 30% to keep such a program alive. And when the personal income tax rate in Finland already maxes out at more than 50%, another increase would likely prove unsustainable. (Just as our tax rates will be with medicare for all and UBI together)

In Canada, Ontario's government decided to launch a UBI experiment in July of last year. But a few months ago, they decided to end the experiment — two years ahead of schedule. Upon the conclusion of the trial, a Canadian official called the experiment "quite expensive" and said "it was certainly not going to be sustainable."

Even here in the United States, a form of universal basic income has already been tested. From 1968 to 1980, the federal government ran a "negative income tax" experiment — meaning that a minimum income is guaranteed, but phased out as earnings increase. The goal was to incentivize work, but the policy ended up encouraging just the opposite.

Source - here
-----------------------------------

Just because a plan looks good on paper, does not mean it will work when applied to the real world.



H1B1Esquire said:


> I dislike being so secretive a person, but there are *ramifications* to the truth.
> That, and people don't believe you with as many facts as gravity, yet they believe a fraudster to the point of physical violence, so I have an April fool's joke to myself.


  And you talk about how the way I respond to people needs work??????  I really want to like you (I think I secretly might already), but I just can't see through your secretive facade.  I can't tell if you're with me or just on my side.  I guess time will tell in time.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> ( yes, I'm kidding. We are all having a good time here. I hope.)



Half-a-joke can be a whole truth.



morvoran said:


> but it does not necessarily make them *spend*.


Cash4clunkers 
I hated that name so very much.




morvoran said:


> yet, you somehow know they exacerbate them


It's a form of panderonizing (pandering/patronizing) to those they feel are in the target sight.
It's nearly malicious, but the other side is doing it to balance the problem at-hand, or so they believe.



morvoran said:


> I thought this thread was about the homeless, not the economy. I had to check the thread title to make sure.



Hahaha and a hadry-har, that's life. We want to stay on-topic, but there are so many curve-balls and split-second decisions that you sometimes swing for the foul ball.



morvoran said:


> This is the problem with threads going off topic as we run way off track.



You've got to have the power, my dude.




morvoran said:


> it does not necessarily make them *spend*.


LOL, because the problem was one of many in the US at that time--being responsible and paying your bills.
If anything, most people I knew were putting the money in a savings account for their child, seeing as most of the people who voted for Obama, were in their early years of adulthood, with children.
The biggest winners of that were alternative people who chose to live a D.I.N.K life.


----------



## Captain_N (Sep 14, 2019)

watch trump clean up that shit to. The liberal agenda does not support cleaning it up. they want the homeless to rely on the government, while the working class pays for it. We dont have those liberal dumps here in Florida.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> That's been the whole problem with your side, you don't, and refuse to, see what the Trump administration IS doing to solve these issues, but yet, you somehow know they exacerbate them, hmm.


Paying lip service to homelessness accomplishes nothing, and it's ridiculous to treat an issue that affects all 50 states as a political football.  On immigration, criminalizing the process of seeking asylum has undeniably made things worse, as has allowing ICE detention facilities full of minors to go unsupervised.  Automation is an inevitability, so I can't say Trump has done anything to make that problem worse, but nor do I expect him to tax automated production in the manner that will be necessary.


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Did the 2008 Tax Rebates Stimulate Spending?
> Because of the low *spending* propensity, the *rebates* in *2008* provided low "bang for the buck" as economic stimulus. Putting cash into the hands of the consumers who use it to save or pay off debt boosts their well-being, but it does not necessarily make them *spend*.
> 
> Hmm, just like the test runs for UBI, it failed horribly as will Yang's plan(s) to help the economy and the poor.
> ...


I'm pretty sure I already explained what you just said (just without examples), why it failed, and what things UBI needs to be in order to avoid the short-term negatives you say. Canada and Finland, for example, were planned short-term experiments. They also didn't pay that much or do away with/replace any other current government social programs. When you know money you're getting is something you're only getting for 6 months to a year or two, know what you do? You don't take risk and you don't change your spending habits. You focus on debt, generally. These are to be taken as things to avoid with UBI and to try and create a system which works.

As a side note, be on the lookout for politicians who throw numbers around for health-care-for-all. The big scary numbers assume our current system AND healthcare-for-all will operate at the same time. Which is obviously not how it's going to work. Once you remove the bloat and several layers of unnecessary middle-men (which is why lobbyist don't like health-care-for-all), you wind up with a cheaper system. Should have better coverage and less hassle. And what you would pay in fees to an insurance company, you'll just pay for in taxes. But the taxes taken out will be far less than what you'd pay the insurance company. So while on paper it looks like "higher taxes", it's really just "lower insurance cost" in a different form. Compare dollar to dollar and we all come out ahead.

And this is the same thing for the tax rebate as short-term UBI experiments. When people are hurting, they tend to save or pay off debt. These things do not stimulate the economy. Just re-read what I said to begin with. This is one of the hurdles of UBI. It requires dedication and long-term commitment.

For a long-term look at things, take a look at Alaska. They give their citizens a certain amount of cash every year just for living there. It's not UBI, but it's also another piece of the puzzle to look at and figure out how it works.

UBI might help with the issue of homelessness I think is how we got on this track. So still relevant


----------



## morvoran (Sep 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Paying lip service to homelessness accomplishes nothing, and it's ridiculous to treat an issue that affects all 50 states as a political football. On immigration, criminalizing the process of seeking asylum has undeniably made things worse, as has allowing ICE detention facilities full of minors to go unsupervised.


  This is why we can't be friends.   I ask you where you're going, and you tell me where you've been.  I ask you where you've been, and you tell me where you're going. 

When you talk about lip service and treating issues like political footballs, I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.  In this case, you must be agreeing with me as the dems have been tossing this issue back and forth while republicans actually make touchdowns and the issue goes away (of course, I don't know what the repubs do with the homeless, but they are out of sight and out of mind). 

With the ICE detention centers, the dems are like firefighters who start house fires then blame somebody else for the fire while they watch the house burn down.  Repubs had been begging the dems for months to send support to the border while the dems were claiming there was no issue.  Then when the issue blows up, its the Repubs and CBP's fault?  AOC refused to allow funding for beds and supplies to go to the ICE centers, then screams that the illegals have to sleep on the ground while drinking from toilets. 

Oh, but this is Trump's fault... hmm, GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!  (if you hadn't noticed, that's my catchphrase here)

I don't know if your tv picks up channels from another dimension where the dems rule the world and everyday they eat cake and dance with unicorns while everybody punches nazis, but that is not this world we live in now.




osaka35 said:


> Canada and Finland, for example, were planned short-term experiments. They also didn't pay that much or do away with/replace any other current government social programs.


  What programs should they have cut?  Their immigration program or the universal healthcare?  The main point that you may be missing is that even in a short term plan, they had to stop them before the set period of time was up because they were too expensive, and the Finland test could have damaged their economy.  Canada had to stop its test after the first year, with a set amount of money going into the program, which wasn't affected by other programs.

Alaska has a low population for its size and is mostly rural where people live very simple lives.  I'm sure that Alaska is a very bad example to use since it does not even come close to the same criteria that UBI faces in all 50 states.


----------



## J-Machine (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> In Canada, Ontario's government decided to launch a UBI experiment in July of last year. But a few months ago, they decided to end the experiment — two years ahead of schedule. Upon the conclusion of the trial, a Canadian official called the experiment "quite expensive" and said "it was certainly not going to be sustainable."



I know you are trolling us but as an actual canadian allow me to give you the truth on this point you brought up: The basic income project was actually helping many struggling families find a way out from their poverty. some bought a much needed newer vehicle, some went back to school, some were able to afford their heating bills in the winter buy making upgrades to their homes.

It failed only because our new government (we voted in the conservative party, a right leaning party) decided it was wasteful spending without looking at the mountain of data collected that showed it was saving tax payers money.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> When you talk about lip service and treating issues like political footballs, I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.  In this case, you must be agreeing with me as the dems have been tossing this issue back and forth while republicans actually make touchdowns and the issue goes away (of course, I don't know what the repubs do with the homeless, but they are out of sight and out of mind).


This very thread is on the topic of lip service.  The article you posted states that pretty clearly.  Trump doesn't solve anything simply by saying he's going to solve it, and you never bother following up to hold him accountable for his broken promises.  Like so many other Republican voters, you've got the memory and attention span of a goldfish.  Perhaps I'll bump this thread  in a year to remind you that the homeless problem remains unchanged and the administration still hasn't announced any specifics about their plan to fix it.



morvoran said:


> With the ICE detention centers, the dems are like firefighters who start house fires then blame somebody else for the fire while they watch the house burn down.  Repubs had been begging the dems for months to send support to the border while the dems were claiming there was no issue.


More problems exacerbated by the Trump administration.  They cut off aid to South American countries in the midst of economic and governmental crises, knowing full well the result would be a flood of immigration.  Then they called them all Mexicans in a further attempt to gaslight the nation, just like you're trying to gaslight this forum.



morvoran said:


> Then when the issue blows up, its the Repubs and CBP's fault?  AOC refused to allow funding for beds and supplies to go to the ICE centers, then screams that the illegals have to sleep on the ground while drinking from toilets.


Conditions have not at all improved since funding was passed, it's all getting redirected to pet projects like the wall.  Meanwhile, children are still going without vaccines or basic necessities, and they're still being raped by ICE officers in unsupervised detention facilities perfect for attracting pedos.  AOC was smart enough to see through all the bullshit to this end result from a mile away.  Pelosi was either incompetent, malicious, or both for signing on to McConnell's bill.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 14, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It wasn't until I realized that I was causing my own problems (with the help of a true friend that refused to coddle me) and found a little thing nobody seems to know much about today - "Personal Responsibility", that I was able to overcome my problems.  He let me stay in the basement as long as I helped out around the house, gave me a month to clean up my act and find work to pay rent or else I was back out in the cold.  If it wasn't for him caring about me in the right way, I wouldn't be where I am today.  Everybody else just gave me a few bucks to get rid of me like I was just any homeless person on the sidewalk.



How is free rent for a month not coddling, and how are you being ungrateful for someone giving you a few bucks?  How many other homeless people have friends that would give them that kind of leg-up?  Where you get access to a real address, indoor plumbing, relatively private shelter, etc etc.  And you're complaining about people who gave you a few bucks????  Does not compute


----------



## morvoran (Sep 14, 2019)

J-Machine said:


> I know you are trolling us but as an actual canadian allow me to give you the truth on this point you brought up: The basic income project was actually helping many struggling families find a way out from their poverty.


Me:  Pastes the results of Canada's UBI test found on a website.
You: What a troll!  I will give you my opinion because I live in Canada and act like it's a fact.
Every sensible person alive: Wait... what?



Xzi said:


> The article you posted states that pretty clearly. Trump doesn't solve anything simply by saying he's going to solve it, and you never bother following up to hold him accountable for his broken promises.


  What broken promises?  You only look at what he posts on twitter and never what he has actually done.



Xzi said:


> They cut off aid to South American countries in the midst of economic and governmental crises, knowing full well the result would be a flood of immigration. Then they called them all Mexicans in a further attempt to gaslight the nation, just like you're trying to gaslight this forum.


  He was punishing them for sending their citizens to us while taking our tax dollars. Once they straighten up, we start giving them money again.



Xzi said:


> Conditions have not at all improved since funding was passed, it's all getting redirected to pet projects like the wall. Meanwhile, children are still going without vaccines or basic necessities, and they're still being raped by ICE officers in unsupervised detention facilities perfect for attracting pedos. AOC was smart enough to see through all the bullshit to this end result from a mile away. Pelosi was either incompetent, malicious, or both for signing on to McConnell's bill.


  Do you have a direct line to Pelosi and "the squad"?  Where are you getting your lies, or in your brainwashed mind - information?




yuyuyup said:


> How is free rent for a month not coddling, and how are you being ungrateful for someone giving you a few bucks? How many other homeless people have friends that would give them that kind of leg-up? Where you get access to a real address, indoor plumbing, relatively private shelter, etc etc. And you're complaining about people who gave you a few bucks???? Does not compute


  Wow, and people accuse me of being a troll?  How about you wait for my autobiography to come out.  That will explain everything. 
Maybe, once you move out of your grandma's basement (or attic?), you'll learn how the real world works.


----------



## mixelpixx (Sep 14, 2019)

_*"The administration didn’t make clear what types of action it is considering. Nor is it clear what type of measures the administration legally can take."
*_
So this story is a waste of the electricity used to create it. Nothing will happen.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 15, 2019)

morvoran said:


> This is why we can't be friends.





morvoran said:


> I guess time will tell in time.



I'm with everyone--I've always been with everyone. There's a thread around that outlines how I was against the building of the border wall, but it also states my alternative, which would have way more benefits without hurting too much of the environment (just saw a video about light pollution, which I already knew, but after seeing the Bahamas filled with rotting corpses, I realize rotting bodies can pose a problem (PlZ, duh, but rotting insects are a problem most humans don't care to realize is a problem), but with my plan, there's a significant amount of alternative pollution and waste--I tried to account for every scenario and pollution is the biggest concern).


You are right--time will tell; remember, the street usually goes both ways.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 15, 2019)

morvoran said:


> OH, that last reply to you was after huffing a can of paint mixed into a gallon of gas after guzzling two bottles of nyquil.



Well, no one told you to boof it, mai du--I know my profile picture mentions "anus pounder", but I am the pounder of the anus, versus, having my anus pounded; you can try again, bud. Plinko!

If you wish to ascend to my level, you'll first need to hop off from Tronald's spongy tip.

Next, you have to go beyond posting threads and actually helping others--once you share pain instead of creating it, you'll have reached a new level.

Finally, you'll need to take vitamins and eat healthy--copying Tronald's diet will end unfavorably for you, as eating McDonalds hamburders all day is a surefire way to die before we can realize your genius.

I'm a forgiving person, learn from me, rather than your failure of a "leader". My benevolence blankets cold, shriveled hearts and returns bags of oily flesh to human beings.


TL;DR
I'm working on it. I've seen the homeless crises in a lot of cities and watched documentaries from all over the world and because of that, I have a plan, but I definitely can't accomplish the goal alone. I'll wait for a worthy candidate...it's not anyone you might choose, for now.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 15, 2019)

*Update for all those members who are so eager to know what Trump's preliminary plans are and so hangry for the details:  *
*This update is also available in the OP.*

*Update 1:*
*Trump pushing for major crackdown on homeless camps in California, with aides discussing moving residents to government-backed facilities *
*Source: The Washington Post via MSN*

The planning has intensified in recent weeks. Administration officials have discussed using the federal government to get homeless people off the streets of Los Angeles and other cities and into new government-backed facilities, according to two officials briefed on the planning.

Trump’s directive is part of his broader effort in recent months to shine a light on problems in California and a number of major U.S. cities, including Baltimore and Chicago. He has complained about what he says are years of failed Democratic leadership that have led to sustained poverty and crime.

Top officials representing the White House and the Department of Housing and Urban Development arrived in California this week for a round of meetings. A particular focus has been the skid row section of Los Angeles, officials said. The president is directly involved with the initiative, officials said, and has asked for updates.

Among the ideas under consideration are razing existing tent camps for the homeless, creating new temporary facilities and refurbishing existing government facilities, two other officials said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the planning hasn’t been publicly revealed. The changes would attempt to give the federal government a larger role in supervising housing and health care for residents.

The talks are fluid and concrete plans had not been reached. 

Planning also involves officials from the Department of Health and Human Services. An administration official cited the need to act based on concerns about disease and sewage problems affecting the homeless.

A White House spokesman said Trump signed an executive order in June that pertained to affordable housing regulations, and that the administration is continuing to seek new solutions for homelessness. Trump’s executive order created a new White House council on eliminating “regulatory barriers” that White House officials believe increase the cost of building new housing. Developers have said these restrictions drive up prices on housing and limit the supply.

“Like many Americans, the president has taken notice of the homelessness crisis, particularly in cities and states where the liberal policies are combining to dramatically increase poverty and public health risks,” said Judd Deere, a White House spokesman. “President Trump has directed his team to go further and develop a range of policy options for consideration to deal with this tragedy.”

Housing experts say homelessness in California has risen alongside housing and rental prices. That problem has been exacerbated by cuts to federal support for housing programs.

Trump previously hinted at potential unilateral federal action over homelessness, telling Fox News that he was “very seriously” considering acting on the issue.

“You take a look at what’s going on with San Francisco, it’s terrible. So we’re looking at it very seriously. We may intercede. We may do something to get that whole thing cleaned up. It’s inappropriate,” Trump told Tucker Carlson in July. “Now, we have to take the people and do something. We have to do something.” 

*Update 2:*
*Trump officials tour unused FAA facility in California in search for place to relocate homeless people*
Source: The Washington Post via MSN

A team of Trump administration officials toured a California facility once used by the Federal Aviation Administration this week as they searched for a potential site to relocate homeless people, according to three government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private tour.

Trump is expected to visit California on Tuesday and Wednesday. One administration official with knowledge of Trump’s visit to California said there were discussions about an announcement related to California’s growing homeless problem next week, but a second official said that any decision could be premature and that it was not on the current schedule for the trip.

Some administration officials expressed skepticism that the federal government wanted to get in the business of operating a large homeless shelter in Los Angeles. There were also questions about the feasibility of turning the FAA facility into a shelter and how it could legally be done.

Senior administration officials said that forcing people into new facilities was not under consideration, with one official telling The Washington Post: “We’re not rounding people up or anything yet. You guys in the media get too ahead of yourselves.”

Well, I hope that satisfies all those complaining that the original OP story didn't cover enough of Trump's great plan to fix this issue the Democrats have been sitting on for year.  You're welcome.


----------



## Smoker1 (Sep 15, 2019)

Here's a thought........ How about looking into WHY People are becoming Homeless?????!!!!!!!! I have a few thoughts of the reason why....

1: Vets, Disabled and Elderly - VA and Disability wait times. Also Retirement amount not being enough.
2: Rent Prices going out of control!!!!!!!!!


----------



## morvoran (Sep 15, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> Next, you have to go beyond posting threads and actually helping others--once you share pain instead of creating it, you'll have reached a new level.


 Oh, I do a lot more to help the lower class people than Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, and most democrat leaders running cities with high numbers of homeless. Hint: they don't do anything but create more poverty.



H1B1Esquire said:


> I'm working on it. I've seen the homeless crises in a lot of cities and watched documentaries from all over the world and because of that, I have a plan,


  I hope that plan involves finding them work, giving them goals and structure in their lives, and teach them how to manage money. You have to fix what's broken with the person, so they can fix themselves before you can help them any other way.   Remember, give a man a fish, feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 15, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> That's an assumption that isn't really seen when it's researched properly. I've seen loads of people pay for an over-priced apartment and completely destroy the apartment. Reasons can be varied and vast. Though there is a reason for what you're observing. When we look at affordable housing and other related programs, we find while it keeps people from being homeless, it doesn't really set them up for success.
> 
> To quickly cover a complex topic: under our current system, if you work harder to better your condition, which most everyone will want to do naturally as humans, your situation and income actually decline. To get affordable housing or any other assistance, your income generally has to be under a certain amount. And even then, it's pretty difficult to qualify and jump through all the hoops. Making over that amount and you get nothing. If you start making just over that amount, you are not making enough to get the same kind of (or any) place, or getting the same kind of quality of life. So why get a job and work hard at a part-time job when it's just going to make your life worse? Most people just get trapped and find it impossible to get out of the situation.
> 
> UBI would remove this problem, partly or completely, as any increase in work would add to your benefits. In other words, our current system traps people in a downward cycle, which can lead to depression, anxiety, apathy, etc. I mean, why try when it's just going to make life worse? Remove that hurdle and you're going to find most people will try harder to make money, contribute more, and have better outlook in life. This is what the research indicates. So it's more about understanding the whole picture rather than just seeing governmental support leading to apathy and assume any governmental support would have the same result. We Just need a better system. UBI may be it.


Not every place has a huge homeless problem. Its mostly areas with affordably housing that has a huge homeless problem. San Francisco is expensive, Palo Alto is a lot of money, the whole Bay Area is not cheap.


UBI is not the solution to the core problem which is unafforable houses. It's just a bandaid on a wound. People say housing is expensive because of greedy capitalism. And their solution to the expensive housing is more money in either higher wages and/or UBI. But why would you reward greedy capitalist land lords with more money? They can raise their rent and make business owners raise wages just to pay up for that greed, and reward bad landlords with more money in their pockets. But the solution is to go after landlords and not reward them with more money right? You don't want to support greedy practices right with more money?




So what makes Housing Affordable some places and not others? Studies you look at will point to land restriction laws creating artificial scarcity by crazy environmentalist nut jobs. Basically supply and demand. A growing population that tries to outbid each other, biding for the small amount of housing that's left over. Basically like bidding on Ebay for a rare item, but this rare item is housing. And its rare because of laws that prevent building more houses and what they call "preserving open space." So artificial scarcity thanks to laws, so item is rare and people trying to outbid each other, "I'll give you this much, no I'll give this much more," which raises prices because of people offering more for it, more for a rare item. And in turn creates a lot more homeless because housing becomes unaffordable. Try to have the government come in to fix a government created problem and create artificial low prices then what would appear in a supply and demand market for the sake of affordable housing, and the beneficiaries becomes wealthy people because it means they can buy a second house since now its cheaper so they snatch it up first.





So the United States so poor right. People in the U.S. poor, struggle, living pay check to pay check, don't have any motivation to work harder, have depression and anxiety. Also has a big gut sticking out. Since majority of obese and fat people are poor, we have a big obesity epidemic. Also with vehicles to drive, majority of people below the poverty line have transportation. They also have TV's, microwaves, and air conditioning. These luxury items even the rich didn't have 100 years ago and they survived with out them. None of which are not usually provided by government entitlement programs. Most Poor Americans also has a cell phone. I can imagine a poor person from a poor country watching on TV, if they are lucky enough to have access one, watching an American and thinking "what the hell is this well fed fatass with a cellphone complaining about being poor."


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Also with vehicles to drive, majority of people below the poverty line have transportation. They also have TV's, microwaves, and air conditioning. These luxury items even the rich didn't have 100 years ago and they survived with out them. None of which are not usually provided by government entitlement programs. Most Poor Americans also has a cell phone.



I can tell you that entire portion is a complete load of nonsense.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 15, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Wow, and people accuse me of being a troll?  How about you wait for my autobiography to come out.  That will explain everything.
> Maybe, once you move out of your grandma's basement (or attic?), you'll learn how the real world works.


You didn't answer ANY of the questions I asked, it aint ME who's the troll in this thread.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 15, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I hope that plan involves finding them work, giving them goals and structure in their lives, and teach them how to manage money.



It's a multifaceted issue that needs individual attention on a person-to-person basis; people are complex and their problems, more so.

I actually spend a lot of time in random places all over the east coast. I have a lot of friends and some of my friends fall through the cracks and go through bad times--I had a friend who got addicted to opiates and ended up walking across America because he wanted to be killed by a random person. 

He didn't get his death wish, but he did grow up and lives a sober life. 
I'm not going to make a "Walk across America!" campaign, but it's the point that everyone is different: look at RPGs--not everyone wields a sword to fight demons.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 15, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> You didn't answer ANY of the questions I asked, it aint ME who's the troll in this thread.


  Yes, I did.  I told you to wait for my autobiography for the answers or maybe try getting out of your own and paying your own bills, then fall on hard times, get addicted to some substance, either drugs or alcohol, and have people just give you a couple of bucks to get you to move on.  Then you will understand what I mean. 
I can't give you all the answers as you won't listen, you have to learn the answers on your own.  This is true with helping homeless people.



H1B1Esquire said:


> It's a multifaceted issue that needs individual attention on a person-to-person basis; people are complex and their problems, more so.


 I don't think I implied or, at least, intended to say this was a cookie cutter solution to fix everybody. Of course, some homeless may have had a car break down, medical bill, etc that caused them to fall on hard times and made them homeless.  Some homeless are mentally ill and incapable of taking care of themselves, severely addicted to a substance, or just want to live on the streets. 
I was implying that everybody can be helped by giving them shelter, employment, and structure in their life.  They need to be given a sense of what's right and wrong to know there will be consequences to their actions if they want to live a better life.  A lot of people just blame others for their problems and think that giving them free stuff will fix their problems or that some unseen group of people put them in their position (think of Democrats and democrat policies).

In other words, just throwing money at the problem or moving the homeless around won't fix the problem.  You need to help the person on the inside, not just the problems you see on their outside.


----------



## J-Machine (Sep 15, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Me:  Pastes the results of Canada's UBI test found on a website.
> You: What a troll!  I will give you my opinion because I live in Canada and act like it's a fact.
> Every sensible person alive: Wait... what?



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/basic-income-survey-1.4988689


----------



## morvoran (Sep 15, 2019)

J-Machine said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/basic-income-survey-1.4988689


How do the results from a survey of participants before receiving Ubi help your position on it helping people out of poverty?  
The only thing I found in there with any relevance to the discussion was a line proving my point - "Premier Doug Ford said the pilot was too expensive, adding the best way out of poverty is "something called a job.""


----------



## J-Machine (Sep 15, 2019)

morvoran said:


> How do the results from a survey of participants before receiving Ubi help your position on it helping people out of poverty?
> The only thing I found in there with any relevance to the discussion was a line proving my point - "Premier Doug Ford said the pilot was too expensive, adding the best way out of poverty is "something called a job.""


I dunno maybe the point that they were getting out of poverty? that there is an actual court case against the ford government for scrapping this program that was being shown to be less expensive than the current welfair program if implemented province wide? Maybe that it's been shown that all these cuts went towards fancy things like buying fridges for a chain of grocery stores that had the money to afford it in the first place? Live here and maybe you'd understand why the ford government has done nothing but added more to our deficit in less than a year than our previous gov did in 4


----------



## morvoran (Sep 15, 2019)

J-Machine said:


> I dunno maybe the point that they were getting out of poverty? that there is an actual court case against the ford government for scrapping this program that was being shown to be less expensive than the current welfair program if implemented province wide? Maybe that it's been shown that all these cuts went towards fancy things like buying fridges for a chain of grocery stores that had the money to afford it in the first place? Live here and maybe you'd understand why the ford government has done nothing but added more to our deficit in less than a year than our previous gov did in 4


 Um, maybe I wasn't clear on my last reply.   The source you provided did not show any results or evidence related to the UBI trial being effective or not.  My point still stands, regardless of where I live, as I provided a snippet from a source that was about the results from the trial.
It seems you're just trolling me, so I will not continue this discussion with you.


----------



## J-Machine (Sep 15, 2019)

i mean you are arguing the opinion of a government being taken to court for several reasons against the "opinion" of the actual data accumulated during the pilot programs period of activity.

but yes. you are the troll. I actually wonder why the mods allow inflammatory responses like yours that are blatently used to get others to be riled up and respond in kind. I gave the data. i spoke from the view of someone who lives in that provence. anything further would be superfluous.

I pray you find love so that you may live a life that is enriching to you in ways that eclipse these baiting quarrells you seem to enjoy right now.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Among the ideas under consideration are razing existing tent camps for the homeless, creating new temporary facilities and refurbishing existing government facilities, two other officials said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the planning hasn’t been publicly revealed. The changes would attempt to give the federal government a larger role in supervising housing and health care for residents.





morvoran said:


> A team of Trump administration officials toured a California facility once used by the Federal Aviation Administration this week as they searched for a potential site to relocate homeless people, according to three government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private tour.


So their plan is more temporary homeless shelters.  How very original, must have taken them weeks to brainstorm that idea.  

Guess I was wrong about them not announcing anything further.  I'm definitely going to be proven right about the homeless problem being unchanged in a year, though.


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Among the ideas under consideration are razing existing tent camps for the homeless, creating new temporary facilities




Up to this point, has been done already as I've already mentioned examples of it happening within the past few years in various cities.



morvoran said:


> and refurbishing existing government facilities, two other officials said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the planning hasn’t been publicly revealed. The changes would attempt to give the federal government a larger role in supervising housing and health care for residents.



Good that Trump at least wants to make use of a Facility(potentially) to help with the problem. One of the problems at least with the bigger cities have is getting the appropriate sized piece of land to move people over from.



morvoran said:


> Planning also involves officials from the Department of Health and Human Services. An administration official cited the need to act based on concerns about disease and sewage problems affecting the homeless.



This part is where I think we need to wait and see how this is handled.



morvoran said:


> Housing experts say homelessness in California has risen alongside housing and rental prices. That problem has been exacerbated by cuts to federal support for housing programs.



Which just shows that this isn't a side problem, as it openly admits cuts to what some would consider a socialist program has increased homelessness.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> In other words, just throwing money at the problem or moving the homeless around won't fix the problem. You need to help the person on the inside, not just the problems you see on their outside.



Yes and no--I should go in-depth, but I would just TL;DR myself and I've got a lot of responsibilities piling up because I've been trying to help my friend with his car most of today

TL;DR
Money can be thrown at people to get a career in therapy, and a few other sectors, while throwing money to _____ and ____*.

The other problem is that, as it is now, rarely do people actually care because they have their own issues--life can really suck sometimes, especially when you have to do a lot for others and it's frustrating to have no help with your own problems. 
Look at public school--most of the teachers know it's a paycheck. They don't care if little Jimmy Shitstain gets an education because they already have theirs--a "Fuck you, I've got mine"-scenario. Yeah, some teachers care, but just like crisis aid prevention, there isn't enough to go around to make it to all the people who actually need it.

This is already too long.

*I have to be secretive because I don't want some schmuck stealing my ideas, pioneering those ideas as their own, royally fucking it up, and ruining my chance when I can actually do it with a 0.0000002% error.
Trust me, I do a lot of great things--I actually wrote a few songs that were "stolen" (and you actually know them and most people like them) just because it's the internet and you don't "own" anything until you own it. 
I kid you not, someone asked if they could re-post my lyrics; when I asked, "Where?", I got no reply, likely because I didn't specifically say, "No, you callous scumfuck."


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> So their plan is more temporary homeless shelters. How very original, must have taken them weeks to brainstorm that idea.


 It's better than making them live on the streets in their own filth.  Too bad the Democrats in charge couldnt think of it.  I guess it doesn't matter when you live in a mansion with big fences away from the problem.  "Out of sight, out of mind" is one of the democrat's motto.



Xzi said:


> I'm definitely going to be proven right about the homeless problem being unchanged in a year, though.


. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you as an Obama appointed judge will probably put an injunction on whatever the admin comes up with to block it from happening thus making the problem continue.  Maybe, if we can work together to vote out these Democrats, real "change we can believe in" will begin to happen.  You with me?



GBADWB said:


> Which just shows that this isn't a side problem, as it openly admits cuts to what some would consider a socialist program has increased homelessness.


 You may be needing a "Democrat to Republican" translation for this phrase.  I speak Democrat, so I'll assist.  "Housing experts claim the Democrats in California were wasting tax dollars and pocketing the rest while people in their state continue to suffer, so the federal government cut them off until proper changes were made to fix the wasteful spending."


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You may be needing a "Democrat to Republican" translation for this phrase.  I speak Democrat, so I'll assist.  "Housing experts claim the Democrats in California were wasting tax dollars and pocketing the rest while people in their state continue to suffer, so the federal government cut them off until proper changes were made to fix the wasteful spending."




Would like a source on that. How it's worded, if it was what you said, the problem could not have been exacerbated by the cuts because you imply that they never got any of it in the first place.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

GBADWB said:


> Would like a source on that.


You sourced it from my post.  I just translated it for you.  I speak Democrat because I used to be one and know the lingo.


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You sourced it from my post.  I just translated it for you.  I speak Democrat because I used to be one and know the lingo.



Had edited my post.  The problem with the statement it makes and you makes is what you are saying that they wasted it(meaning it didnt go anywhere) and pocketed the rest. If this statement was true, then the post could not make the statement that the problem was exacerbated by cuts because if they pocketed it, then there was no money given at all in the first place... It's one or the other, not both.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It's better than making them live on the streets in their own filth.  Too bad the Democrats in charge couldnt think of it.  I guess it doesn't matter when you live in a mansion with big fences away from the problem.  "Out of sight, out of mind" is one of the democrat's motto.


This is literally just more of the same thing that every city and state has already been doing, regardless of which party is in charge of the local government(s).  We need a permanent, nationwide solution to the problem, but Trump has already blown the money necessary to fund something like that on tax cuts for the rich, so it's not gonna happen as long as he's still in office.



morvoran said:


> Unfortunately, I have to agree with you as an Obama appointed judge will probably put an injunction on whatever the admin comes up with to block it from happening thus making the problem continue.  Maybe, if we can work together to vote out these Democrats, real "change we can believe in" will begin to happen.  You with me?


State sovereignty is not a matter of partisan politics, it's constitutionally protected.  I realize Republicans only heed the constitution when it's convenient though, so you do you.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> Trust me, I do a lot of great things--I actually wrote a few songs that were "stolen" (and you actually know them and most people like them) just because it's the internet and you don't "own" anything until you own it.


 If you keep good records that prove you wrote the song before that other person published it and claimed the song as his own while making money off of it, you can sue the bastard for past/present/future royalties and make the homeless problem worse by litigating his ass to the poor house.  Just saying.



GBADWB said:


> The problem with the statement it makes and you makes is what you are saying that they wasted it(meaning it didnt go anywhere) and pocketed the rest. If this statement was true, then the post could not make the statement that the problem was exacerbated by cuts because if they pocketed it, then there was no money given at all in the first place... It's one or the other, not both.


 They wasted it by using it for ways that didn't fix the problems, rather made them worse.  Instead of building housing for the homeless, they gave them tents and free needles.  Then they wasted some of the money on paying people to pick up the used needles and power wash the fecal matter off the sidewalks.



Xzi said:


> This is literally just more of the same thing that every city and state has already been doing, regardless of which party is in charge of the local government(s). We need a permanent, nationwide solution to the problem, but Trump has already blown the money necessary to fund something like that on tax cuts for the rich, so it's not gonna happen as long as he's still in office.


  Try looking into New York City's homeless problem during Rudy Giuliani's term as mayor.  He found a solution that worked.  Bloomberg was able to keep the homeless down because of Giuliani's methods, mostly.  I'm not sure if he kept them, or the problem just escalated slowly during his term.  The homeless problem began to skyrocket during De Blasio's term and keeps getting worse, but at least they don't have a plastic straw problem.



Xzi said:


> State sovereignty is not a matter of partisan politics, it's constitutionally protected. I realize Republicans only heed the constitution when it's convenient though, so you do you.


  OMG, I'm starting to think you're just trolling me, too, like that other guy from Canada about the UBI.  An Obama judge can stop a federal mandate at the state level if they put an injunction on it as they have most of Trump's executive orders.  Maybe debating people on a gaming related website was a bad idea.....

Edit: sorry folks, I got a little too excited there.  I didn't mean to say it's a bad idea to debate on a gaming related website.  I should have said that it's a bad idea to debate a leftist anywhere as there are quite a few people with the intelligence higher than a leftist on here.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Just saying.



It's tough to prove, but I took it as a lesson learned. Lucky for me, it was before I had the ability to critically think and devise strategies that work efficiently.


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> They wasted it by using it for ways that didn't fix the problems, rather made them worse.  Instead of building housing for the homeless, they gave them tents and free needles.  Then they wasted some of the money on paying people to pick up the used needles and power wash the fecal matter off the sidewalks.



It still doesn't answer my statement. What you're saying that it was *worse *when they gave them money. The article says it got *worse* after the cuts. If what you are saying was right, cuts would make it *better*. which is contradictory to the article. Unless you want to say the entire article is not credible and posting it here serves 0 purpose.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> It's tough to prove, but I took it as a lesson learned. Lucky for me, it was before I had the ability to critically think and devise strategies that work efficiently.


 did you happen to post the song on a website, email, or personal message?  If you have any proof whatsoever and the other person profited on it, you could go see a copyright lawyer who will do the rest of the work and send you the check.  Make that guy homeless and then you can try your secret technique to prove it will work.  Kill two birds with one stone. Just saying.

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



GBADWB said:


> What you're saying that it was *worse *when they gave them money. The article says it got *worse* after the cuts. If what you are saying was right, cuts would make it *better*. which is contradictory to the article. Unless you want to say the entire article is not credible and posting it here serves 0 purpose.


*sigh* if the state just bought them tents before and now they have less money, this means the homeless have less tents and have to resort to cardboard boxes.  This is not an upgrade, trust me.  They still have to spend money on washing away the fecal matter and picking up needles for the tax paying citizens.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Try looking into New York City's homeless problem during Rudy Giuliani's term as mayor. He found a solution that worked.


Utah has a solution that works, as do several other states/cities.  That solution is giving small homes/studio apartments to the homeless, rent-free.  Once they're no longer homeless, finding solutions to the other problems each individual is struggling with becomes a lot easier.  This solution is also cheaper in the long run, but convincing Republicans to look past their short-term greed is extremely difficult.  And, as I said, that money is already gone.  The Trump administration has run up a $1 trillion+ budget deficit.



morvoran said:


> An Obama judge can stop a federal mandate at the state level if they put an injunction on it as they have most of Trump's executive orders.


Right...they can stop it because of constitutionally-protected state sovereignty.  It'd be one thing if the Trump administration was willing to build/refurbish these facilities with no strings attached, but attempting to have the federal government micromanage what are normally state-run facilities is a big no-no.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> did you happen to post the song on a website



Youtube and Myspace--the cess pool for non-creative thieves to copy+pasta and pretend-a-lots'a.

Even worse, obviously some songs will get copyright strikes and removed, sometimes comments get purged after time, and sometimes, accounts get deleted. 
Couple that with false strikes and other bullshit and a good screencapper/copy+pasta chef won't care about a trace because they used to the system to justify it. Then, they can sell the lyrics to someone else as a ghostwriter themselves or obfuscate the trail so far, it is't worth pursuing. 

I can tell you, there were a decent number of one-hit wonder "musicians" that will never be able to replicate "their" feel, because it wasn't theirs to begin with.

I used to email my lyrics after I got enough likes for a song to see if that was something I should even care about. 
Although, I think I had, maybe, over ten email addresses? To this day, I have two "usable" Youtube accounts specifically for "purposes", but I know some that had lyrics are tied to Youtube and I'll never remember the address (you know how it goes when you buy a new Android....well, I do because I buy a lot of phones--it's a long story.)

I actually had both sides--thieves and people who wanted to work with me, but ultimately, I need creative freedom or to work with someone on my level.....it's tough and complicated.

Lessons learned.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That solution is giving small homes/studio apartments to the homeless, rent-free. Once they're no longer homeless,


 Oh, so you know Trump's ideas for California will work.  I don't see where we disagree here, then.



Xzi said:


> Right...they can stop it because of constitutionally-protected state sovereignty.


Wrong, they can put an injunction on them until a formal inquiry can be done to see it it is Constitutional.  Just like the new asylum rules where the supreme court recently overruled the lower federal judge's injunctions.  Trump doesn't get the benefit of innocent until proven guilty because the Democrats believe it's guilty until proven innocent.  The Democrats don't care about the poor or anybody else, just that they can hinder trump.



H1B1Esquire said:


> I actually had both sides--thieves and people who wanted to work with me, but ultimately, I need creative freedom or to work with someone on my level.....it's tough and complicated.


 Wow, talk about tl:dr...

Just write a song about that experience or about a guy on a gaming related website that fought against hate everyday for nothing, but he still won in the end when his fearless leader was elected for a second (and maybe third?) term.  Then you can get rich with that one hit and help the homeless walk across America (hopefully not through my town).    I only ask that you give me 30% royalties from iTunes sales and tour merch for the idea. You're welcome.


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> *sigh* if the state just bought them tents before and now they have less money, this means the homeless have less tents and have to resort to cardboard boxes.  This is not an upgrade, trust me.  They still have to spend money on washing away the fecal matter and picking up needles for the tax paying citizens.



you were going on about them funding drugs... if you don't think funding drugs makes a problem worse and reversing the funds makes it better, then there is no argument about drugs...

The problem with this is you're saying I should just trust you, and not trust the article. I've seen my fair share of homeless, hell i've been close to other homeless injecting needles. I'm aware of the problems and the efforts of people trying to fix the problem. This is why i have a bipartisan POV on the effort. I have friends that are conservative who directly discuss this same problem with me a while back, as well as more liberal friends who discuss this. I don't consider both sides completely right and the only reason why I have a hard time putting trust in you is more or less is because you're trying to push the idea(to me at least) that everything the left has been doing is wrong, goes post another article talking a tiny bit more about Trump's plan(which is fine), but then tell me that part of the article is wrong because of how you perceive to translate it, without a source backing up your translation of it, just by redirecting me back to the source and saying that that's what the left says and here's the real translation of it. If that's the real translation of it, then there should exist a conservative post of the same issue that backs up that idea.

I'll throw in a hypothetical future. If Trump plans goes through and there are still people picking up needles and doing drugs, should I say that the Right is also doing everything wrong? Because that's how it sounds like you're telling me about the Left.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Oh, so you know Trump's ideas for California will work.  I don't see where we disagree here, then.


That isn't the plan.  Their plan is building more temporary shelters, not individual housing/apartments.  A temporary solution to a permanent problem, and not even an original one at that.



morvoran said:


> Wrong, they can put an injunction on them until a formal inquiry can be done to see it it is Constitutional.


Like I said, Republicans only heed the constitution when it's convenient for them.  I don't think they'd win this one, but if they somehow did, it would set a really bad precedent for the future of states' rights.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

GBADWB said:


> you were going on about them funding drugs..


 the state doesn't give them free needles filled with drugs. Hell, if they did I'd be on skid row myself right now instead of chatting on here.



Xzi said:


> That isn't the plan. Their plan is building more temporary shelters, not individual housing/apartments. A temporary solution to a permanent problem, and not even an original one.


. So the homeless should stay in shelters forever instead of moving on after they get help?  Hmm, that doesn't make sense.



Xzi said:


> Like I said, Republicans only heed the constitution when it's convenient for them. I don't think they'd win this one, but if they somehow did, it would set a really bad precedent for the future of states' rights.


 well, Rachel Maddow was wrong to tell you that (or was it Lawrence O'Donnell this time? He seems trustworthy with his Russian collusion breaking news).  

I don't think a state would mind to get help with their homeless problem except in the cases where the governor is a never-Trumper.  Hmm, who is the governor of California and what are his views on the president?????  Exactly!!!


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Wow, talk about tl:dr..



You're telling me, but, it is what it is.

I was actually going to "detail" the whole thing in a children's book, but I keep losing people. I mean, I ask people close to me and I know I should just outsource the work, but I hate being that guy who has the friend who bashes you, "...and you just sit here with all your money, while I starve and suffer everyday; wahhhh.", when in reality, "...motherfucker, I gave you the opportunity and you chose to not work with me, so shit soup."


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> So the homeless should stay in shelters forever instead of moving on after they get help?  Hmm, that doesn't make sense.


Precisely, it doesn't make sense to build more temporary shelters when it just encourages moving from one shelter to the next.  The assistance needs to be long-term.



morvoran said:


> I don't think a state would mind to get help with their homeless problem except in the cases where the governor is a never-Trumper.


No state minds federal assistance, but every state will resist attempts to interfere with their ability to self-govern.  The idea that narcoleptic Ben Carson could do a better job of managing temporary shelters than the state government is laughable.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> You're telling me, but, it is what it is.
> 
> I was actually going to "detail" the whole thing in a children's book, but I keep losing people. I mean, I ask people close to me and I know I should just outsource the work, but I hate being that guy who has the friend who bashes you, "...and you just sit here with all your money, while I starve and suffer everyday; wahhhh.", when in reality, "...motherfucker, I gave you the opportunity and you chose to not work with me, so shit soup."


I'm thinking of writing a kids book called "the littlest troll who trusted the left". It's a sad book where the troll, who believed in its leftist leaders, loses in the end and ends up homeless on the streets of calitrollia shooting up smack and pooping on the streets while his king Newslum sits in a castle surrounded by a big fence to keep the other small trolls out.  Based on a true story.  Don't steal my idea, I'm making a screenshot proving when I came up with it.


----------



## Paulsar99 (Sep 16, 2019)

I just watched a documentary of homeless people in california and damn it even makes my third world country look like first world when compared.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I'm thinking of writing a kids book called "the littlest troll who trusted the left".



Make it a comic strip fort Brietbart. 
You're welcome for the idea as long as you give me 15% of what you get from whoever pays you.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> Make it a comic strip fort Brietbart.
> You're welcome for the idea as long as you give me 15% of what you get from whoever pays you.


I was going to donate them to the homeless in California, so they can have a roof over their head until Trump fixes the issues.  Not much money involved in that, but all for a good cause.



Xzi said:


> Precisely, it doesn't make sense to build more temporary shelters when it just encourages moving from one shelter to the next. The assistance needs to be long-term.


 the FAA buildings are very "huuuuge" and permanent.  I can't say what happens next as it's all in the brainstorming phase now.  Give it time, hope in Trump, and the world will be a better place.  Maybe, if people supported the president rather than fighting him, things would get done quicker.



Xzi said:


> No state minds federal assistance, but every state will resist attempts to interfere with their ability to self-govern. The idea that narcoleptic Ben Carson could do a better job of managing temporary shelters than the state government is laughable.


. First, I have no comment on Ben Carson or his sleepiness.

Second, if a state can't solve a problem, the feds step in to assist. Next, you'll tell people that Trump shouldn't help states hit by natural disasters because "they should be allowed to self govern, DERP!!!"  

Why don't the homeless just govern themselves?  Make the tent cities into separate townships, and they can solve their own problems.  Come on, guy.  It's like you're not even trying.


----------



## WeedZ (Sep 16, 2019)

Could you imagine if you guys had these debates without revealing what political alignment you were with, and without throwing insults to the other side. Just people discussing issues, it would be glorious.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> Could you imagine if you guys had these debates without revealing what political alignment you were with, and without throwing insults to the other side. Just people discussing issues, it would be glorious.


 With the state of politics today being one side apples and the other oranges, it would be very difficult to not expose our alignments.
I agree we could do without the aggressive insults, but, using me for an example, once someone throws one out, it starts a chain reaction and is hard to stop it.  I don't know about it being glorious as we are debating and debating without friendly insults is boring, but sure, the harsh insults need to be mellowed out.

For me personally, when I tell someone "derp" or " you're brainwashed" or describing the substances I use to reach their level of intelligence, I'm not angry and smashing my keyboard.  I do it all in jest to liven the conversation and not to flame them or make them feel bad. I assume the other person can see that as well, but maybe, that's not the case everytime, and I will apologise or stop conversing with them if I catch on to them not being amused.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 16, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I can tell you that entire portion is a complete load of nonsense.


And what evidence you have for making that claim? 20% don't have access to transportation so that means the majority do.
https://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-car-ownership-poverty.html



What poor is really in the United States? If the Majority own air conditioners.
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-an...le-tv-and-xbox-what-poverty-the-united-states


https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/15/the-true-us-poverty-rate-is-4-5-not-14-5/



Is this what poor looks like?
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...erty-typically-have-cell-phones-computers-tvs



Rich people 100 years ago wish they have these conveniences. Poor is such a useless term. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. Poor in the United States is what they call middle class in Mexico.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> the FAA buildings are very "huuuuge" and permanent. I can't say what happens next as it's all in the brainstorming phase now. Give it time, hope in Trump, and the world will be a better place.


Large temporary shelters are still temporary.  It doesn't make sense to spend tons of money on them when that same money could instead go to individual homes/apartments which ARE a more permanent solution.



morvoran said:


> Second, if a state can't solve a problem, the feds step in to assist.


Yes, ASSIST being the key word here.  They don't step in to take permanent control over state-level operations, they do what's necessary to restore normal operations and then leave the rest to the state.

If we're going to refer to homelessness as an emergency, then it's a nationwide emergency which must be handled as such.  It's hard to see the focus on California in particular as anything but political mudwrestling.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> it would be very difficult to not expose our alignments.



Not really--I'm technically a Democrat, but I dislike everything everyone does (in politics) because there are so many fucking problems that no one wants to tackle and when they do "tackle the issue" they kinda just play 


I have actual solutions to many problems--problems both "sides" don't even acknowledge, like why everyone is getting cancer, why it costs more money for less (as in, why do I pay more for tobacco that has no additives (Natural American Spirit) versus  ammonia, cow shit, stone dust, and pesticides (Marlboro)), why do people pay more for health care when big pharma and other conglomerates pay gerbil turds on taxes, why does America have literacy issues, why doesn't anyone just help other nations to step up to first-world status, why are people doing nothing to prevent enslavement across the globe, why are people suffering at "terrorists" hands, why is there a food "shortage" when it became illegal to dumpster dive for food (as in, why the fuck are you throwing food out and why do you care what eats it); there are so many "why's" and I have answers for everything.

This world means nothing, in the end, and now, thanks to your "leader", there's going to be even more pollution (from all that coal he loves so much--must get it every year from Santa..unless it was bags of burning shit and that's why he chose to run for president--to stop that pesky Santa with the secret service.

TL;DR
The world is fucked and I chose to un-fuck it, without getting fucked. If there's someone who has a plan and not afraid to take the consequences for their actions, I'll assist them--if not, it was meant to be, unless I take care of a few things--I still haven't beaten 
...it isn't that good and I want to see if the other "Main" "Character" dies; I so badly hope that's how the story goes because she deserves it...there's also a few other things on my to-do list.


As for you taking your proceeds to house homeless people, sure, just give me a 15% cut on the royalties--you can afford it.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> Not really--I'm technically a Democrat


Ok, you just answered the question that the band War asked decades ago for me. 





Xzi said:


> Yes, ASSIST being the key word here. They don't step in to take permanent control over state-level operations, they do what's necessary to restore normal operations and then leave the rest to the state.


 Who said they were going to step in permanently?  I missed that part of the story.



Xzi said:


> If we're going to refer to homelessness as an emergency, then it's a nationwide emergency which must be handled as such. It's hard to see the focus on California in particular as anything but political mudwrestling.


 let's start in the state with the biggest problem first, then work to other areas.  Hmm, now, which state has the biggest homeless problem?  Could it be California?
Everything doesn't need to be politically based.  We're talking about the right here who actually care about people and their wellbeing, not think of them as a means to gain power just as how the other side operates.



Xzi said:


> Large temporary shelters are still temporary. It doesn't make sense to spend tons of money on them when that same money could instead go to individual homes/apartments which ARE a more permanent solution.


 why can't they eventually operate as permanent housing?  Let's figure out how to solve the problem before thinking of making things permanent.  

Also, I don't want my tax dollars going to house someone and pay their bills forever if they can and want to work.  That's how the Democrats keep people chained to their plantation.  We need them to be free, learn to take care of themselves, and eventually move in to a nicer place without government assistance.  That's how we end homelessness for good.

Don't worry yourself about the hows and whats. Trump's administration will come up with a working solution and make it happen.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Who said they were going to step in permanently? I missed that part of the story.





morvoran said:


> "The changes would attempt to give the federal government a larger role in supervising housing and health care for residents."





morvoran said:


> "Some administration officials expressed skepticism that the federal government wanted to get in the business of operating a large homeless shelter in Los Angeles."





morvoran said:


> let's start in the state with the biggest problem first, then work to other areas. Hmm, now, which state has the biggest homeless problem? Could it be California?


In a close second is Florida, and every state has a homeless population.  The administration wouldn't face nearly as much push-back with a national plan.



morvoran said:


> Everything doesn't need to be politically based.


It doesn't need to be, but the reality TV president loves to chase ratings, and to drive up ratings you need conflict.



morvoran said:


> why can't they eventually operate as permanent housing? Let's figure out how to solve the problem before thinking of making things permanent.


Solving the problem requires a permanent solution, not more kicking the can down the road.



morvoran said:


> Also, I don't want my tax dollars going to house someone and pay their bills forever if they can and want to work.


Not everybody can work.  Those that can will want to find a job and improve their situation regardless, because you _can_ live in a studio apartment, but you can't live _comfortably_ in a studio apartment.  I also find it funny (but not surprising) that you're fine with paying for corporate welfare, but not okay with paying what would be a lesser amount to keep American citizens and veterans off the street.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Yes, I did.  I told you to wait for my autobiography for the answers or maybe try getting out of your own and paying your own bills, then fall on hard times, get addicted to some substance, either drugs or alcohol, and have people just give you a couple of bucks to get you to move on.  Then you will understand what I mean. I can't give you all the answers as you won't listen, you have to learn the answers on your own.  This is true with helping homeless people.


Well I don't know how addicted you were, but it couldn't have been that bad if all it took to get on your feet was an attitude adjustment


----------



## Tigran (Sep 16, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> Well I don't know how addicted you were, but it couldn't have been that bad if all it took to get on your feet was an attitude adjustment



Would love to see someone like him "actually" suffer some real problems. Bet he couldn't go two hours with blood sugar of 400. Probably kill himself within 40 minutes.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It doesn't need to be, but the reality TV president loves to chase ratings, and to drive up ratings you need conflict.


Funny how the most tv coverage he gets are from the secret Trump loving channels - CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and the Late night talk show hosts.  Not including all the websites putting him on their front page.  Too bad CNN isn't getting much of the Trump bump.  Though, CNN and MSNBC will probably go off the air in 2025 once they no longer have a source of material.  Ever hear of the Streisand effect? 



Xzi said:


> In a close second is Florida, and every state has a homeless population. The administration wouldn't face nearly as much push-back with a national plan.


 still doesn't disprove my point about California.  You're projecting here and moving focus from the real problem.



Xzi said:


> Solving the problem requires a permanent solution, not more kicking the can down the road.


 are we talking about Republican or Democrat policies here?  It sounds like you're getting the two confused. 



Xzi said:


> Not everybody can work.


 that's why we have disability benefits.



yuyuyup said:


> Well I don't know how addicted you were, but it couldn't have been that bad if all it took to get on your feet was an attitude adjustment


 have you ever been on morphine, heroin, or opioids?  Trust me, they're not easy to get off of, and the withdrawals are hell.  For me, it was like someone reaching into my guts and then twisting, turning and squeezing.  It wasn't fun, but I eventually weaned myself off.  I couldn't have started the process and gone through it unless I wanted to and was ready to, so yeah, it took an attitude adjustment.
Same with the drug users and alcoholics living on the streets. They need goals and structure in their life to even think about wanting to change.  They need a reason to want to fix themselves before they can start to improve.  Giving them a couple of bucks isn't going to give them a reason to change as you're just enabling the problem.  I'm sure you heard the one about feeding a man a fish vs teaching them to fish.



Tigran said:


> Would love to see someone like him "actually" suffer some real problems. Bet he couldn't go two hours with blood sugar of 400. Probably kill himself within 40 minutes.


 ooo, you got me... Nope, you didn't.  Try morphine withdrawals, you'd end yourself after a couple of minutes.  My dad died of pancreatic cancer, so I know all too well what having high blood sugar does to someone.  When your pancreas shuts down completely, you have nothing to produce insulin or glucagon which means anything you eat can put you on either spectrum.  My dad was on morphine for that and the pain from the cancer treatment and was where I got started.  The doctors gave him gallons of the liquid stuff, and he didn't like to drink alone.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> still doesn't disprove my point about California. You're projecting here and moving focus from the real problem.


Homelessness is a real problem for the entire nation.  Putting the focus solely on California is moving the focus away from about 85% of the problem.



morvoran said:


> are we talking about Republican or Democrat policies here? It sounds like you're getting the two confused.


Both, I already said that.  Temporary homeless shelters have been a means to kick the can down the road in every state and city.  Federally run temporary homeless shelters aren't any different.



morvoran said:


> that's why we have disability benefits.


Yes, but those are rarely enough to keep people off the streets.


----------



## Tigran (Sep 16, 2019)

Ahh yes disability benefits... Still can't afford rent and insulin considering insulin costs close to 1500 a month depending on how much you need... not to mention the supplies and such.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Homelessness is a real problem for the entire nation. Putting the focus solely on California is moving the focus away from about 85% of the problem.


 you might want to re-check your numbers as I just did.  
California homeless - 130,000
Florida homeless - 31,000
Not what I'd call a "close second", but I guess that is a matter of your opinion.  
Yeah, I still think California needs the most attention right now.



Xzi said:


> Yes, but those are rarely enough to keep people off the streets.


 maybe they should move to a cheaper city that doesn't charge $2000+/month for a studio apartment.  Where I live, I don't pay anywhere near that for my mortgage and homeowners insurance combined, and I live in a 5 bedroom/2 bathroom house.



Tigran said:


> Ahh yes disability benefits... Still can't afford rent and insulin considering insulin costs close to 1500 a month depending on how much you need... not to mention the supplies and such.


 Insulin prices do suck, but Trump is working on that issue as well.  I understand that it is tough now, but hopefully, he gets the medical prices to drop soon.  I know they were working on importing insulin from Canada.
That should help a little with your costs after the program starts and alleviate some of your worry.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> you might want to re-check your numbers as I just did.
> California homeless - 130,000
> Florida homeless - 31,000
> Not what I'd call a "close second", but I guess that is a matter of your opinion.
> Yeah, I still think California needs the most attention right now.


Fair enough, but I was referring to the nationwide homeless problem in the statement you quoted there.  Relevant because homeless from much of the nation at large migrate to California.



morvoran said:


> maybe they should move to a cheaper city that doesn't charge $2000+/month for a studio apartment.  Where I live, I don't pay anywhere near that for my mortgage and homeowners insurance combined, and I live in a 5 bedroom/2 bathroom house.


As above, people migrate to California AFTER they've been driven to homelessness.  They aren't expecting to find reasonably-priced houses/apartments in California, they're expecting to be able to sleep outside year round.  This is also why we need to figure out a solution through a national lens, we can't expect California to accommodate the homeless who came from so many other states permanently.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> As above, people migrate to California AFTER they've been driven to homelessness. They aren't expecting to find reasonably-priced houses/apartments in California, they're expecting to be able to sleep outside year round. This is also why we need to figure out a solution through a national lens, we can't expect California to accommodate the homeless who came from so many other states permanently.



Here's something I found on politifact for you:

_*Myth #1: *California’s homeless are from somewhere else -- and moved here for the mild weather and social services.  _

*Reality: *Experts say this is one of the most common and inaccurate assumptions about homeless Californians.

"People when they become homeless, more often than not are from the community in which they’re living homeless," said Ben Avey, a spokesman with Sacramento Steps Forward, a nonprofit dedicated to ending homelessness in the Capital City. "And they often move to the streets very near where they lived in the past. You may not recognize them. But they are members of your community."
--------------------------------

The biggest cities have such a dense population leaving much of the Midwest States open for more residents.  If we could move the homeless to these states and find them affordable housing, maybe they'd have a better chance at success.  This or Californian cities need to try something different and elect Republican mayor's who will do something for them by lowering taxes, trimming the fat, setting up affordable housing, cleaning up the streets, keep illegals from overwhelming the welfare system, etc.

Before you say it (again)....
I'm not trying to convince you or anybody to change parties, I'm just hinting that maybe the Democrat path is not the best for everyone and just pointing towards the light.  It is up to everyone to choose the right path for themselves, not to just follow others blindly where ever they may lead them with broken promises and deceit.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The biggest cities have such a dense population leaving much of the Midwest States open for more residents. If we could move the homeless to these states and find them affordable housing, maybe they'd have a better chance at success.


This is exactly what I was hinting at.  The federal government should provide subsidies to a number of states which elect to build communities with multiple apartment complexes (either rent-free or extremely low rent).  Then provide incentives and transportation to those homeless willing to leave California.



morvoran said:


> This or Californian cities need to try something different and elect Republican mayor's who will do something for them by lowering taxes, trimming the fat, setting up affordable housing, cleaning up the streets, keep illegals from overwhelming the welfare system, etc.


How does lowering taxes help people with no income?  Besides, California HAS elected Republican governors which did very little to improve things long term.  (Did you forget Schwarzenegger?)  Amidst all the talk of a high homeless rate, it shouldn't be forgotten that California has the largest economy in the nation, and by itself ranks as the fifth biggest economy in the world (in front of the UK).



morvoran said:


> I'm not trying to convince you or anybody to change parties, I'm just hinting that maybe the Democrat path is not the best for everyone and just pointing towards the light. It is up to everyone to choose the right path for themselves, not to just follow others blindly where ever they may lead them with broken promises and deceit.


The Republican party booted the entire population of mentally ill individuals onto the streets during the Reagan era.  Since then they've largely lived by the motto, "pull yourself up by the bootstraps," or translated: "fuck you I got mine."  They're certainly no friend to unions or the working class.  The Republican party has sold its soul entirely in the name of worshiping the wealthy.  Not that the Democratic party doesn't have its fair share of neoliberal crony capitalists, but there are at least _some_ elements within the party attempting to return us to New Deal-style politics.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 16, 2019)

SG854 said:


> And what evidence you have for making that claim?



Having actually lived it and seen others live it is all the evidence I need. You can take those statistics and stick them up someones ass. I'll let you choose who. If a person has all of those things, then they truly aren't poor & more than likely have zero idea how it actually is and feels like to be poor.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This is exactly what I was hinting at. The federal government should provide subsidies to a number of states which elect to build communities with multiple apartment complexes (either rent-free or extremely low rent). Then provide incentives and transportation to those homeless willing to leave California.


 You must have missed the part where a studio apartment is 2000+/month in california.  A homeless person can get one for 400+/month next state over in Arizona or go to Ohio where they're only 100+/month.  Compared to California, any midwest state could be considered "extremely low rent" with welfare it will be virtually (if not completely) free.
I would think not living in your own filth on a sidewalk would be incentive enough to leave, but it depends on the person.



Xzi said:


> How does lowering taxes help people with no income? Besides, California HAS elected Republican governors which did very little to improve things long term. (Did you forget Schwarzenegger?)


 Yeah, the only republican example you can come up with is the "get to the choppa" or "it's not a tuma" guy?  "I'll be back"?  how about "don't bother"?

How would you feel if I brought up Gavin Newsom?  Is he not famous enough?  Well, he's famously destroying whatever is left of California (or should we call it New-New Mexico?) right now.

Lower taxes will help other people have more income to share through charity if they wish instead of having that money stolen from them by the biggest mafia in the world (aka "the IRS").  Also, once these people get jobs, they will have more of income available on their check to help pay bills, buy necessities, etc.

How does increasing taxes help anybody?  We already pay 25%+ in most states for payroll taxes.  What about if we get the Democrat's universal heath care plans and everybody has to pay 40%+ in payroll taxes?  You'll have more people on the streets, especially with a $15/hr minimum wage job as they won't be able to afford to pay for anything but taxes.  That's if they can even find a company that will hire low skilled workers in this "Utopian Future" the democrats are promising.  Well, at least they will be able to get free healthcare to care for the bubonic plague or leprosy they got from living in their own, or someone else's-maybe both, fecal matter.   Good thing they can stay at the hospital for free while waiting the required 2+ weeks for a basic procedure like the other countries with such awesome free healthcare.  Hopefully they live long enough to get a free government band-aid and then go back to their government provided tent.



Xzi said:


> The Republican party booted the entire population of mentally ill individuals onto the streets during the Reagan era. Since then they've largely lived by the motto, "pull yourself up by the bootstraps," or translated: "fuck you I got mine." They're certainly no friend to unions or the working class. The Republican party has sold its soul entirely in the name of worshiping the wealthy. Not that the Democratic party doesn't have its fair share of neoliberal crony capitalists, but there are at least _some_ elements within the party attempting to return us to New Deal-style politics.


  This is the problem with public schools and most colleges/uni's these days.  Full of liberal gossip and nonsense.

Just to let you in on a secret, California actually started the deinstitutionalizing of mentally ill patients in 1967.  "Oh, wait!" you say?  Who was governor of california in 1967?  Ronald Reagan.  I guess you got me there, but "oh, wait", you think locking up people with down syndrome is the right thing to do or people with mild symptoms of schizophrenia? 

I agree the criminally insane should be locked up if they cause harm to others, but all mentally ill people shouldn't be locked up just because they think they're a girl when they were born a boy or an attack helicopter, whatever.  It's a shame, but this is how it was back then.

I worked at a temp job, back in my late teens, for a book publishing warehouse putting new dust covers on books and other duties.  Every month, they brought in a group of mentally disabled people who helped us with the overflow.  These people were the nicest people I ever met and hard working.  I couldn't imagine them being locked up in an asylum just because they were "different" than you.  I have to say I'm shocked that a leftist liberal with "so much love and tolerance for everyone" would even argue that these people should still be locked up.  Shame!  (I'm sure that's not you where you were going with this, but I thought I'd take the shot at you, at least)

Thankfully, they either were able to live on their own or live in homes where they were cared for.  Not locked up like prisoners or on the streets.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 17, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You must have missed the part where a studio apartment is 2000+/month in california. A homeless person can get one for 400+/month next state over in Arizona or go to Ohio where they're only 100+/month. Compared to California, any midwest state could be considered "extremely low rent" with welfare it will be virtually (if not completely) free.


$400/month is equally out of reach for people coming from a situation with zero income.  Many of whom can't work due to mental illness or other disabilities.  If you're only willing to solve the problem for the "best case" scenarios, then 90% of homeless will remain homeless.



morvoran said:


> I would think not living in your own filth on a sidewalk would be incentive enough to leave, but it depends on the person.


I've had a number of co-workers who fantasize about living like that on a beach in California or Hawaii.  Hard to blame them when a lot of full-time jobs will barely get you ends meet these days.  Wages commensurable with productivity and inflation, plus nationwide rent caps, would go a long way toward ensuring we aren't constantly generating more homeless to deal with.



morvoran said:


> Yeah, the only republican example you can come up with is the "get to the choppa" or "it's not a tuma" guy? "I'll be back"?


And?  Donald Trump couldn't even make it to movies, he capped out at reality TV.  Republicans love celebrity/actor politicians, because they're already good at telling lies.



morvoran said:


> How does increasing taxes help anybody? We already pay 25%+ in most states for payroll taxes. What about if we get the Democrat's universal heath care plans and everybody has to pay 40%+ in payroll taxes? You'll have more people on the streets, especially with a $15/hr minimum wage job as they won't be able to afford to pay for anything but taxes.


You've had marginal progressive tax rates explained to you multiple times.  I don't believe you're so dense that you haven't retained this information, but if that is the case, Google it.  Sanders' Medicare-for-all plan is projected to raise taxes on working/middle-class families by about 3-4% on average.  Which is still far less than anyone pays in yearly premiums/deductibles.



morvoran said:


> Just to let you in on a secret, California actually started the deinstitutionalizing of mentally ill patients in 1967. "Oh, wait!" you say? Who was governor of california in 1967? Ronald Reagan. I guess you got me there, but "oh, wait", you think locking up people with down syndrome is the right thing to do or people with mild symptoms of schizophrenia?


The right thing to do would've been reforming our mental health infrastructure to focus more on rehabilitation and independent living, less on keeping people "locked up" for life.  There were tons of obvious downsides with forcing all those people out on to the streets.



morvoran said:


> Thankfully, they either were able to live on their own or live in homes where they were cared for.


Great anecdote, but not everybody was so fortunate.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 17, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> You can take those statistics and stick them up someones ass. I'll let you choose who.


Now you're being kinky. This is the political section. Not an X -Rated dirty section.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 17, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The doctors gave him gallons of the liquid stuff, and he didn't like to drink alone.


 ROFLMAO your father destroys your life with drugs, and you feel the need to wag your finger at the libturds?????  Does not compute


----------



## smf (Sep 17, 2019)

MikeNS said:


> And?  Donald Trump couldn't even make it to movies, he capped out at reality TV.



I hate to do this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_filmography


----------



## Xzi (Sep 17, 2019)

smf said:


> I hate to do this.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_filmography


True, I forgot about all his bit parts and cameos, but that's because they were entirely forgettable.  He was basically an extra, so it's not like that qualifies as "making it" in the movie industry.

Also you assigned that quote to the wrong person.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 17, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> ROFLMAO your father destroys your life with drugs, and you feel the need to wag your finger at the libturds?????  Does not compute


Yeah, the ripe old bastard had that gun up to my head and forced me to drink it every time.  Then he had the nerve to die and leave me homeless and without my source of jesus juice.  Oh, boy, too bad I was never taught personal responsibility!!!!  I would never had gone through life the way I did and end up explaining myself to a troll on this site!!!!  Whoa is me!  Now I blame all libtards for my issues and can only get satisfaction from always proving my point.

Seriously, though, my dad was a great man who just happened to clock out on this life too early (and just happened to have the best drugs for pain relief).  I don't blame anybody but myself for my problems.  That is one of the steps to recovery.  I got myself into the mess and got myself out (with help from people that really cared, of course).  It's just too bad that not everybody ever realizes this truth, and that it takes personal responsibility and self determination to change your life for the better.  This topic is not about me, so I'm not going to discuss this further.




Xzi said:


> $400/month is equally out of reach for people coming from a situation with zero income.


That's why they need to get a job.  Maybe, if the illegal alien situation was fixed, it would be easier to get a job.  Look at the raid on the chicken plants in Mississippi.  After that happened, they had a job fair and were flooded with applicants looking for work that the illegals took. I thought they only took the jobs americans didn't want???



Xzi said:


> Many of whom can't work due to mental illness or other disabilities. If you're only willing to solve the problem for the "best case" scenarios, then 90% of homeless will remain homeless.


 I guess we can take a page from your book and just lock them up into insane asylums again.  Electro shock therapy, anyone?  Maybe a nice lobotomy?  You want to have the freedom to go to the store whenever you want?  Too bad.



Xzi said:


> I've had a number of co-workers who fantasize about living like that on a beach in California or Hawaii. Hard to blame them when a lot of full-time jobs will barely get you ends meet these days.


Do they also dream of living in their own feces, or do they already do that?  How many times have they had the bubonic plague or hepatitis? It's not as glamorous as it looks.



Xzi said:


> Sanders' Medicare-for-all plan is projected to raise taxes on working/middle-class families by about 3-4% on average. Which is still far less than anyone pays in yearly premiums/deductibles.


 Homeless don't pay premiums/deductibles.  How do you expect them to start paying those with zero income?  
Maybe, you should actually look at numbers someone else runs on his so-called "plan' instead of only looking at Bernie's numbers.  He's not a big shot economics expert, is he?  Don't just get your information from the person making up the numbers as he goes.   
Look at Splenda, scientists say it causes cancer, but on their site, it says it's 100% safe.  I guess you'll keep using Splenda then, huh?

The important thing to note is that he won't ever give you free healthcare.  He got a taste of the good life and wants more of that democrat power that comes with making false promises you people always believe.



Xzi said:


> There were tons of obvious downsides with forcing all those people out on to the streets.


 Yeah, like people that didn't look like you getting freedom to live life how they wanted.



Xzi said:


> Great anecdote, but not everybody was so fortunate.


  Yeah, like you would say, some were fortunate to be aborted by their leftist parents and didn't have the chance to make their mom suffer and make her life so horrible by having to take care of a special needs person.  That way, she could go have a great life without such a burden.  Those folks I worked with seemed to enjoy life more than some able bodied people I have known.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 17, 2019)

morvoran said:


> That's why they need to get a job. Maybe, if the illegal alien situation was fixed, it would be easier to get a job.


You're such a broken record, rofl.  Maybe start prosecuting the CEOs that are hiring illegals, and it'll stop being a problem.  Oh but that's right, if we do that, we'd have to prosecute the current president too.



morvoran said:


> I guess we can take a page from your book and just lock them up into insane asylums again.


When you start misrepresenting everything I say, that's when I know you've run out of arguments.



morvoran said:


> Do they also dream of living in their own feces, or do they already do that?


Only the severely mentally ill would do this, so perhaps it's projection on your part.



morvoran said:


> Homeless don't pay premiums/deductibles. How do you expect them to start paying those with zero income?


I don't expect them to, that's why I didn't mention the homeless in that quote.  The majority of the funding would come from the upper class and corporations.  Even accounting for the homeless, 3-4% is still what would be added to the tax burden for the working and middle class.

Do I have to remind you *again* that Trump also promised universal healthcare?  There's no cheaper option, as Medicare is by far the most efficient system we have in this country.



morvoran said:


> Maybe, you should actually look at numbers someone else runs on his so-called "plan' instead of only looking at Bernie's numbers. He's not a big shot economics expert, is he? Don't just get your information from the person making up the numbers as he goes.


Why would I bother looking at the numbers from people who take money from insurance lobbyists?  The healthcare insurance industry is a scam and always has been.



morvoran said:


> Yeah, like people that didn't look like you getting freedom to live life how they wanted.


"Go, you're free to starve to death on the streets!  Praise Reaganomics!"



morvoran said:


> Yeah, like you would say, some were fortunate to be aborted by their leftist parents


So you're suggesting that most homeless are children of right-wingers who couldn't afford to care for them?  While I find the idea amusing, Sarah Palin's family has had as many abortions as they've had haircuts.  Republicans are entirely hypocritical when it comes to abortion, along with so many other issues.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're such a broken record, rofl. Maybe start prosecuting the CEOs that are hiring illegals, and it'll stop being a problem.


 Have you ever been to an interview?  The CEO isn't there to see if you're a good fit for the company.  It's usually a manager and HR.  Even at mass hiring events, the CEO isn't there, so I'm not sure where you get that CEO's are hiring these illegals.  Oh, wait, I think I do know where.  Could it be from Fredo Cuomo or Don Lemon?



Xzi said:


> When you start misrepresenting everything I say, that's when I know you've run out of arguments.


 I'm just trying to answer in leftist speak to show you how it feels.  You did seem to not like the idea of people, yes, they are people, being released from those torture asylums regardless of their condition.



Xzi said:


> Only the severely mentally ill would do this, so perhaps it's projection on your part.


 I don't know your friends, but that is not a friendly thing to say about them.  Shame on you.



Xzi said:


> Do I have to remind you *again* that Trump also promised universal healthcare?


 Yes, please remind me when he did that.  You're playing a game of semantics (or at least who you get your talking points from is).  He said "healthcare for all" but it would not be a single payer system.  Not what you're thinking.  His plan was/is affordable healthcare for all.



Xzi said:


> Medicare is by far the most efficient system we have in this country.


 yeah, ok, next you're going to tell me Santa is real and a Democrat is going to beat Trump.  Let's get serious here.



Xzi said:


> Why would I bother looking at the numbers from people who take money from insurance lobbyists?


 well, silly, look at numbers from people who don't take money from lobbyist, then.  I never told you to do that.



Xzi said:


> "Go, you're free to starve to death on the streets! Praise Reaganomics!"


 Amen, brother!!! Preach!!!



Xzi said:


> While I find the idea amusing, Sarah Palin's family has had as many abortions as they've had haircuts.


 Yeah, next you're going to tell me you reclaim Marianne Williamson.  I never claimed Palin was a good person who stands by her morals, or that whole family.

Just as Bernie being rich but for socialism, against climate change but takes planes everywhere and rides in gas guzzlers, owns a comb but doesn't use it, etc, he is fake just like the Palin's.



Xzi said:


> So you're suggesting that most homeless are children of right-wingers who couldn't afford to care for them?



Yeah, the right wingers walked outside and just plopped those poor babies on the street to fend for themselves. 

Uh, anybody whom reaches the age of 18 is free to do as they please.  Of course, runaways can start living on the street at any age.  If they move out on their own and can't take care of themselves, they end up on the streets.  Not everybody wants to live with their mom in their 30's/40's.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 17, 2019)

morvoran said:


> This topic is not about me, so I'm not going to discuss this further.


Well I'm sorry, but it seems disqualifying.  If you can't accept that your father monstrously abused you by giving you his MORPHINE for Christ's sake, you aren't really qualified to offer anyone instructions about responsibility.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 17, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Have you ever been to an interview? The CEO isn't there to see if you're a good fit for the company. It's usually a manager and HR. Even at mass hiring events, the CEO isn't there, so I'm not sure where you get that CEO's are hiring these illegals.


Middle management are not the ones making the decision to be apathetic about verifying employees' citizenship.  That comes from the top down.



morvoran said:


> I'm just trying to answer in leftist speak to show you how it feels. You did seem to not like the idea of people, yes, they are people, being released from those torture asylums regardless of their condition.


I don't like the idea of forcing mentally ill people on to the streets with no support.  Which is why I said we needed to reform our mental healthcare infrastructure, not give up on it.  How many mass shootings has the right-wing attributed to mental health problems since Reagan demolished our mental health infrastructure?



morvoran said:


> Yes, please remind me when he did that.


During the campaign, and also two years ago in an interview with the Washington Post.





morvoran said:


> yeah, ok, next you're going to tell me Santa is real and a Democrat is going to beat Trump. Let's get serious here.


https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20110920.013390/full/

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/ar...costs-better-than-private-insurers-study-says

https://www.consumerwatchdog.org/blog/private-insurance-vs-medicare-truth-numbers

I'm sure if you could find any source suggesting there's a cheaper alternative to Medicare, you would've posted it.  Let's get serious indeed.



morvoran said:


> Amen, brother!!! Preach!!!


That says it all right there.  You're a neocon who doesn't actually want to address the issue of homelessness, because it might hurt profits for the millionaires/billionaires slightly.  The trickle-down experiment has been a failure time and again.



morvoran said:


> I never claimed Palin was a good person who stands by her morals, or that whole family.


No Republican stands by their supposed morals, so she's the perfect representative of the party.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 17, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> Well I'm sorry, but it seems disqualifying.  If you can't accept that your father monstrously abused you by giving you his MORPHINE for Christ's sake, you aren't really qualified to offer anyone instructions about responsibility.


You got that first part right about you being sorry.  He didn't "give" it to me.  It's not like I was 3 years old, and he put it in my juice box.  Just because your dad may have touched your naughty bits and hurt you, you don't need to go around accusing other fathers as being monsters.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm sure if you could find any source suggesting there's a cheaper alternative to Medicare, you would've posted it. Let's get serious indeed.


No, just tired of proving you wrong.   I didn't take Trump seriously when he said that I'd get tired of winning so much.  Boy, was he right.

Medicare is more efficient than private insurance, not the most efficient system.  It is only efficient to the patient, but behind the scene is still just a big mess.  Not having insurance is the most efficient as you don't deal with insurance agencies, the government, billing, etc.



Xzi said:


> Middle management are not the ones making the decision to be apathetic about verifying employees' citizenship. That comes from the top down.


  CEO's are not part of the hiring process.  They can't always be aware of whom their underlings are hiring or if they are following the rules of business.  If it can be proven that the CEO's were complicit with the fact that their company was hiring illegals, then yes, they should be prosecuted.



Xzi said:


> I don't like the idea of forcing mentally ill people on to the streets with no support. Which is why I said we needed to reform our mental healthcare infrastructure, not give up on it. How many mass shootings has the right-wing attributed to mental health problems since Reagan demolished our mental health infrastructure?


Were they forced out onto the streets with no support?  Can you provide evidence of this? 

I would think right-wingers would say all mass shooters have mental illness because what type of person would get to the point of going out to shoot several people?  They were obviously not stable to begin with.



Xzi said:


> During the campaign, and also two years ago in an interview with the Washington Post.


  As soon as you start the video, it says "insurance for everybody".  Did you not read what I typed?  I would guess "NO".  Let me know the time stamp in that video where Trump says "universal healthcare" because all I heard was "Insurance for everybody".



Xzi said:


> That says it all right there. You're a neocon who doesn't actually want to address the issue of homelessness, because it might hurt profits for the millionaires/billionaires slightly. The trickle-down experiment has been a failure time and again.


 Your "neo-Bull" terms that you "neo-leftists" come up with are just nonsense as well as some of the stuff you say.  Why would rich people want their cities covered with homeless, trash, and fecal matter?  Why would business owners want to hurt the consumer base by keeping them homeless and increase their own taxes?  Middle class and poor people consume more where the homeless consume little to none.  Why not help them become consumers?  The less homeless we have, the better the economy will become, and hopefully, lower taxes due to lower need for welfare programs.  If we went with an entirely charity based system, things would be a lot better.

I agree trickle down economics is a failure when you consider places such as Kansas who tried that with that mentally challenged Governor Brownback who is a good example for you to use when discussing the issue with releasing the insane onto the streets.  He pretty much destroyed that state which is why they went with a democrat governor.
It would work if the state had competent republican leadership.  Unfortunately, that wasn't the case.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 17, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Medicare is more efficient than private insurance, not the most efficient system. It is only efficient to the patient, but behind the scene is still just a big mess. Not having insurance is the most efficient as you don't deal with insurance agencies, the government, billing, etc.


Oh okay, so Americans should just never get sick or be born with any medical conditions.  Seems realistic.  



morvoran said:


> CEO's are not part of the hiring process. They can't always be aware of whom their underlings are hiring or if they are following the rules of business. If it can be proven that the CEO's knew that their company was hiring illegals, then yes, they should be prosecuted.


Requiring two forms of ID to be considered for a job is standard practice.  If your company doesn't do it, the CEO is definitely in the loop about that.



morvoran said:


> Were they forced out onto the streets with no support? Can you provide evidence of this?


Some had family/friends who could care for them, others did not.  Reagan's funding cuts were indiscriminate.  One-third of the homeless population are reported to have some form of mental illness, along with about half of all prisoners in the US.



			
				povertyinsights said:
			
		

> Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.
> 
> He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization.
> 
> ...





morvoran said:


> As soon as you start the video, it says "insurance for everybody". Did you not read what I typed? I would guess "NO". Let me know the time stamp in that video where Trump says "universal healthcare" because all I heard was "Insurance for everybody".


This is the same thing.  If you had watched a little further in, he includes the caveat that even people who cannot pay will be covered.



morvoran said:


> Why would rich people want their cities covered with homeless, trash, and fecal matter?


Rich people live in gated communities and own properties all over the world, and they hire people for mundane tasks like grocery shopping.  Rarely are they confronted with the reality of life outside their affluent bubbles.  Nowhere is this more apparent than places like Monaco.



morvoran said:


> I agree trickle down economics is a failure when you consider places such as Kansas who tried that with that mentally challenged Governor Brownback who is a good example for you to use when discussing the issue with releasing the insane onto the streets. He pretty much destroyed that state which is why they went with a democrat governor.
> It would work if the state had competent republican leadership. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case.


He followed the standard operating procedures of the Republican party to a T, the end result was bad because the policies are bad.  Trump is following the exact same policy guidelines on a national level, which is why we're due for another economic recession soon.


----------



## smf (Sep 17, 2019)

morvoran said:


> As soon as you start the video, it says "insurance for everybody".  Did you not read what I typed?  I would guess "NO".  Let me know the time stamp in that video where Trump says "universal healthcare" because all I heard was "Insurance for everybody".



I'll give you the link



The quote is here

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-promises-236021

“There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”

Insurance for everybody kinda sounds like insurance would be universal.

I personally think he was lying, just so he could take down obamacare. They'd find some way to actually weasel out of what was promised. But I don't think that helps your argument.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Sep 17, 2019)

morvoran said:


> asked decades ago



I'm _technically_ a Democrat, as in, I registered as a Democrat to curb Shitt Donkey (Shitt Romney), but since then, I have different values than my "registered" party.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh okay, so Americans should just never get sick or be born with any medical conditions. Seems realistic.


  If you fall and scrape your knee, would you prefer going through the process of medicare or just go to the store and buy some peroxide and bandages?  I think going to the store would be more efficient.



Xzi said:


> Requiring two forms of ID to be considered for a job is standard practice. If your company doesn't do it, the CEO is definitely in the loop about that.


 Yeah, because the CEO takes the time to verify every single employee's legality themselves to make sure that the hiring staff didn't let any illegals slip through.  Give me a break.



Xzi said:


> One-third of the homeless population are reported to have some form of mental illness, along with about half of all prisoners in the US.


 Well, should we just lock all the homeless up and give them shock therapy in your "passionate care facilities"?  In your world, that must be better than having them sleep on the sidewalks where you have to look at them.



Xzi said:


> Rich people live in gated communities and own properties all over the world, and they hire people for mundane tasks like grocery shopping. Rarely are they confronted with the reality of life outside their affluent bubbles. Nowhere is this more apparent than places like Monaco.


 so you think the rich never leave their one home to go their other homes?  All rich people have personal airfields in their backyards, so they never travel outside their "safe spaces"?  I guess there is never any worries about these poor people trying to climb their gates to steal from them, huh?  Ask King Elijah of Baltimore about that one.



Xzi said:


> He followed the standard operating procedures of the Republican party to a T, the end result was bad because the policies are bad. Trump is following the exact same policy guidelines on a national level, which is why we're due for another economic recession soon.


. He may have followed the process, but a horrible leader does not give confidence to the citizens.  If the business owners don't have faith in their leaders or feel like they're being taking advantage of in others ways, the owners will save the extra money rather than invest it.  Why invest in your company if you're going to hurt yourself in the process?



smf said:


> “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
> 
> Insurance for everybody kinda sounds like insurance would be universal.
> 
> I personally think he was lying, just so he could take down obamacare. They'd find some way to actually weasel out of what was promised. But I don't think that helps your argument.





Xzi said:


> This is the same thing. If you had watched a little further in, he includes the caveat that even people who cannot pay will be covered.


Have you two ever heard of medicaid?  You know, the system of "government provided insurance" that helps lower income people, who can't afford insurance, pay their medical bills? I'm sure you're aware of medicare since the left wants to destroy it by letting everyone get in on that action.

Plus "universal healthcare" is a phrase with multiple possible meanings. 

Do you think of it as a "single payer system" where the government gives free healthcare to all regardless of your financial situation?  Then no, Trump is not proposing universal healthcare.

Are you implying that it means affordable healthcare for most and government issued healthcare for those who can't afford insurance, such as medicare and medicaid, so in other words "insurance for everybody"?
Well, I guess you got me there then......Wait a second, does that mean we already have universal healthcare now?  Well, crap, I guess Obummer pulled the wool over the Republicans' eyes with his Affordable Care Act.  He slipped it right by us. Damn!


----------



## smf (Sep 17, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Have you two ever heard of medicaid?  You know, the system of "government provided insurance" that helps lower income people, who can't afford insurance, pay their medical bills? I'm sure you're aware of medicare since the left wants to destroy it by letting everyone get in on that action.



I'm glad you mentioned medicaid.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/trump-administrations-harmful-changes-to-medicaid

Who wants to destroy it?

I don't think you understand what the left wants to do to it, you don't want to admit what the right wants to do to it.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 17, 2019)

smf said:


> Who wants to destroy it?
> 
> I don't think you understand what the left wants to do to it, you don't want to admit what the right wants to do to it.


I said I'm sure you're aware of Medicare(not medicaid) because the left wants to destroy it.  If you make everybody sign up for it, then it won't be as good as it is for the people already on it, thus destroying it.

Making people go out and get work to stay on medicaid is not harming it.  It harms the slackers who only want free stuff and a nanny state to take care of them while not contributing to society (other than sucking off it's teat).

The left has no sense or knowledge of basic human psychology.  If you give somebody free stuff without terms, they won't appreciate it as much as if they earn it themselves.  Oh, but the right is so evil and full of hate by trying to get people to learn personal responsibility and take care of themselves by cutting off access to the government's teats and pushing the slackers out from under Momma Welfare's wings.  People that need the help are not benefiting from the abuses on these systems by the folks capable of taking care of themselves but refuse to.

This all leads back to the homeless situation.  The ones that can and want to work need to be offered work and reasonable housing, or in other words, a hand up (not a hand out).  The ones that don't need to have consequences for their inaction.  If they are mentally ill, they need to get help.  The left thinks that babying people regardless of their abilities and coddling them forever will fix society's issues.  Instead of helping, that only enables them to stay in their situation.
Oh, these people want to live on the street? Let's give them tents.  Oh, they want to use drugs? Poor babies, lets give them free needles, so they don't get sick.  Oh, they poop on the sidewalk? We'll just pay somebody to wash it away.  Oh, citizens are starting to get bubonic plague and leprosy?  Oh, well, we don't know what to do.  Maybe, we can bring in more illegal aliens to spread the diseases further.  Because we care.


----------



## smf (Sep 17, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It harms the slackers who only want free stuff and a nanny state to take care of them while not contributing to society (other than sucking off it's teat).



You are directly contradicting.

“There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”

If you're not working (for whatever reason) then you can't pay for it.

YOU want to destroy medicaid, by removing people from it. That doesn't make it stronger, it just makes it cheaper.

The irony is that the more people on medicaid, the stronger their negotiating power is and the cheaper it becomes. Your health insurance would be much cheaper if you paid the government for it, it would even cover those disabled slackers that you hate.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 17, 2019)

smf said:


> You are directly contradicting.
> 
> “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
> 
> ...


Did you and @Xzi  go to the same public schools?  Since you both think the same way and couldn't choose a username that consisted of more than 3 random letters, I am assuming you did. 

"If you can't pay for it" means the people falling on hard times, low skilled workers making minimum wage, or unable to work.  This doesn't mean the 40 year old laying on his mom's couch watching YouTube, while his mommy goes to work at Walmart, can abuse the system if he is able to work.  His mom can drive him to Walmart to work the same shift as her. 

I'm not even going to respond to that nonsense about more people makes something better mess as it was nonsense.


----------



## smf (Sep 17, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Did you and @Xzi  go to the same public schools?  Since you both think the same way and couldn't choose a username that consisted of more than 3 random letters, I am assuming you did.



More flawed logic.



morvoran said:


> "If you can't pay for it" means the people falling on hard times, low skilled workers making minimum wage, or unable to work.



i.e. The people they are taking medicaid away from to lower taxes for rich people.



morvoran said:


> I'm not even going to respond to that nonsense about more people makes something better mess as it was nonsense.



Yes, ignore the evidence.

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...0615/6-reasons-healthcare-so-expensive-us.asp

It's funny that the cost of your insurance is so much higher than every other country because you are so scared of paying for someone elses healthcare.


----------



## lexarvn (Sep 17, 2019)

morvoran said:


> let's start in the state with the biggest problem first, then work to other areas.  Hmm, now, which state has the biggest homeless problem?  Could it be California?



Sure, if you look at just the total homeless population in each state, sure California has the most, but California also has the biggest population of the all the states. If you look at rates of homelessness, California isn't the top and the rate is fairly stagnant. NY is the top state when it comes to rates of homelessness and is growing, but of course Trump doesn't want to make his home state look bad. So I have to agree with Xzi that California is just Trump's political target just like it has always been.
I couldn't find anyone who actually put together a homlessness to population ratio table so I made one with sources that you can check: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KAno5UBN766lGwvVQ9fOHd916VA0EsYf4s-ixJ9veAw/edit?usp=sharing

Side note, but I always find it really strange when people complain about how high California's taxes are. They aren't that different than most the rest of the western states even with Oregon not having sales tax and Washington not having income tax.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 17, 2019)

smf said:


> It's funny that the cost of your insurance is so much higher than every other country because you are so scared of paying for someone elses healthcare.


 No, it's because of our flawed system that allows hospitals, pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, and medical supply manufacturers to set their own prices.  Thankfully, Trump is also working on that and has signed an executive order to stop price gouging on meds, surgeries, etc through secret pricing



smf said:


> Yes, ignore the evidence.


You ever heard of the "law of diminishing returns"?  It applies to your "theory".



smf said:


> More flawed logic.


 No, I have proved that hypothesis correct through strenuous scientific testing over the past few weeks.



smf said:


> i.e. The people they are taking medicaid away from to lower taxes for rich people.


 Be careful, @Xzi wants to lock people like you back up into institutions. 
This is pure speculation without an iota of truth.  Preventing abuses on our welfare programs will help the people they were only intended for, instead of the leeches feeding off the system.  Turn off CNN, because Brian Stelter is not telling you the truth.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 18, 2019)

lexarvn said:


> Sure, if you look at just the total homeless population in each state, sure California has the most, but California also has the biggest population of the all the states. If you look at rates of homelessness, California isn't the top and the rate is fairly stagnant. NY is the top state when it comes to rates of homelessness and is growing, but of course Trump doesn't want to make his home state look bad. So I have to agree with Xzi that California is just Trump's political target just like it has always been.


I was going to start this reply with, "Oh, good, another victim of the public school system", but since this is the first time I remember replying to you, I'll refrain.

As pointed out in another post, California's homeless population is 130,000 compared to Florida in second place at 30,000.   In this case, the important numbers to look at here is the total number of homeless rather than the ratio of population figuring the population of homeless in California is overwhelmingly outnumbering the population of other states regardless of their size.  

Theoretically, lets say a state has a population of 1000 people.  The homeless population is 250 making a quarter of their state homeless where the next state over has 100,000 homeless with a population of 1 million people meaning a tenth of their population is homeless.  In your mind, the state with a population of 1000 should get more attention?  Um, no, I don't think so.  New York will get their own homeless under control after they re-elect a republican governor  New York City will fix their issues once they get another republican mayor back in charge.

You wasted your time on that chart because I'm a logical thinking person, but there are plenty of liberals/leftists on here that will take your side and agree with your invalid points.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 18, 2019)

morvoran said:


> If you fall and scrape your knee, would you prefer going through the process of medicare or just go to the store and buy some peroxide and bandages? I think going to the store would be more efficient.


Of course people don't go to the ER for minor scrapes and bruises.  I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.  People still need insurance to prevent themselves from drowning in a lifetime of debt should something more serious occur, or even if they just have a common condition like asthma or diabetes.



morvoran said:


> Yeah, because the CEO takes the time to verify every single employee's legality themselves to make sure that the hiring staff didn't let any illegals slip through. Give me a break.


The CEO sets the hiring procedures for middle management to follow.  I've repeatedly stated that no, he doesn't micromanage every applicant.  Repeating the same nonsense argument makes you look dense.



morvoran said:


> Well, should we just lock all the homeless up and give them shock therapy in your "passionate care facilities"?


More disingenuous bullshit.  You're not arguing with me on this point any more, you're arguing with the strawman in your head.



morvoran said:


> so you think the rich never leave their one home to go their other homes? All rich people have personal airfields in their backyards, so they never travel outside their "safe spaces"? I guess there is never any worries about these poor people trying to climb their gates to steal from them, huh?


Not really, no.  Most gated communities have armed guards.  There's still the occasional incident, but it's not something that worries any rich person minute to minute.



morvoran said:


> He may have followed the process, but a horrible leader does not give confidence to the citizens.


"Horrible leaders following a horrible process" still sounds descriptive of the entire Republican party to me.



morvoran said:


> Plus "universal healthcare" is a phrase with multiple possible meanings.


The definition is consistent, but there are different ideas on how to reach universal healthcare coverage.  What Trump was suggesting a couple years back is essentially the same as what Biden and other centrist Democrats have been pushing during the debates.  Personally I don't know why people would want to keep being scammed by private insurers, but I do understand that lobbyist money buys them a lot of support.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 18, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Of course people don't go to the ER for minor scrapes and bruises. I don't even know what point you're trying to make here. People still need insurance to prevent themselves from drowning in a lifetime of debt should something more serious occur, or even if they just have a common condition like asthma or diabetes.


 I guess you've never been to an ER before, at least not an inner city ER.  People can still have insurance and go into debt with a serious condition.  Doesn't mean medicare is the most efficient.



Xzi said:


> Repeating the same nonsense argument makes you look dense.


  You took the words right out of my head.



Xzi said:


> The CEO sets the hiring procedures for middle management to follow. I've repeatedly stated that no, he doesn't micromanage every applicant.


 With super small companies, a CEO can choose to be responsible for the hiring of staff, but not the low level employees that would usually be illegal aliens.

* What Is Chief Executive Officer (CEO)? *
A chief executive officer (CEO) is the highest-ranking executive in a company, whose primary responsibilities include making major corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company, acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors (the board) and corporate operations and being the public face of the company. A CEO is elected by the board and its shareholders.

There is no standardized list of the roles and responsibilities of a chief executive officer. The typical duties, responsibilities and job description of a CEO include:


Communicating, on behalf of the company, with shareholders, government entities, and the public
Leading the development of the company’s short- and long-term strategy
Creating and implementing the company or organization’s vision and mission
Evaluating the work of other executive leaders within the company, including directors, vice presidents, and presidents
Maintaining awareness of the competitive market landscape, expansion opportunities, industry developments, etc.
Ensuring that the company maintains high social responsibility wherever it does business
Assessing risks to the company and ensuring they are monitored and minimized
Setting strategic goals and making sure they are measurable and describable



Xzi said:


> More disingenuous bullshit. You're not arguing with me on this point any more, you're arguing with the strawman in your head.


  Well, get out of my head, strawman.  Don't blame me because you hate disabled people.



Xzi said:


> Not really, no. Most gated communities have armed guards. There's still the occasional incident, but it's not something that worries any rich person minute to minute.


 I thought your democrat leaders were going to take away everybody's guns?



Xzi said:


> "Horrible leaders following a horrible process" still sounds descriptive of the entire *Democrat* party to me.


 Fixed that for you.  You really need to double check the stuff you type.  You've been making quite a few mistakes like this.



Xzi said:


> The definition is consistent, but there are different ideas on how to reach universal healthcare coverage. What Trump was suggesting a couple years back is essentially the same as what Biden and other centrist Democrats have been pushing during the debates.


 Or like Obama Care but much better, cheaper, and more beautiful (you're going to love it. It will be huuuuge!).  Is that what you consider universal healthcare?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 18, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I guess you've never been to an ER before, at least not an inner city ER. People can still have insurance and go into debt with a serious condition.


I'm aware.  The American healthcare system is absolutely broken from top to bottom, mostly because it's driven by the profit motive more than anything else.  As long as that's the case, Americans will seek treatment/medications from foreign countries such as Canada and Mexico, among others.



morvoran said:


> With super small companies, a CEO can choose to be responsible for the hiring of staff


They're ultimately responsible for the actions of middle management.  If middle management is hiring illegals, it's because they were instructed to from higher up.  That's not the type of decision that's made independent of the company's policies at large.  As it stands now, there's nobody being held responsible when illegals are found to be working somewhere.  The company is given a small fine which they usually brush off.  Jail time for CEOs would send a clear message and actually cause a ripple effect of change.



morvoran said:


> Well, get out of my head, strawman. Don't blame me because you hate disabled people.


I blame your regressive mindset for making you believe that our understanding and treatment of mental healthcare hasn't advanced since the 1940s.  The only person bringing up shock therapy is you.



morvoran said:


> Or like Obama Care but much better, cheaper, and more beautiful (you're going to love it. It will be huuuuge!). Is that what you consider universal healthcare?


It's irrelevant because Trump was just blowing hot air.  He's not going to deliver on _any_ healthcare plan, let alone universal healthcare.  In fact he's indicated that he'll make cuts to Medicare and Social Security if re-elected, which would cause more people to become uninsured, and cause a higher rate of homelessness among the elderly.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 18, 2019)

Xzi said:


> As it stands now, there's nobody being held responsible when illegals are found to be working somewhere. The company is given a small fine which they usually brush off. Jail time for CEOs would send a clear message and actually cause a ripple effect of change.


  Well, I think the punishment should start with the democrats that said there was no crisis at the border, are creating sanctuary cities, are preventing local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE, are preventing changes to our asylum/immigration laws, and fought against funding the border wall.  That is what will create the "ripple effect" to prevent illegals from taking our jobs.  

I have to say I'm surprised you even agree that illegals shouldn't be taking jobs.  That or you just want CEO's to be punished for the raids for terrorizing those poor immigrants with no papers.



Xzi said:


> I blame your regressive mindset for making you believe that our understanding and treatment of mental healthcare hasn't advanced since the 1940s. The only person bringing up shock therapy is you.


 Hmm, regressive mindset?  Understanding/treatment of mental healthcare since the 1940's, huh?  I guess you got me there, again.... 

Wait a second there, buck-o!!!!
---------------------
*ECT is much safer today.* Although ECT may still cause some side effects, it now uses electric currents given in a controlled setting to achieve the most benefit with the fewest possible risks.
Source: mayoclinic
---------------------
I hope the Mayo Clinic is not too right-wing and biased for you.




Xzi said:


> He's not going to deliver on _any_ healthcare plan, let alone universal healthcare.


  He still has 5 more years.  I don't know why you can't realize that, yet.  Did you not watch the last Democrat debate?  That was just a political ad supporting Trump.  Give him time as he has to fix other issues first before he can make a successful plan (without illegals draining the system).



Xzi said:


> In fact he's indicated that he'll make cuts to Medicare and Social Security *after he's* re-elected, which would cause more people to become uninsured, and cause a higher rate of homelessness among the elderly.


 You really need to edit yourself before hitting the reply button.  I have to keep fixing your typos.

He sure is or already has, I can't remember.  Maybe cutting some of the fat will help stop some of the abuse of the system.  Less money may mean they need to help the most needy of patients/disabled instead of giving money to able bodied people using the system for their own gain.  I guess you're okay with that, though.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 18, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I have to say I'm surprised you even agree that illegals shouldn't be taking jobs. That or you just want CEO's to be punished for the raids for terrorizing those poor immigrants with no papers.


The cycle of exploiting one population after another for cheap labor has to end some time, though I'm sure crony capitalists on both sides of the aisle would disagree.  We also need a path to citizenship so that more immigrants are willing to be documented in order to receive fair wages (not that minimum wage is particularly fair at the moment).



morvoran said:


> *ECT is much safer today.* Although ECT may still cause some side effects, it now uses electric currents given in a controlled setting to achieve the most benefit with the fewest possible risks.


Lol, so you go from suggesting I want mentally ill people "tortured" to unironically supporting shock therapy yourself.  That's great that it's safer today.  Still not something I'd advocate for, or again, even something that I brought up in the first place.  There are better treatments out there now for long-term improvement of mental health.



morvoran said:


> He still has 1 more year.


Yeah, it's not enough.  He's already glossed over the issue for three years, and like I said, he's indicated that he'll make cuts to Medicare/Social Security if he's re-elected.  Trump is in the pocket of private insurance, and they're happiest/most profitable with our current broken system.



morvoran said:


> Maybe cutting some of the fat will help stop some of the abuse of the system.


"Cutting the fat," AKA fucking over low-income Americans so we can give more money away as corporate welfare.  Typical neocon grift.  You already admitted trickle-down doesn't work, yet here you are defending it just a few posts later.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 18, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Lol, so you go from suggesting I want mentally ill people "tortured" to unironically supporting shock therapy yourself.


 ok, put down that bottle of Zima, you're drunk enough.  Go back and read your quote I was responding to.



Xzi said:


> Yeah, it's not enough. He's already glossed over the issue for three years, and like I said, he's indicated that he'll make cuts to Medicare/Social Security if he's re-elected.


 I'd like to see you get stuff done when you got idiots in the house trying to impeach you for the ## time(I lost track just as they probably have too), Democrats  constantly fighting against changes the majority of voters want, and they refuse to acknowledge problems before they blow up such as the caravans.  
All this on top of fighting with the rino's in your own party.  He's drained the swamp quite a bit and will get stuff done after he's elected again, especially after the repubs regain majority in the house.  
With the house not spending all their time and wasting tax dollars on a senseless impeachment, changes will happen so fast your head will spin.



Xzi said:


> "Cutting the fat," AKA fucking over low-income Americans so we can give more money away as corporate welfare. Typical neocon grift. You already admitted trickle-down doesn't work, yet here you are defending it just a few posts later.


 What?  Wow, you must have drank half that bottle of Zima by now and it shows.  
Cutting funds to programs also means going through and fixing the abuse of the program and cutting necessary corners.  Why make cuts to save money and then give that money away?  That just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 18, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Go back and read your quote I was responding to.


I know which quote you were responding to, and I also remember the rest of the conversation.  Apparently you don't, but that really isn't surprising.



morvoran said:


> I'd like to see you get stuff done when you got idiots in the house trying to impeach you for the ## time


Impeachment hasn't even been put to a vote once yet.  This is a very pathetic excuse, especially considering that the Republicans controlled all three branches of government for Trump's first two years in office.  Maybe if he didn't waste 2/3rds of every day Tweeting and/or golfing, he might be able to get more done.



morvoran said:


> Why make cuts to save money and then give that money away? That just doesn't make sense.


It makes perfect sense when you factor lobbyists and quid pro quo into the equation.  The more corporate welfare Trump gives away, the more those same corporations rent rooms at his hotels or donate to his 2020 campaign.  Like I said, typical neocon grift.


----------



## smf (Sep 18, 2019)

morvoran said:


> No, it's because of our flawed system that allows hospitals, pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, and medical supply manufacturers to set their own prices.



It's because you want competition by having lots of different providers, but that has additional overhead and low bargaining power.

It'll be interesting seeing what regulation Trump introduces, when he is normally trying to remove regulation. Maybe none of his swamp friends are in pharmaceutical industry.


----------



## DBlaze (Sep 18, 2019)

One thing is for sure, this sure is the most amusing term of any president ever


----------



## lexarvn (Sep 18, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I was going to start this reply with, "Oh, good, another victim of the public school system", but since this is the first time I remember replying to you, I'll refrain.


Well you shouldn't as that is untrue since I never went to public school.



morvoran said:


> As pointed out in another post, California's homeless population is 130,000 compared to Florida in second place at 30,000.


Um, except Florida is not. New York is according to https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5783/2018-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us/ with ~92,000 which places it in the same ball park as California



morvoran said:


> Theoretically, lets say a state has a population of 1000 people.  The homeless population is 250 making a quarter of their state homeless where the next state over has 100,000 homeless with a population of 1 million people meaning a tenth of their population is homeless.  In your mind, the state with a population of 1000 should get more attention?


Of course the total has to be taken into account as well, but that still leaves New York as number two in total homelessness which is comparable to California's, and number one in homelessness rate which has been on an increasing trend for the last 8 years while California's has been going up and down making it roughly stagnant on average



morvoran said:


> You wasted your time on that chart because I'm a logical thinking person, but there are plenty of liberals/leftists on here that will take your side and agree with your invalid points.


If I wasted my time, it isn't because you are logical. It's because you are unwilling to look at the data from more than one way.


----------



## ghjfdtg (Sep 18, 2019)

lol just lock this already and let the brainwashed fanboy alone. It's so sad that people still fall for Trump's bullshit.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 19, 2019)

smf said:


> It's because you want competition by having lots of different providers, but that has additional overhead and low bargaining power.
> 
> It'll be interesting seeing what regulation Trump introduces, when he is normally trying to remove regulation. Maybe none of his swamp friends are in pharmaceutical industry.



This story here should answer both of these statements - click here 

*Trump signs order that aims to reveal real health care costs*
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday that calls for upfront disclosure by hospitals of actual prices for common tests and procedures to help keep costs down .

If the hospitals have to reveal costs, you can determine which hospital would be the cheapest to get a procedure done at, which would open up competition up among medical facilities.  This will eventually lower prices.



lexarvn said:


> If I wasted my time, it isn't because you are logical. It's because you are unwilling to look at the data from more than one way.


  No, you were looking at ratio rather than total population.  Why look at data in other ways instead of the most relevant way? My way of looking at the issue is the most logical way.



lexarvn said:


> Um, except Florida is not.


  I blame @Xzi for this.  I knew New York was second, but I made an error in judgement by going along with his lies/misinformation just as all leftists do with the lies from the democrats.  I guess I haven't fully converted over to the right, yet.  My bad.



lexarvn said:


> number one in homelessness rate which has been on an increasing trend for the last 8 years while California's has been going up and down making it roughly stagnant on average


  New York City had a working model during Mayor Giuliani's term.  The state can fix their homeless issue by voting in a competent, Republican Governor along with NYC fixing theirs by voting in a mayor that doesn't get his policies from 8 year olds and make plastic straws public enemy number one (along with their own police force).

This doesn't take away the fact that California still has the highest number of homeless making them priority number one (why not help the most people you can?).  Every state may need a different solution for their homeless situation, so it may not work to focus on every state at the same time (not to mention the tax dollars and manpower needed to do that).  I say let him fix Californian first, then look into the other states.

Not only that, just imagine the hate Trump would get for skipping over the top homeless populated state of California for New York, his homestate, which is second.  He is already being accused of only caring about his campaign.  Helping New York first would be a nightmare.



ghjfdtg said:


> lol just lock this already and let the brainwashed fanboy alone. It's so sad that people still fall for Trump's bullshit.


  Oh, good argument,  I feel so defeated by your leftist hate..... Nope.
Maybe if you stopped listening to the lies of others to determine how you think and feel and start making decisions on your own, perhaps you'll stop being so full of hate and actually contribute to society and stay on the topic of this thread instead of sharing a very dumb opinion that would have been better left to yourself.
It's so sad (and pathetic) that, even though Trump is making this country greater every day, people still blindly fall for the bull lies of the democrats and fall for their brainwashing methods of offering free stuff to the weak minded, selfish people in this country.
If you have a valid opinion on the homeless in California, please feel free to share.  Leave your nonsense mess to yourself.  Thanks.


----------



## lexarvn (Sep 19, 2019)

morvoran said:


> No, you were looking at ratio rather than total population. Why look at data in other ways instead of the most relevant way? My way of looking at the issue is the most logical way.


So you think there is no point in looking at anything other than the total population period? So hypothetically, if one city has a homeless population of 100,000 and the homelessness rate is 0.1% and another city has a homeless population of 90,000 and a the homelessness rate is 2%, you shouldn't consider the rates at all? Because that's what it sounds like you are saying. 

I'm not denying that the total shouldn't be taken into account, I'm just saying that rates (among other things) can be important too and need to be taken into consideration


----------



## Xzi (Sep 19, 2019)

Relevant to the topic at hand, just yesterday Bernie Sanders released a detailed national plan to provide housing for all across the US.  This is the type of wide-reaching and permanent solution we need, as opposed to a temporary band-aid focused on a single state.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 19, 2019)

lexarvn said:


> So you think there is no point in looking at anything other than the total population period? So hypothetically, if one city has a homeless population of 100,000 and the homelessness rate is 0.1% and another city has a homeless population of 90,000 and a the homelessness rate is 2%, you shouldn't consider the rates at all? Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.



It all depends on the situation.  In this scenario, the majority in numbers, not ratio, takes precedence.  Do you honestly feel that you should go for the highest ratio of homeless over the total population in a state?  I can't believe that for a second.  It would make sense to me that you would want to help the most amount of people in one go around.  Then you can work down the line to help the lower numbers.

If a family of 5 has 4 members sick and dying and a family of 10 has 7 members dying, you wouldn't send the doctor to the family of 10 first since they have the most to lose?  I can agree that a family losing everybody but one person seems like a harsh deal, but the bigger family is losing more people.

If a bomb was about to go off in a building with 100 people and will kill 40 of them (or 40%), would you send the only available bomb squad to another building with 50 people and will kill 25 (or 50%) of them?  I would hope you would save the largest number of people.

I can go on, but I digress.

The scenarios I would believe the ratio counts over total #'s is when you consider disproportional criticism of a group in regards to the total population of the whole US.
Look at the news and you see that a certain race that covers over 60% of the nation is being called a national danger, supremacists, and blaming them for mass murdering and killing the other races in droves.  If you look at the FBI crime statistics, you'll see that another race that consists of 13% of the population is responsible for over 50% of the murders committed each year.  I would think the race committing over 50% of murders would be the aggressors in this scenario, but what do I know, I only go by facts and not feelings.




Xzi said:


> Relevant to the topic at hand, just yesterday Bernie Sanders released a detailed national plan to provide housing for all across the US. This is the type of wide-reaching and permanent solution we need, as opposed to a temporary band-aid focused on a single state.


 and how exactly is your fearless leader going to pay for this, along with free universal healthcare for everybody (including illegals), free college, free everything?  Oh, I guess after he takes everybody's guns away, he can raise taxes up to 80% since nobody will be able to stop his tyranny.

Of course, he won't be president, he won't push free everything, and he won't give free housing.  Good job believing his nonsense.  I hope you weren't betting your life on him.

Edit:  Oh, let me guess.  He'll tax the rich and the corporations to pay for all this while we only pay an extra 1-2%?  Yeah, okay, go back to playing with your silly putty, buck-o.  You obviously have had a hard day of ramming that tree with your forehead.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> and how exactly is your fearless leader going to pay for this, along with free universal healthcare for everybody (including illegals), free college, free everything?


By prioritizing working Americans over the corporate welfare handouts, endless wars, and subsidies to foreign adversaries (such as Saudi Arabia) that your shitstain of a "leader" prefers to spend money on.

For his housing plan in particular, he's proposed a wealth tax on the top one-tenth of one percent of income earners.  That alone would provide $2.5 trillion in funding over the next ten years, highlighting just how obscene the wealth disparity is in this country right now.

Here's an infographic from 2016 showing where revenue to pay for all his other proposals would come from, though some of the information may be outdated:


----------



## morvoran (Sep 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> By prioritizing working Americans over the corporate welfare handouts, endless wars, and subsidies to foreign adversaries (such as Saudi Arabia) that your shitstain of a "leader" prefers to spend money on.
> 
> For his housing plan in particular, he's proposed a wealth tax on the top one-tenth of one percent of income earners. That alone would provide $2.5 trillion in funding over the next ten years, highlighting just how obscene the wealth disparity is in this country right now.
> 
> Here's an infographic from 2016 showing where revenue to pay for all his other proposals would come from, though some of the information may be outdated:



Hmm, whomever made that "infographic" for Bernie seems to have left out the part where all the 1% top earners and all corporations leave the US before being taxed to death while leaving the middle/poor classes to cover these "extra" expenses to our tax coffers leaving the US further in debt and on the brink of becoming a 4th world country where our citizens jump the border into Mexico for their low skilled jobs.

I'm sorry, but the Right wingers and I don't live in this wonderful fantasy land you lefties believe in.  We live to work and earn our way to success rather than waiting for some real life troll doll to come along and promise to steal the rewards of actual workers just to gain your votes.  Too bad that, if for some strange occurrence happens where Bernie makes a deal with the devil (which is Google's lackey) to make him president, he won't give you guys  except for a horrible rug "Bern".


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Hmm, whomever made that "infographic" for Bernie seems to have left out the part where all the 1% top earners and all corporations leave the US


You gotta be smoking crack.  I've already explained to you that it isn't an option for corporations to simply "leave" the US as one of the largest and wealthiest consumer nations on Earth, especially at a time when they're raking in record profits from us.

And hey, if they are stupid enough to leave, new companies take their place and take their profits.  That's the way capitalism is meant to work, but most of these corporations have spent way too much time and money rigging the system in their favor to give up on the US market now.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You gotta be smoking crack.


  You leave my personal habits out of this, TYVM.



Xzi said:


> I've already explained to you that it isn't an option for corporations to simply "leave" the US as one of the largest and wealthiest consumer nations on Earth, especially at a time when they're raking in record profits from us.


  Thanks to Bernie and the "democratic" socialists, China will take over as the World's biggest economy soon after Trump leaves office in 2025.  The corporations will have no choice but to leave if there isn't any economy left.



Xzi said:


> And hey, if they are stupid enough to leave, new companies take their place and take their profits. That's the way capitalism is meant to work, but most of these corporations have spent way too much time and money rigging the system in their favor to give up on the US market now.


 No economy, no new companies.  I guess we can always get into the drug trade and human trafficking.  I hear those careers make a lot of money.  Feel the "Bern" 2024!!!  Third times the charm!


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> China will take over as the World's biggest economy soon after Trump leaves office in 2025.


Lol, you're absolutely correct, the economy will be in shambles by then if Trump gets a second term.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> the economy will be in shambles by then if Trump gets a second term.


  The only way that happens is after the economy grows so big that everybody (even you) will get tired of winning so much, and we decide to let one of your democrat leaders play "president for a day".  What's one day going to do? Oh, the economy would tank.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The only way that happens is after the economy grows so big that everybody (even you) will get tired of winning so much, and we decide to let one of your democrat leaders play "president for a day".  What's one day going to do? Oh, the economy would tank.


Yeah, you would be dumb enough to blame the GWB crash on Obama, just as you'll blame Trump's late 2020 crash on the next president before they're even inaugurated.  Do us all a favor and go back to eating your Tide pods.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, you would be dumb enough to blame the GWB crash on Obama, just as you'll blame Trump's late 2020 crash on the next president before they're even inaugurated.  Do us all a favor and go back to eating your Tide pods.


No, I'm saying that if a democrat wins for some insane reason in 2024, that on day one after Trump leaves office, the economy, that Trump worked so hard to build to the greatest it's been in over 50 years and getting better, will tank due to the stock market crashing, the top 1% and corporations leaving the US, as well as all our tax dollars being given to Mexicans and South Americans for housing, healthcare, and cash assistance once they all cross our new opened border.  As well as them taking over what's left since we won't have guns to defend ourselves.  The military won't help defend us from them because "they don't want to appear racist".


----------



## Xzi (Sep 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> No, I'm saying that if a democrat wins for some insane reason in 2024, that on day one after Trump leaves office, the economy, that Trump worked so hard to build to the greatest it's been in over 50 years and getting better, will tank due to the stock market crashing, the top 1% and corporations leaving the US, as well as all our tax dollars being given to Mexicans and South Americans for housing, healthcare, and cash assistance once they all cross our new opened border.  As well as them taking over what's left since we won't have guns to defend ourselves.  The military won't help defend us from them because "they don't want to appear racist".


----------



## morvoran (Sep 20, 2019)

*Trump threatens San Francisco with EPA violation because of city's homeless*
*Source: here*
President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened to have the Environmental Protection Agency issue a "notice" to San Francisco over the city's homeless issue, comments that were criticized by local officials.
From Air Force One, Trump, who had been in California for a two-day fundraising trip, blamed the homeless population for environmental issues. "There's tremendous pollution being put into the ocean," he said, noting "there are needles, there are other things."

"We're going to be giving San Francisco — they're in total violation — we’re going to be giving them the notice very soon," Trump said.
"The EPA is going to be putting out a notice and you know they're in serious violation and this is environmental, very environmental," Trump said. "And they have to clean it up. We can’t have our cities going to hell."



Xzi said:


> View attachment 179887


That's what will be going through your head after you vote for Bernie or whatever democrat gets the nomination.


----------



## lexarvn (Sep 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Do you honestly feel that you should go for the highest ratio of homeless over the total population in a state?


That's besides the point I was trying to make. I think both should be considered as well as lots other things.  Like for instance, the acceleration of those rates, and the climate that those homeless people are living in and how that contributes to the death rate among the homeless. I have no idea if more homeless people die in California or New York due so it may very well be that the only reason California has more homeless is because there aren't as many freezing to death over the winter for instance. Homelessness in not a one dimensional problem so you shouldn't base decisions based on just one dimension.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 20, 2019)

lexarvn said:


> I have no idea if more homeless people die in California or New York due so it may very well be that the only reason California has more homeless is because there aren't as many freezing to death over the winter for instance. Homelessness in not a one dimensional problem so you shouldn't base decisions based on just one dimension.



I agree that some situations should have different criteria used to determine which way is best to solve it.  In this case, we should help as many people at once as we can because, like you are trying to convey, there isn't a cookie cutter solution to everything.  Why help a state with less than 100,000 homeless when you can help over 130,000 homeless?  The solution for New York may not work in California.  If you ran into a burning home with two trapped people and could only save one, would you draw up a chart and look at ratios to determine which one you should go for?  

Some homeless may freeze to death during winter, but so do people living in homes.  I live in the midwest and people die in their homes during summer and winter.  It's not like the homeless are zombies and end up freezing to death while walking around.  They have shelters and other ways to keep warm.  Being warm all year round, it may be possible that the homeless suffer from heat stroke or dehydration more than those in New York.

Regardless, in the end, I am not part of the current administration, so I can't say for certain why they chose California's homeless over any other state.  California's status as the state with the largest economy in the US may be why they chose that state.  It doesn't matter why to me as much as that is the state they are focusing on.  The point of my comment about numbers was only brought up because somebody else said Florida was a "close second", and I looked up the difference in the two populations of homeless.  My intention was not to use numbers as the focus of this story but to prove that person wrong.


----------



## lexarvn (Sep 20, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Why help a state with less than 100,000 homeless when you can help over 130,000 homeless


Well, maybe because pretty much all efforts to help the homeless have to be done on the city level anyways and California homeless are distributed among many cities that are mostly geographically removed from each other while almost all of New York's is in just one, so it may not be the state with the most homelessness but it as does have the city with the most homelessness.



morvoran said:


> If you ran into a burning home with two trapped people and could only save one, would you draw up a chart and look at ratios to determine which one you should go for?


No, but that's not really comparable due to time constraints. One the decision has to be made in a split second because executing the solution will take minutes at most, while the other will likely take years.



morvoran said:


> It doesn't matter why to me as much as that is the state they are focusing on.


Well, I think a lot of people probably do care more about the why, especially since the only reasons Trump has given (that I've heard at least) are that California has the biggest homeless population (which is fair enough) and that the state has mostly been run by democrats for a long time (which shouldn't be a reason at all). I'd be just as upset if he said he was going to work on problem that is most prevalent in a republican state because it's republican. It's hard to say that it isn't politically motivated when one of the reasons he gave himself is related to politics.



morvoran said:


> The point of my comment about numbers was only brought up because somebody else said Florida was a "close second", and I looked up the difference in the two populations of homeless. My intention was not to use numbers as the focus of this story but to prove that person wrong.


 Fair enough.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 28, 2019)

I'm not sure about this. It seems like a major overreach of authority, and it could set a bad precedence. By the same token, is there anything necessarily wrong with them wanted to curb the issue?

I really don't know...


----------



## notimp (May 19, 2020)

Why is government responsible for the homeless issue?

Ehm.. Where do I start.

We live in capitalist societies. The concept here is, that markets decide over distribution of earnings. Think of your best imitation of GTAVs Lifeinvader Facebook alter ego, think of people as a whole embracing it, because it allows them to screen potential sexual partners faster, think about that company then pivoting into the 'sell 'family connections' to soccer moms getting old' as their main business model - and think about this generating the big bucks, and having political campaigns in a state of extasy because they can now feed every individual something different, depending on what works (and claim thats politics) -- then you kind have understood capitalism.

We do this, not because its all flowers and roses, but because 'whats best' is better decided by many people instead of just a few or a select group.

Also top down management works in some sectors, but not in R&D or innovation. So its better to allow avenues to exist for people with an idea or 'mission' to get their idea realized at least somewhat independently. If they want to (take more risk, get potentially higher earnings).


But - experience has shown, that some of that free market logic always ends at people beating down competition (when they become too big), or doing fraudulent deals with the competition (price negotiations, or agreements on not hiring each others workers... ), so we need some instance - that looks at regulation (are things at least somewhat balanced, and going into the right direction), and that is supposed to be the state.

To be able to do any of that - the state needs money.

State cant just 'print all the money' because if so, one administration would do so, and then the entire country would basically be ruined for years to come (relative to other countries) - so you have to somehow link that to a measure of 'productivity' within a society. So why not link it to wages and return on capital?

With that money (taxes), state usually does three things. Pay pensions/basic living expenses for people that are out of a job (redistribution), pay for things that are considered 'a common good' (infrastructure (roads, ...), the arts, defense, health), and pay for itself (public officials, police, fire departments...)
--

No where in there does it say - "the state makes the prices of the housing market".

So if those prices explode in a certain region (not the entirety of reasons why homelessness exists, but an important one) what can a state do?

Usually only indirect measures. Build public housing, f.e. If you have enough of that, you can leave housing prices in a city at a fixed level, forcing other players in the housing market not to always hike up rent, because - there are those cheaper public accommodations available.

Another way would be to finally start calling silicon valley companies assholes, and start to tax them more. But sadly, those also are your international cashcows, so you dont want to leash them too much.

Another way would be to get responsible people into the governing boards of those companies, but who am I kidding.
--

Long story short.

There is a conundrum here at - 'the state "takes" half me money' 'so I cant pay those housing prices that have risen so much' -- because if you follow that logic, the state becomes impotent, and the people that drive up housing pricings in a region have nothing that could potentially control them anymore. So whoever says that - dont follow that guys opinion. They be moron. They be stuck at 'I have money' - 'state takes half of it', 'state be bad'. Which usually turns out to be them not knowing, that most of that money is used for peoples retirement, and that that cycle will repeat, when they get old. Thats better than putting that money in a savings account - because, have you looked at interest rates vs. inflation lately... (but runs into problems if you have boomers, wich decided not to have kids, but rather consume more).

Also as the state is supposed to 'level' some of the problems that arise out of the deficiency of markets, yes - government is there to do something about the homeless crisis. But. If you can sell half your population, that low taxes are the way to happiness, and you have corporations that see the world 'sector by sector' with 'sector' being, 'how do we sell fake popularity to people, so they think they can get layed better, and make that attractive for our advertisers, as people spend more and more time on our platform' - corporations kind of arent the answer, but the problem here.

Not in general, but certainly, when all your best PHDs start working in that silicon valley world, because thats where you make money these days, thereby also raising housing prices in the area.

Hence - the market 'f*cked' you over on this. And government is the solution.

Same with the financial crisis of 2008. (Which also plays into the housing crisis, ...).


Problem: If you dont have intelligent people in your government so much, f.e. because you kind of brainwashed everyone for decades with your neoliberal newspeak. The 'solutions' government comes up with, might be poor as well.

Also - if you, as the government become too 'over the top' in your actions, you stifle the thing thats supposed to be good for value creation in your society.

So ultimately, you need a balance.

And somehow people in the USA have agreed on, that opioid crisis and homeless problem in the street is where its at. (You literally had politicians in a facebook hearing begging facebook to do something against opioid ads.)
--

Extended stuff. You will never get rid of 'homelessness' entirely, because of other reasons. But you can for sure develop better systems, that allow people to cope with a medical crisis (see corona) better, and with jobloss better, and that allow for lower housing prices in all districts. (Which means that people of all walks of life come into contact with each other - which usually also boosts innovation, happyness, ...)


So - if you are a neoliberal at heart, that always post in internet forums, that the state takes too much money through taxes - you also want your streets brimming with homeless people after every little crisis. Or company cities, which are even worse. And by crisis I mean - silicon valley having ruined California, and now beginning to relocate to Austin and a few other regions, because no one wants to live in that cestpool anymore.

But at the same time no one wants to fix it. And you can create beautiful walled gardens, where people that have all the money live. Problem, the next generation that interns, then has to live in the not so good parts of town - and you have successfully managed to KO your entire industry within one generation.

But then you still dont want to pay for it, but rather import new talent from all over the world thats still naive towards what you've done, and only sees the 'opportunity', and do a shitload of corporate social responsibility campaigns, where you'd plant a tree or something.

But since you never really care (5 year financial plans) - you (company) arent good at this stuff. State might be.

Emotionalized rough cut. 



edit: Also, housing prices rise, not only because of silicon valley companies (they are the main reason why California has jumped the shark though, imho), but because of boomers.

Boomers be many (see name). Millenials be few. Boomers in the years before retiring have made money, and are all - collectively looking for good returns on investment. Which made the financial markets volatile. (Much investment capital around, but little opportunity for it to be invested in.) (Why little opportunity? Because there are fewer millenials than boomers, so nothing is growing in country anymore. This was offset, by millenials being driven into consuming more (instead of saving for larger investments, later in life), via historically low interest rates. With some very obvious negatives.)

So financial markets became volatile and more and more complicated. Which lead to people looking for less risky investment opportunities. So what does a millennial need, because they couldnt build their own homes? Housing thats rented.

Thats a safe investment opportunity! Thought all boomer money. And went into that market (in search for return on investment). Supply and demand then made prices in that market rise.

Ups.

Also not much new housing was built, because there are fewer millennials.

Ups.

More in other parts of the world than in the US - but thats also valid in the US.

But we cant talk about any of this politically in open terms, because if you pitch generations against each other -- you basically call your societies failed, openly.

So we all act as if that didnt happen. Once boomers die, problem goes away. We then will not have a housing price issue anymore. But we then will have an allocation problem on housing. (Few own much of it.) Thats in about 30 years from now.


edit2: Philanthropy (including 'corporate social responsibility (CSR)') also might be a solution (if the problem is small), but eff Philanthropy.  Because Philanthropy always is, and always will be some money thrown in a certain direction. None of it changes anything structural (long term). In fact Philanthropy is done, so everything remains as is, mostly.

Still it might be a solution if the problem is small enough. Philanthropy usually means, corporations pay NGOs some pittances, then forget about the rest. Those NGOs usually dont provoke structural change.


----------



## notimp (May 20, 2020)

Just read up a little on the gentrification process in San Francisco.
Roughly: https://www.citylab.com/perspective...ication-affordable-housing-california/598135/

Hipster communities are now harassing homeless people not to go over certain district lines anymore - when they'll call police to get them removed. By claiming fake harassment. This ties in wonderfully with predictive policing, which has a self reenforcing effect. (The more people call, the more computer says this is a problem, the more police capacity gets relocated into that area. The more of a chilling effect you have.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...lization-of-gentrifying-neighborhoods/548837/

Just when you thought you couldnt dislike California more...

So not only do they not want to fix the crisis, they are still sticking to - we'll get the next generation of silicon valley workers to still live in town, by 'fencing' the homeless out. Abusing the police system for that process.


----------

