Trump admin looks to fix homeless issues in California

[morvoran]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Not really--I'm technically a Democrat

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

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.

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.

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]

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

Not everybody can work.

that's why we have disability benefits.

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.

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]

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.

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.

that's why we have disability benefits.

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

 

[Tigran]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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).

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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