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.

 

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.

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.

 

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

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

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.

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.

 

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

 

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?

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

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

that's why we have disability benefits.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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).

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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