Trump admin looks to fix homeless issues in California

[morvoran]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

Repeating the same nonsense argument makes you look dense.

You took the words right out of my head.

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:

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

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.

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?

"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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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).

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]

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).

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

"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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

One thing is for sure, this sure is the most amusing term of any president ever

 

[lexarvn]

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.

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

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

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]

lol just lock this already and let the brainwashed fanboy alone. It's so sad that people still fall for Trump's bullshit.

 

[morvoran]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

You gotta be smoking crack.

You leave my personal habits out of this, TYVM.

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.

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!