California Doing California Things

[Arctish]

And the homeless are for the most part taxpayers, so its not like they are mooching off the state.

Sure, Jan.

National Alliance to End Homelessness asks

Have you ever heard the idea that people experiencing homelessness “don’t want to work” or they should “just get a job?”

and says that

The truth is that many do – in fact, a 2021 study from the University of Chicago estimates that 53% of people living in homeless shelters and 40% of unsheltered people were employed, either full or part-time, in the year that people were observed homeless between 2011 – 2018.

The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness reports that

While employment helps people stay housed, it does not guarantee housing. As many as 40%-60% of people experiencing homelessness have a job, but housing is unaffordable because wages have not kept up with rising rents. There is no county or state where a full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a modest apartment. At minimum wage, people have to work 86 hours a week to afford a one-bedroom. Even when people can afford a home, one is not always available.

 

[TSwizzle]

lol, am I supposed to not believe my eyes? The “homeless” people in encampments are not capable of work or holding down a job.

 

[Arctish]

lol, am I supposed to not believe my eyes? The “homeless” people in encampments are not capable of work or holding down a job.

Perhaps those incapable of holding down jobs are the ones that catch your attention.

There's plenty of people where I live working as dishwashers, day laborers, store clerks, lunch counter cooks, etc. who don't earn enough money to secure housing. They go from couch surfing and the homeless shelter in the winter months to illegally camping in the summer. Some of them build hidden shelters where they stay all year round but they have to fight off other squatters, so those are mostly men who don't mind stabbing intruders.

 

[Politesse]

lol, am I supposed to not believe my eyes? The “homeless” people in encampments are not capable of work or holding down a job.

You aren't seeing anything with your eyes but what your dipshit television tells you to.

Or do your eyes tell you that 149,000 people are living on Skid Row in LA and Howard St in SF? Do they really? How many people were "visibly" unhomed there the last time you visited? Was it a thousand? Was it a hundred? Did you count? Or are your personal eyes maybe not the best source of information for the State of California to exclusively use in addressing homelessness.

You haven't answered my first question to you. What policies or actions should be embraced to prevent fires in homeless encampments? I will ask it as many times as necessary.

 

[TSwizzle]

lol, am I supposed to not believe my eyes? The “homeless” people in encampments are not capable of work or holding down a job.

You aren't seeing anything with your eyes but what your dipshit television tells you to.

Behave yourself. I see it every day. You can’t miss it because it’s everywhere.

 

[Politesse]

lol, am I supposed to not believe my eyes? The “homeless” people in encampments are not capable of work or holding down a job.

You aren't seeing anything with your eyes but what your dipshit television tells you to.

Behave yourself. I see it every day. You can’t miss it because it’s everywhere.

What policies or actions should be embraced to prevent fires in homeless encampments?

 

[Bomb#20]

This, from the person who tells us tradwives just double their husbands' votes. You really think not a single tradwife is married to a guy in a union who voted for Biden because he was dependable on labor issues?

You know, for a guy supposedly neutrally but vehemently outraged by any instance of misquoting, you sure are whimsical about "rephrasing" what I've said and haven't said to be far more extrene than it was when I said it. But I suppose if hypocrisy embarassed you, we'd have nothing to discuss.

If I misunderstood, feel free to explain yourself. You wrote 'they are actively trying to bring full-time unpaid labor without representation on the basis of gender' and 'Of course she "gets to vote". What part of "submit to your husband in all things" do you not understand? Doubling his vote is a critical part of the MAGA strategy'. Sure sounds like you were proposing that tradwives just double their husbands' votes. If that's not what you meant then that 'without representation' bit looks completely unfounded -- it looks like the straight-up strawman I originally took it for.

But no, I doubt that tradwives in general support the Democratic Party, nor ever would.

Nice goalpost shift. Of course they don't "in general" support it, duh. This isn't about "in general". I was answering ZH who asked "Do you think the people Harris lost were from the Tradwife contingent, even a little?". They don't need to support the DP in general to support it even a little. Nobody suggested the fraction of tradwives who voted for Biden is any higher than the fraction of Americans who believe in unicorns.

They have a fundamentally, not just pragmatically, anti-liberal views.

So do progressives.

And I definitely doubt that anyone who can afford the #tradwife lifestyle is doing it off a single, blue-collar job. You have any idea the kind of capital ot takes to own a farm in Trump's economy? Vanishingly few people on that income tier. Most #tradwife celebrities were models or otherwise in media before their transition to the new tag. Hannah Neeleman was a famed ballerina. Nara Smith was a supermodel and film star.

You appear to be equivocating between "tradwife" and "tradwife celebrities". A woman doesn't need to be a celebrity with a husband on the farm-owning income tier to just be, how did you put it, "a domestic servant to some asshole they met in secondary school".

Both of their husbands work for unions, I'll grant you, but in Hollywood in Johannesburg, that does not necessarily equate to voting Democrat.

Not "necessarily", no. This isn't about "necessarily".

 

[Politesse]

A woman doesn't need to be a celebrity with a husband on the farm-owning income tier to just be, how did you put it, "a domestic servant to some asshole they met in secondary school".

As before, when you were trying to bring in everything from the 1950s to the fucking Suffragettes, You seem to be confusing the #tradwife thing with just, like ordinary housewives. Which is about on par with *pauses to try and think how to translate this into Boomer* ... thinking that everyone who happens to have long hair is a part of the "hippie movement"?

The #tradwife tag is a freaky internet cult that started about 4 years ago and has a few dozen major participants, with a few tens of thousands of followers. It does not refer, and never referred, to all women with houses and families everywhere across all time and space. It's mostly just those influencers, and to a lesser extent their followers. That is who any critiques of the tradwife tag are aimed at. The people who choose to identify with it.

And if you try to edit the "fuck" out of my post again I'll scream bloody murder about how you're misquoting me.

 

[Politesse]

sounds like you were proposing that tradwives just double their husbands' votes.

What the Republican Party idealizes and what it actually gets are not the same thing. I also really don't like that "just" thing you keep adding in to my post. Never. I never would. I don't ever talk about women as though they don't matter, or that their voice doesn't matter, and implying that I would is an underhanded lie. For a white knight, you're awfully misogynistic, and your dismissive attitude is seeping into your misreporting of my position. I would never describe a woman's vote as "just" anything, two centuries of brave men and women (but mostly women) fought for a woman's right to vote, and in an age where the 18th century Puritan society is routinely valorized as the age of the purest American ideals, I refuse to believe it is not in danger.

 

[IIDB Staff]

Personal insults that do nothing to add to actual discussion are not welcome. Those posts have been deleted.
You may now return to actual discussion of ideas.

 

[Politesse]

Sorry, staff.

 

[TSwizzle]

The grift never ends

Gov. Gavin Newsom is rolling out a taxpayer-backed freebie for new parents, promising hundreds of diapers for every baby born in California under a new statewide program. The Democrat announced Friday that the state will partner with nonprofit Baby2Baby to hand out 400 free diapers to families leaving participating hospitals, starting this summer. According to the Associated Press, the state has allocated $7.4 million in last year’s budget to launch the free diaper initiative, and Governor Newsom’s latest proposal seeks an additional $12.5 million for implementation through the fiscal year ending in June 2027.

News

 

[Politesse]

The grift never ends

Gov. Gavin Newsom is rolling out a taxpayer-backed freebie for new parents, promising hundreds of diapers for every baby born in California under a new statewide program. The Democrat announced Friday that the state will partner with nonprofit Baby2Baby to hand out 400 free diapers to families leaving participating hospitals, starting this summer. According to the Associated Press, the state has allocated $7.4 million in last year’s budget to launch the free diaper initiative, and Governor Newsom’s latest proposal seeks an additional $12.5 million for implementation through the fiscal year ending in June 2027.

News

What exactly do you mean by "grift"?

 

[thebeave]

The grift never ends

Gov. Gavin Newsom is rolling out a taxpayer-backed freebie for new parents, promising hundreds of diapers for every baby born in California under a new statewide program. The Democrat announced Friday that the state will partner with nonprofit Baby2Baby to hand out 400 free diapers to families leaving participating hospitals, starting this summer. According to the Associated Press, the state has allocated $7.4 million in last year’s budget to launch the free diaper initiative, and Governor Newsom’s latest proposal seeks an additional $12.5 million for implementation through the fiscal year ending in June 2027.

News

Ugh. So, even well-to-do people are getting state funded diapers? More taxpayer money down the drain. I could probably get on board with a means based system of diaper distribution, but if diaper affordability is a concern for a particular person or family, maybe having a baby is not the best idea at the moment. On the other hand if Gavin is interested in making life more affordable for CA residents, he could start with policies that will lower energy and housing costs, not raise them.

 

[Elixir]

The grift never ends

Gov. Gavin Newsom is rolling out a taxpayer-backed freebie for new parents, promising hundreds of diapers for every baby born in California under a new statewide program. The Democrat announced Friday that the state will partner with nonprofit Baby2Baby to hand out 400 free diapers to families leaving participating hospitals, starting this summer. According to the Associated Press, the state has allocated $7.4 million in last year’s budget to launch the free diaper initiative, and Governor Newsom’s latest proposal seeks an additional $12.5 million for implementation through the fiscal year ending in June 2027.

News

Our pet furriner seems ignorant of the definition of “grift” (among other things)

Grift means “a scam or swindle, especially one used to trick people out of money”.

It doesn’t mean “legislating free diapers for poor people” - unless, of course, he’s pulling a Trump by giving his own kids a no- bid contract to provide all those diapers at an insane markup. But that’s not what’s happening , is it Swiz?

 

[thebeave]

The grift never ends

Gov. Gavin Newsom is rolling out a taxpayer-backed freebie for new parents, promising hundreds of diapers for every baby born in California under a new statewide program. The Democrat announced Friday that the state will partner with nonprofit Baby2Baby to hand out 400 free diapers to families leaving participating hospitals, starting this summer. According to the Associated Press, the state has allocated $7.4 million in last year’s budget to launch the free diaper initiative, and Governor Newsom’s latest proposal seeks an additional $12.5 million for implementation through the fiscal year ending in June 2027.

News

Our pet furriner seems ignorant of the definition of “grift” (among other things)

Grift means “a scam or swindle, especially one used to trick people out of money”.

It doesn’t mean “legislating free diapers for poor people” - unless, of course, he’s pulling a Trump by giving his own kids a no- bid contract to provide all those diapers at an insane markup. But that’s not what’s happening , is it Swiz?

Ahem...