Democrats should be fighting a class war and NOT a cutural war

[Elixir]

This is fascinating, given your support for the Mr. Trump who never indicated any inclination to improve the social safety net.

No shit. Unapologetic, like most right wingers. I suppose that admitting to Republicans' concerted efforts to ignore or attack people on the bottom, would be admitting to both their own complicity and to the fact that responsibility doesn't lie solely - or even mainly - with "the Dems".

 

[RVonse]

So let's see if I've got this straight;

Republicans stand for nothing and as a result are incapable of fixing anything. Therefore it makes perfect sense to be solely critical of the other political party that has at least a snowball's chance of fixing homelessness in the US.

That is without a doubt the most retarded Ignorant political opinion I've ever heard.

I've known plenty of mentally challenged folks who have far more apt political opinions. Even the mentally challenged can be politically informed.

Because the Republican party has always favored the ideology where people must be motivated by hard work and ambition in order to not suffer consequence of being homeless. And the Democrat party has always favored the ideology where the government must provide minimum level of support to its citizens no matter what. So you can agree or dissagree with either of those ideologies and still be able to make your vote at the ballet box.

But now the Democrats change their rules and say you should still vote for us even though we don't give a shit about the homeless. Their word means nothing at all and they stand for nothing at all except staying in office.

If the Republicans were trying to take guns away or trying to tax rich people more I would be making the same type of thread about them being useless slackers not serving their base. But at least they do appear to be standing for what they preach and their oath appears to mean something. Even if you don't like who they are or what they stand for.

 

[Elixir]

Because the Republican party has always favored the ideology where people must be motivated by hard work and ambition in order to not suffer consequence of being homeless. And the Democrat party has always favored the ideology where the government must provide minimum level of support to its citizens no matter what.

IOW, Republicans want helpless people to do the literally impossible: pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Whereas Democrats recognize the dilemma that if you don't eat you can't work, and if you don't work you can't eat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So let's see if I've got this straight;

Republicans stand for nothing and as a result are incapable of fixing anything. Therefore it makes perfect sense to be solely critical of the other political party that has at least a snowball's chance of fixing homelessness in the US.

That is without a doubt the most retarded Ignorant political opinion I've ever heard.

I've known plenty of mentally challenged folks who have far more apt political opinions. Even the mentally challenged can be politically informed.

Because the Republican party has always favored the ideology where people must be motivated by hard work and ambition in order to not suffer consequence of being homeless. And the Democrat party has always favored the ideology where the government must provide minimum level of support to its citizens no matter what. So you can agree or dissagree with either of those ideologies and still be able to make your vote at the ballet box.

But now the Democrats change their rules and say you should still vote for us even though we don't give a shit about the homeless. Their word means nothing at all and they stand for nothing at all except staying in office.

How much more stuff are you just going to pull from thin air? There isn't a fine line between solving homelessness and not giving "a shit about the homeless'. You've contrived this bizarre argument about how the Democrats must not care about the homeless because 1) the homeless exist and 2) we've funded to support Ukraine post Russian invasion. This Venn diagram is oil and water.

If the Republicans were trying to take guns away or trying to tax rich people more I would be making the same type of thread about them being useless slackers not serving their base. But at least they do appear to be standing for what they preach and their oath appears to mean something.

*broken down car*
*Person A pushing the car, while two people sit inside it*
Onlooker: Why is it taking you so long to push that car down the street?
Person A: I'm pushing it all by myself. The thing weighs over 3000 pounds!
Onlooker: You are so slow. Clearly you don't care about getting this car somewhere.
Person A: Well, I'd get there faster if the other two in the car were helping push. Why don't you complain to them about it?
Onlooker: Clearly they don't give a fuck or they would be helping, so really it is all your fault you are so slow and barely making any progress.
Person A: *ignores and pushes*
Onlooker: Maybe if the US wasn't supporting Ukraine you'd be moving it faster.
Person A: *incredulous look*

 

[RVonse]

You've contrived this bizarre argument about how the Democrats must not care about the homeless because 1) the homeless exist and 2) we've funded to support Ukraine post Russian invasion.

We had a Democrat congress during all this Ukraine spending and it would have been the perfect time for the liberal side of the Democrat party (aka "the squad") to have at least brought some kind of attention to the homeless. How many other bills do you see with spending attached on for non related stuff? It would have been the time for bringing federal resources towards the homeless. To provide visibility to how bad our own nation is at present.

But they did nothing at all. Did not even bring it up.

 

[Elixir]

it would have been the perfect time for the liberal side of the Democrat party (aka "the squad") to have at least brought some kind of attention to the homeless.

Oh joy, just what the homeless wanted and needed; attention from the Squad.
Got any more helpful suggestions?

 

[laughing dog]

You've contrived this bizarre argument about how the Democrats must not care about the homeless because 1) the homeless exist and 2) we've funded to support Ukraine post Russian invasion.

We had a Democrat congress during all this Ukraine spending and it would have been the perfect time for the liberal side of the Democrat party (aka "the squad") to have at least brought some kind of attention to the homeless. How many other bills do you see with spending attached on for non related stuff? It would have been the time for bringing federal resources towards the homeless. To provide visibility to how bad our own nation is at present.

But they did nothing at all. Did not even bring it up.

You should start a movement to help the homeless at the Federal level.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You've contrived this bizarre argument about how the Democrats must not care about the homeless because 1) the homeless exist and 2) we've funded to support Ukraine post Russian invasion.

We had a Democrat congress during all this Ukraine spending and it would have been the perfect time for the liberal side of the Democrat party (aka "the squad") to have at least brought some kind of attention to the homeless. How many other bills do you see with spending attached on for non related stuff? It would have been the time for bringing federal resources towards the homeless. To provide visibility to how bad our own nation is at present.

But they did nothing at all. Did not even bring it up.

They didn't? Did you even check?

Bills to aid and house the homeless, would that be doing nothing too?
HR 9210
HR 7191

Or do they need to have put forth 25 bills to end homelessness?

 

[laughing dog]

You've contrived this bizarre argument about how the Democrats must not care about the homeless because 1) the homeless exist and 2) we've funded to support Ukraine post Russian invasion.

We had a Democrat congress during all this Ukraine spending and it would have been the perfect time for the liberal side of the Democrat party (aka "the squad") to have at least brought some kind of attention to the homeless. How many other bills do you see with spending attached on for non related stuff? It would have been the time for bringing federal resources towards the homeless. To provide visibility to how bad our own nation is at present.

But they did nothing at all. Did not even bring it up.

They didn't? Did you even check?

Bills to aid and house the homeless, would that be doing nothing too?
HR 9210
HR 7191

Or do they need to have put forth 25 bills to end homelessness?

There are myriads of bills that come up at that site that deal with homelessness. That site allows one to check on previous Congresses as well. Good catch JH.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But then somehow, someway we spend (or plan to spend) 5 times the amount that could fix the homeless problem. All in the name of defense. How (as a citizen of the US) is my life endangered by NOT spending this money in Urkraine? If anything, I have read how my life might be endangered (by nukes) since they have entered into this conflict. And then while this is happening the US has physically disabled camps who are homeless living in skid row California. What kind of country does not help their physically disabled people?!! Nearly 20% of the population in skid row is disabled and we should all be embarrased about this. I think we deserve to know why the Democratic party of compassion was so silent giving all this money away to Ukraine when the need was so great right here in the US.

Indeed, even China has a better plan to house their citizens than the US. We could use one of their high rise ghost towns right in the middle of skid row right now. At least people would have a roof over their heads.

You are looking at Ukraine in isolation. The bear won't stop there. By not helping we are inviting a defeat in detail.

And note that we aren't actually spending that much on Ukraine, the reported numbers don't show the true picture. Most of that money has already been spent in the past--what's being reported is the dollar value of the equipment we are sending. The primary purpose of those weapons was fighting the Russians, the weapons are actually being used against Russian equipment but we get to do it without having Americans in harm's way. Looks like a very good deal to me.

And why do you say China has a better plan to house their citizens?? Those are as you say ghost cities. They're not being used to house people. We don't see the homelessness in China because the police aren't very tolerant of it happening openly. Doesn't mean it's not there. I have seen it in Shanghai, it's certainly a lot more common in lesser cities. (And the sort of place it would be more common are areas where I certainly would not venture at night--what I've seen would only be the tip of the iceberg.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The GOP want to cut the major lifelines remaining in the US, Social Security and Medicare. They tried to scam the nation into a privatization of a portion of Social Security! But no, you want to complain about the Democrats not doing enough.

And look at what happened when England tried allowing people to invest their pensions. Scam city.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You asked me how I would fix the problem and the first obvious thing to do is put a real roof over your head. After you get them living (and shitting) in real toilets you can address other problems. But a real place to live has to come first.

That works well for the economically homeless. (But note that they are normally using real toilets.) It works very poorly for the mentally ill.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"All of them" as in all nations have this issue of homelessness.

Please correct me if I am wrong but you have to go to some of the poorest places in India or Africa to see more homeless than in skid row Los Angeles. I grew up in a small town which at the time seemed big to me with a poplution of 10,000. It just blows my mind that there are more than 5 times that amount of homeless living in tents in skid row city right now. All happening in the same nation having the resources for 100's of military bases to police the world during at every turn of event.

Los Angeles has weather that will attract the homeless from less hospitable areas, it's not that it actually generates that many homeless.

And it's not just the poor areas you need to look at. Kolkata, 1975, was quite a shock--way below the tent cities we see now. (Admittedly, this was long ago.) Africa? I'm thinking back to Kampala, Uganda, 1982. The city was safe enough by day but you really didn't want to be out after sunset. We were staying in a campground with security provided by the army (yes, they were there to keep the troubles of the city out, not to keep us in. The government cared enough for the foreign exchange tourists brought in that even us overlanders staying in the campground were worth protecting.) A woman slipped into our camp, to the best we could determine simply for the warmth from our fire (we had English, French and German speakers, she apparently spoke none of those) because she was naked. She took nothing, even when offered food--it was obvious she was trying to be as inoffensive as possible. (Had she upset someone to the point that someone got the guards she would have been lucky to get off with a beating.) She did not appear crazy, just desperate.

 

[James Brown]

Let's please cut the crap on LA homelessness

Here's what it would take to address homelessness in LA. First, you need money. That's done. Second, you need the mayor to present a new statute to the city council that essentially gives her sole and absolute power to approve and fund housing and homeless shelters anywhere she wants. Third, LA needs a mayor willing to serve only one term, since any mayor who built the kind of shelters the city needs—with the kind of rules that would actually attract the homeless—would be signing their own death warrant.

Also, "Why is homelessness so high in Los Angeles?"

So what's the answer? To a certain extent, there isn't one in the short term. As long as housing costs are high, you're going to be stuck with lots of homeless people. And as we all know, the most common view of homelessness is (a) we should build more shelter (b) somewhere else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's please cut the crap on LA homelessness

Here's what it would take to address homelessness in LA. First, you need money. That's done. Second, you need the mayor to present a new statute to the city council that essentially gives her sole and absolute power to approve and fund housing and homeless shelters anywhere she wants. Third, LA needs a mayor willing to serve only one term, since any mayor who built the kind of shelters the city needs—with the kind of rules that would actually attract the homeless—would be signing their own death warrant.

Also, "Why is homelessness so high in Los Angeles?"

So what's the answer? To a certain extent, there isn't one in the short term. As long as housing costs are high, you're going to be stuck with lots of homeless people. And as we all know, the most common view of homelessness is (a) we should build more shelter (b) somewhere else.

And note that shelters aren't really an answer--because of the crazies shelters aren't safe places.

 

[RVonse]

Let's please cut the crap on LA homelessness

As long as housing costs are high, you're going to be stuck with lots of homeless people.

Housing costs are high mostly because of liberal ideology greed. We usually think of Republicans as being the greedy robber barrons, but in this case its the liberals who did the damage. For example, propostion 13 of California is a huge reason why property values in that location are too high. Liberals think that people who own a property for a long time (baby boomers) should not have to pay any property tax and that the newcomers (gen z) should bear all the burdon by making up for this paying higher than normal tax. Besides being hugely unfair to the newcomers, it ends up being a perverse driver of elevating home prices because none of the retirees want to move out (thereby causing a shortage of supply) they do not want to lose their property tax breaks. And please note that Im not blaming those individuals themsleves but the stupid proposition 13 law.

Prices would be much lower in California if their tax policy was based more in common sense like conservative run states Texas or Florida. Common sense should dictate property tax should based on the quality of the property instead of the discrimination of how long the owner has lived in the property. But liberals have no common sense!

 

[James Brown]

Is there homelessness in Texas or Florida?

Are their high-rises built to house the homeless in Dallas or Miami?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's please cut the crap on LA homelessness

Here's what it would take to address homelessness in LA. First, you need money. That's done. Second, you need the mayor to present a new statute to the city council that essentially gives her sole and absolute power to approve and fund housing and homeless shelters anywhere she wants. Third, LA needs a mayor willing to serve only one term, since any mayor who built the kind of shelters the city needs—with the kind of rules that would actually attract the homeless—would be signing their own death warrant.

Also, "Why is homelessness so high in Los Angeles?"

So what's the answer? To a certain extent, there isn't one in the short term. As long as housing costs are high, you're going to be stuck with lots of homeless people. And as we all know, the most common view of homelessness is (a) we should build more shelter (b) somewhere else.

And note that shelters aren't really an answer--because of the crazies shelters aren't safe places.

Crazies? You mean the people that suffer from mental illness or anarcho-Libertarians?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's please cut the crap on LA homelessness

As long as housing costs are high, you're going to be stuck with lots of homeless people.

Housing costs are high mostly because of liberal ideology greed.

Oh FFS!

Common sense would dictate property tax should be based on the property instead of the discrimination of how long the owner has lived their. But liberals have no common sense.

Common, sense... RVonse, do you understand that it is possible to not be able to afford to live in a house you own? This is a thing where property taxes are high and pegged to housing value. If an area booms, the property taxes go up. In a state like New Jersey, it can be a mortgage unto itself, and if you own the home, you could technically not be able to afford to live in it as the taxes are too much to pay, especially if one is retired.

Seriously, it is as if you've never sought to understand these things, and you just want to vilify stuff you know nothing about. People who paid for their home shouldn't have to move from it, because it became too valuable. Such a concept is absurd!

 

[RVonse]

Is there homelessness in Texas or Florida?

Are their high-rises built to house the homeless in Dallas or Miami?

To be fair, every city probably has some homeless.

But LA, San Francisco, and Seattle take it to a level never before seen other than a 3rd world country. It should also be noted that these 3 cities are run by very liberal governments which IMO is not a coincidence.