MAGA continuing their war on satire (March for Billionaires)

[Patooka]

I had to double check to make sure this was true:

Yes, there really was a 'March for Billionaires' rally in San Francisco

The march drew only about a dozen participants, but organizer Derik Kauffman said it was meant to be a sincere protest against a potential new tax on the state's wealthiest residents.

www.latimes.com

“We must not judge billionaires as a class but by their individual merits,” he said, speaking outside the San Francisco Civic Center. “There are good billionaires and bad billionaires, just like there are good people and bad people. California is extraordinarily lucky that this is where people come to start companies and build fortunes and we should do our best to keep it that way.”

Even the fucking New York Post reported on this. Their take is gold:

‘March for Billionaires’ overwhelmed by socialists as tax battle hits San Francisco streets

The rally, dubbed the “March for Billionaires,” drew supporters of the state’s ultra-wealthy residents, who are in the crosshairs of a proposal that would force them to hand over five percent of th…

nypost.com

 

[bilby]

"...There are good billionaires and bad billionaires, just like there are good people and bad people..."

So, billionaires are not people?

I had my suspicions...

 

[TV and credit cards]

About a dozen people took part in the “March for Billionaires”

Who were all graciously given the morning off by M. Wentworth III, reducing his staff to five. Five! So I hope you remember this the next time you’re badmouthing our job creators.

 

[RVonse]

If I were a billionaire I would welcome paying a little more in taxes while there is still time. Uneven wealth is causing society unstable so that communism becomes acceptable in the US. The new mayor in NYC should be a serious wake up call to billionaire ideology where the lack of middle class and extreme rich living next to the poor is acceptable.

In the meantime, if I were the mayor of San Francisco I would concentrate on corruption first and foremost before raising anyone's taxes. Even billionaire taxes. How does this local government manage such an unbelievable housing and homeless problem while already having billions of tax revenue at their disposal? Where is all their existing tax revenue going if it is not helping the homeless and cleaning the shit on their streets? I'd be willing to bet money is siphoned off in corrupt directions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

These billionaires are pretty stupid. If they wanted people to show up, they could have paid some desperate people cash money like the Oligarch in Chief did with Melania's movie. Then, they could all brag about how they have the biggest crowds on their private islands during their secret meetings. On the other hand, maybe I am being stupid. These marches do nothing. The real influence is in paying off Trump. Swaying the masses by marching around doesn't do anything.

 

[Patooka]

If I were a billionaire I would welcome paying a little more in taxes while there is still time.

I strongly recommend that you spend some time seriously reflecting on your voting history then. That is if you truly believe that.

 

[RVonse]

An honest review of my POTUS voting history (since being old enough to vote) clearly shows I am not loyal or inherently more invested to either party. Sometimes I vote republican and sometimes democrat. It always depends only on the platform and abilities of the candidate and never the party. Often times neither candidate represents what I really want... yet making the best choice out of sometimes the choices available. IMHO the country would be much better served with more independent thinking people such as myself and less people glued to their party like sheep:
1) Carter - 1976
2) Reagan - 1980
3) Reagan - 1984
4) Bush sr - 1988
5) Ross Perot - 1992
6) Clinton - 1996
7) Gore - 2000
8) Kerry - 2004
9) Obama - 2008
10) Obama - 2012
11) Trump - 2016
12) Trump - 2020
13) Trump - 2024

Over 48 years thats 6 votes for a republican, 6 votes for a democrat, and 1 vote for the independent (Ross Perot). That is about as atheist as a person can get to being party loyal.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

An honest review of my POTUS voting history (since being old enough to vote) clearly shows I am not loyal or inherently more invested to either party. Sometimes I vote republican and sometimes democrat. It always depends only on the platform and abilities of the candidate and never the party. Often times neither candidate represents what I really want... yet making the best choice out of sometimes the choices available. IMHO the country would be much better served with more independent thinking people such as myself and less people glued to their party like sheep:
1) Carter - 1976
2) Reagan - 1980
3) Reagan - 1984
4) Bush sr - 1988
5) Ross Perot - 1992
6) Clinton - 1996
7) Gore - 2000
8) Kerry - 2004
9) Obama - 2008
10) Obama - 2012
11) Trump - 2016
12) Trump - 2020
13) Trump - 2024

Over 48 years thats 6 votes for a republican, 6 votes for a democrat, and 1 vote for the independent (Ross Perot). That is about as atheist as a person can get to being party loyal.

Why did you vote for Trump in 2024?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

If I were a billionaire I would welcome paying a little more in taxes while there is still time. Uneven wealth is causing society unstable so that communism becomes acceptable in the US. The new mayor in NYC should be a serious wake up call to billionaire ideology where the lack of middle class and extreme rich living next to the poor is acceptable.

In the meantime, if I were the mayor of San Francisco I would concentrate on corruption first and foremost before raising anyone's taxes. Even billionaire taxes. How does this local government manage such an unbelievable housing and homeless problem while already having billions of tax revenue at their disposal? Where is all their existing tax revenue going if it is not helping the homeless and cleaning the shit on their streets? I'd be willing to bet money is siphoned off in corrupt directions.

Homelessness is about so much more than money. Also, I don't think anyone knows what it would really cost; the figures are all over the place.

Anyway, the legal issues by itself currently make it impossible to fix the problem. People have the right to live where they want per the 14th Amendment and multiple courts' interpretations of the 14th AM.

Vagrancy is illegal but for all practical purposes it's an unenforceable misdemeanor.

In order to solve the legal issues, an exception would have to be carved out that would allow the government to all but incarcerate the homeless without regard to certain freedoms and due process granted to all Americans.

For example, would addicts be shipped to various facilities and be forced to recover, and for how long? Would the mentally ill be institutionalized and forced to receive treatment; and for how long? And how would this be accomplished? Would government personnel like police and immigration sweep them up off the streets willy-nilly and send them away? Would homelessness be considered a crime egregious enough to take any of those measures?

The above questions aren't meant to indicate that I support homelessness. Rather, they're serious issues that are currently impossible to resolve.

Also, the Dems wouldn't go for carving out exceptions in order to get them off the street, but the Republicans would.

The Democrats would be willing to pay for it, but the Republicans wouldn't.

 

[Jarhyn]

One of the major problems with the homelessness problem in major cities has to do with concentration and climate.

Every location on earth with humans will have some similar distribution of personality types born to it, for lack of a better term.

This means that, all other things being equal, we would expect roughly equal amounts of homeless people to be produced per capita anywhere you look.

Because small towns tend to eject and/or send such people along to bigger cities, they concentrate in cities rather than being spread out.

It's not the sort of problem that can be solved by the mayor of LA, or the governor of California, because it would involve picking up the tab for an entire country of people who throw their unwanted youth and adult population on busses towards California, and making humane places for homeless people to exist only in one place would exacerbate that concentration effect.

The solution is a lot of money to municipalities in exchange for each spending at least enough of that money to provide for and improve services for homeless community members, relieving the burden of concentration.

It means each community gets active practice and use of infrastructure that, beyond helping the homeless, helps community members avoid homelessness altogether.

 

[RVonse]

An honest review of my POTUS voting history (since being old enough to vote) clearly shows I am not loyal or inherently more invested to either party. Sometimes I vote republican and sometimes democrat. It always depends only on the platform and abilities of the candidate and never the party. Often times neither candidate represents what I really want... yet making the best choice out of sometimes the choices available. IMHO the country would be much better served with more independent thinking people such as myself and less people glued to their party like sheep:
1) Carter - 1976
2) Reagan - 1980
3) Reagan - 1984
4) Bush sr - 1988
5) Ross Perot - 1992
6) Clinton - 1996
7) Gore - 2000
8) Kerry - 2004
9) Obama - 2008
10) Obama - 2012
11) Trump - 2016
12) Trump - 2020
13) Trump - 2024

Over 48 years thats 6 votes for a republican, 6 votes for a democrat, and 1 vote for the independent (Ross Perot). That is about as atheist as a person can get to being party loyal.

Why did you vote for Trump in 2024?

For all his many serious faults, Trump better convinced me he would better represent the continuation of my skilled trades employment in the steel industry and the midwestern region I currently live.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

An honest review of my POTUS voting history (since being old enough to vote) clearly shows I am not loyal or inherently more invested to either party. Sometimes I vote republican and sometimes democrat. It always depends only on the platform and abilities of the candidate and never the party. Often times neither candidate represents what I really want... yet making the best choice out of sometimes the choices available. IMHO the country would be much better served with more independent thinking people such as myself and less people glued to their party like sheep:
1) Carter - 1976
2) Reagan - 1980
3) Reagan - 1984
4) Bush sr - 1988
5) Ross Perot - 1992
6) Clinton - 1996
7) Gore - 2000
8) Kerry - 2004
9) Obama - 2008
10) Obama - 2012
11) Trump - 2016
12) Trump - 2020
13) Trump - 2024

Over 48 years thats 6 votes for a republican, 6 votes for a democrat, and 1 vote for the independent (Ross Perot). That is about as atheist as a person can get to being party loyal.

Why did you vote for Trump in 2024?

For all his many serious faults, Trump better convinced me he would better represent the continuation of my skilled trades employment in the steel industry and the midwestern region I currently live.

Really?! That sort of representation at local level is supposed to be done by your Congress people representatives. The President's job is to represent all the people and the national interest. So you said to yourself, "To hell with the country, as long as I get to keep my job."
However, lots of jobs are at risk under Trump, and that could include yours. You didn't read him well at all.

 

[Tigers!]

If I were a billionaire I would welcome paying a little more in taxes while there is still time. Uneven wealth is causing society unstable so that communism becomes acceptable in the US. The new mayor in NYC should be a serious wake up call to billionaire ideology where the lack of middle class and extreme rich living next to the poor is acceptable.

In the meantime, if I were the mayor of San Francisco I would concentrate on corruption first and foremost before raising anyone's taxes. Even billionaire taxes. How does this local government manage such an unbelievable housing and homeless problem while already having billions of tax revenue at their disposal? Where is all their existing tax revenue going if it is not helping the homeless and cleaning the shit on their streets? I'd be willing to bet money is siphoned off in corrupt directions.

Homelessness is about so much more than money. Also, I don't think anyone knows what it would really cost; the figures are all over the place.

Anyway, the legal issues by itself currently make it impossible to fix the problem. People have the right to live where they want per the 14th Amendment and multiple courts' interpretations of the 14th AM.

Vagrancy is illegal but for all practical purposes it's an unenforceable misdemeanor.

Vagrancy is a law that can catch the unwary is strange ways.
I got a summons under the Vic. Vagrancy Act (1966) when I was picked up waiting for a bus in Benalla, Victoria in Jan 1985.
I had missed my earlier bus to Melbourne and was waiting for the next bus from Sydney due about 6:30am. In those days there was only 2 buses a day from Sydney to Melb.
The plods came to me sitting at the bus stop and asking what was I doing (about 2am). I told them I was waiting for the bus. They thought I was having a lend of them. Despite having a ticket and a suitcase, but no money (in 1985 there were few ATMs and I did not have a card anyway. And of course no mobiles back them, just payphones. No watch either.) I was taken to the cop shop. Questioned rather brusquely and eventually taken to the railway station. I had a bus ticket, not train. The train station was on the other side of Benalla to the bus stop. Once the cops disappeared I went back to the bus stop. Turns out I missed the 6:30am bus and had to wait until 4:30pm for the next bus. Got back to Melb about 7:30pm. My father was thinking of telling the police I was missing.
I appeared before the 'beak' (magistrate) as ordered. After an explanation and a good giggle from his worship the charge was dropped.
I have a better appreciation of vagrancy and homeless since then after I realised it does not take much to fall off the edge.
(Can't stand Benalla now. Spending too long there on a stinking hot day with no money, needing a shower and lugging a large suitcase)

 

[Colonel Sanders]

If I were a billionaire I would welcome paying a little more in taxes while there is still time. Uneven wealth is causing society unstable so that communism becomes acceptable in the US. The new mayor in NYC should be a serious wake up call to billionaire ideology where the lack of middle class and extreme rich living next to the poor is acceptable.

In the meantime, if I were the mayor of San Francisco I would concentrate on corruption first and foremost before raising anyone's taxes. Even billionaire taxes. How does this local government manage such an unbelievable housing and homeless problem while already having billions of tax revenue at their disposal? Where is all their existing tax revenue going if it is not helping the homeless and cleaning the shit on their streets? I'd be willing to bet money is siphoned off in corrupt directions.

Homelessness is about so much more than money. Also, I don't think anyone knows what it would really cost; the figures are all over the place.

Anyway, the legal issues by itself currently make it impossible to fix the problem. People have the right to live where they want per the 14th Amendment and multiple courts' interpretations of the 14th AM.

Vagrancy is illegal but for all practical purposes it's an unenforceable misdemeanor.

Vagrancy is a law that can catch the unwary is strange ways.
I got a summons under the Vic. Vagrancy Act (1966) when I was picked up waiting for a bus in Benalla, Victoria in Jan 1985.
I had missed my earlier bus to Melbourne and was waiting for the next bus from Sydney due about 6:30am. In those days there was only 2 buses a day from Sydney to Melb.
The plods came to me sitting at the bus stop and asking what was I doing (about 2am). I told them I was waiting for the bus. They thought I was having a lend of them. Despite having a ticket and a suitcase, but no money (in 1985 there were few ATMs and I did not have a card anyway. And of course no mobiles back them, just payphones. No watch either.) I was taken to the cop shop. Questioned rather brusquely and eventually taken to the railway station. I had a bus ticket, not train. The train station was on the other side of Benalla to the bus stop. Once the cops disappeared I went back to the bus stop. Turns out I missed the 6:30am bus and had to wait until 4:30pm for the next bus. Got back to Melb about 7:30pm. My father was thinking of telling the police I was missing.
I appeared before the 'beak' (magistrate) as ordered. After an explanation and a good giggle from his worship the charge was dropped.
I have a better appreciation of vagrancy and homeless since then after I realised it does not take much to fall off the edge.
(Can't stand Benalla now. Spending too long there on a stinking hot day with no money, needing a shower and lugging a large suitcase)

Interesting story, but what makes it even better is that I learned a decent amount of Australian slang in a very short amount of time.

The plods.

Melb, short for Melbourne.

Having a lend (my favorite)

The beak (for judge/magistrate)

 

[Swammerdami]

It sounds almost too obvious: To end homelessness, house people. Housing First is one approach to this, and evidence shows it’s effective.

Housing First solves the immediate and foundational need of giving people a safe, permanent place to live with no preconditions. Once that basic need is met, people can opt to use supportive services that meet other needs, such as access to health care, employment assistance, or programs to treat substance use disorders.

 

[Derec]

"Housing First" helps the kind of homelessness that is due to people losing jobs coupled with insufficient savings and family support and high housing prices. Those people just need help to get back on the horse, and living rough makes getting back on the horse much more difficult.

It does not help with the substance abuse and mental health (lots of overlap due to self-medicating) type of homelessness.

 

[bilby]

"Housing First" helps the kind of homelessness that is due to people losing jobs coupled with insufficient savings and family support and high housing prices. Those people just need help to get back on the horse, and living rough makes getting back on the horse much more difficult.

It does not help with the substance abuse and mental health (lots of overlap due to self-medicating) type of homelessness.

So...?

Of course, it actually does help, in the long term, because both substance abuse and mental health problems can be a consequence of homelessness as well as a cause; But even if it didn't help at all, so what?

 

[Tigers!]

If I were a billionaire I would welcome paying a little more in taxes while there is still time. Uneven wealth is causing society unstable so that communism becomes acceptable in the US. The new mayor in NYC should be a serious wake up call to billionaire ideology where the lack of middle class and extreme rich living next to the poor is acceptable.

In the meantime, if I were the mayor of San Francisco I would concentrate on corruption first and foremost before raising anyone's taxes. Even billionaire taxes. How does this local government manage such an unbelievable housing and homeless problem while already having billions of tax revenue at their disposal? Where is all their existing tax revenue going if it is not helping the homeless and cleaning the shit on their streets? I'd be willing to bet money is siphoned off in corrupt directions.

Homelessness is about so much more than money. Also, I don't think anyone knows what it would really cost; the figures are all over the place.

Anyway, the legal issues by itself currently make it impossible to fix the problem. People have the right to live where they want per the 14th Amendment and multiple courts' interpretations of the 14th AM.

Vagrancy is illegal but for all practical purposes it's an unenforceable misdemeanor.

Vagrancy is a law that can catch the unwary is strange ways.
I got a summons under the Vic. Vagrancy Act (1966) when I was picked up waiting for a bus in Benalla, Victoria in Jan 1985.
I had missed my earlier bus to Melbourne and was waiting for the next bus from Sydney due about 6:30am. In those days there was only 2 buses a day from Sydney to Melb.
The plods came to me sitting at the bus stop and asking what was I doing (about 2am). I told them I was waiting for the bus. They thought I was having a lend of them. Despite having a ticket and a suitcase, but no money (in 1985 there were few ATMs and I did not have a card anyway. And of course no mobiles back them, just payphones. No watch either.) I was taken to the cop shop. Questioned rather brusquely and eventually taken to the railway station. I had a bus ticket, not train. The train station was on the other side of Benalla to the bus stop. Once the cops disappeared I went back to the bus stop. Turns out I missed the 6:30am bus and had to wait until 4:30pm for the next bus. Got back to Melb about 7:30pm. My father was thinking of telling the police I was missing.
I appeared before the 'beak' (magistrate) as ordered. After an explanation and a good giggle from his worship the charge was dropped.
I have a better appreciation of vagrancy and homeless since then after I realised it does not take much to fall off the edge.
(Can't stand Benalla now. Spending too long there on a stinking hot day with no money, needing a shower and lugging a large suitcase)

Interesting story, but what makes it even better is that I learned a decent amount of Australian slang in a very short amount of time.

You are most welcome.

The plods.

From the book series 'Noddy ' by an author of children's books called Enid Blyton

Melb, short for Melbourne.

Having a lend (my favorite)

The beak (for judge/magistrate)

 

[robnisch]

The way to sell Housing First is to show how it can be cheaper than what we are now doing.
When you add up the cost to city police, the courts, and the local hospitals it could be less than building housing.
Appeal to their fiscal concerns.
Kinda the way cannabis laws were sold to conservatives, you can tax it.

 

[RVonse]

"Housing First" helps the kind of homelessness that is due to people losing jobs coupled with insufficient savings and family support and high housing prices. Those people just need help to get back on the horse, and living rough makes getting back on the horse much more difficult.

It does not help with the substance abuse and mental health (lots of overlap due to self-medicating) type of homelessness.

So build more housing and mental institutions. Especially high rise housing that is cheaper when land is expensive. The problem is solved if you have money for your municipality and don't fart it all away (like San Francisco probably has) with corruption and fraud.