LA Democrats blame suburbs for record highest homeless population

[reason10]

It is the policies of the rich ruling class and the twin big-business parties supporting them.

There are no twin big business parties. California is a ONE PARTY state, and that ONE PARTY is solely responsible for the homelessness and income inequality.

Yes, E. Germany had a lot of problems, mostly related to their Stalinist regime’s efforts to strike a balance between capitalism and socialism. But homelessness was not one of them.

Again, stick someone in a lean-to and call it a home.

Cuba does not exterminate people, that is a damnable LIE. Cuba has actually had fewer executions since 1960 than the U.S. has every year.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article118282148.html

The late and widely respected University of Hawaii historian R. J. Rummel, who made a career out of studying what he termed “democide,” the killing of people by their own government, reported in 1987 that credible estimates of the Castro regime’s death toll ran from 35,000 to 141,000, with a median of 73,000.

http://deathpenaltyusa.org/usa/date/1987.htm
Total executed in the United States in 1987: 25.

Oh, and when I talk about a murderous regime, from the first source:
Figurative talk about a balance sheet for the human costs of the revolution turns quite literal when the executions are discussed; for a time during the 1960s, the Cuban government extracted most of the blood from the victims before they were shot, then sold it to other communist countries for $50 a pint.)

 

[EatTheRich]

1. Because they need to take responsibility for cleaning up the messes they create.
The suburbs didn't create the mess. The mess was created by the rich Democrats. They alone are responsible and they aren't going to change anything because they don't need to. They don't have to worry about reelection.

2. Because it operates on a capitalist system which is incompatible with those things. I am not a liberal. I do blame both big-business parties for their role in maintaining the capitalist system and thereby causing mass homelessness.

The capitalist system is NOT to blame for California's economic woes. Most of their polices are SOCIALIST in nature. California is the most anti-capitalist state in the union.

3. People become homeless in the cities and in the suburbs. That’s the nature of capitalism.

Nope. That's the nature of liberalism and socialism. Capitalism creates the greatest economies and the highest standard of living on the planet. That's just a fact.

1. The suburbs are sometimes run by rich Democrats. In other cases by rich Republicans who are at least as responsible. Homelessness is a worldwide problem, but it has otherwise never skyrocketed the way it did under the right-wing governments of Ronald Reagan, Helmut Kohl, and Vladimir Putin.
2. Which is it, is California run by rich Democrats (bourgeois represented by a bourgeois party), or is it socialist?
3. The standard of living has risen in every country that has had a socialist revolution. It dropped in the former USSR and E. Europe following capitalist restoration. The only modern countries to have eliminated homelessness are socialist E. Germany and socialist Cuba.

 

[EatTheRich]

There is adequate supply for those who wish to pay

In other words: Meh. The rich aren’t homeless.

 

[reason10]

Why is there a limited supply of homes? Market economics.

Nope. Space. Zoning. California could put homes EVERYWHERE, in the desert even. If there were no zoning regulations, California couldn't build enough homes to accommodate the idiots moving in every day. That isn't market economics. Zoning is government. And space is the Earth. Has NOTHING to do with market economics.

What about taxes and regulations? Well, they are not distortions of the market so much as expressions of what the market wants.
Taxes are nothing but distortions of the market. They distort the price of gasoline, the price of producing anything. They jack up the price of everything. And California is STILL in the red with deficits. That's not capitalist. That's liberal socialism.

We pay one way or another, through taxes that are levied openly or through the socialized cost of an unregulated market.

There has never been a completely unregulated market in the entire history of America. But states with the least amount of regulations and taxes usually wind up with the best economies, the lowest cost of living and the highest standard of living. You're trying to blame Adam Smith for something that is Karl Marx's doing.

Go take a basic literacy class if you think I was blaming the “bums.”

You are the LAST person in this forum to have the credibility to criticize anyone's "literacy."

 

[reason10]

In other words: Meh. The rich aren’t homeless.

In other words, people who work for a living aren't homeless.

 

[reason10]

]1. The suburbs are sometimes run by rich Democrats. In other cases by rich Republicans who are at least as responsible.

There are ZERO Republican fingerprints on Calfornia's increasingly third world economy.

Homelessness is a worldwide problem, but it has otherwise never skyrocketed the way it did under the right-wing governments of Ronald Reagan, Helmut Kohl, and Vladimir Putin.

Actually, the WORST homeless occurred under left wing governments like Barack Saddam Hussein Obama. Reagan created the greatest economy of the 20th Century. He INHERITED homelessness, (a pheonomenon created by JFK deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill).

2. Which is it, is California run by rich Democrats (bourgeois represented by a bourgeois party), or is it socialist?

There is NOTHING bourgeouis about Democrats. They are liberals and socialists and they are solely responsible for what has happened there.


3. The standard of living has risen in every country that has had a socialist revolution. It dropped in the former USSR and E. Europe following capitalist restoration. The only modern countries to have eliminated homelessness are socialist E. Germany and socialist Cuba.

That is absolutely false, and it's not even close to correct.

 

[PhilFish]

In other words: Meh. The rich aren’t homeless.

Dunno.

 

[EatTheRich]

It is the policies of the rich ruling class and the twin big-business parties supporting them.

There are no twin big business parties. California is a ONE PARTY state, and that ONE PARTY is solely responsible for the homelessness and income inequality.

Yes, E. Germany had a lot of problems, mostly related to their Stalinist regime’s efforts to strike a balance between capitalism and socialism. But homelessness was not one of them.

Again, stick someone in a lean-to and call it a home.

Cuba does not exterminate people, that is a damnable LIE. Cuba has actually had fewer executions since 1960 than the U.S. has every year.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article118282148.html

The late and widely respected University of Hawaii historian R. J. Rummel, who made a career out of studying what he termed “democide,” the killing of people by their own government, reported in 1987 that credible estimates of the Castro regime’s death toll ran from 35,000 to 141,000, with a median of 73,000.

http://deathpenaltyusa.org/usa/date/1987.htm
Total executed in the United States in 1987: 25.

Oh, and when I talk about a murderous regime, from the first source:
Figurative talk about a balance sheet for the human costs of the revolution turns quite literal when the executions are discussed; for a time during the 1960s, the Cuban government extracted most of the blood from the victims before they were shot, then sold it to other communist countries for $50 a pint.)

California is a 2-Party state, in fact it was run by Republicans for 24 of the last 36 years.

Did E. Germany have great housing? No. Was it better than what the U.S. offers to the homeless? Absolutely.

Rummel “widely respected”? He is viewed as a crank and a joke.
https://books.google.com/books?id=48N-XbOltMEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=Rummel&f=false

The Miami Herald also printed a story about Cuban diplomats doing animal sacrifice at the UN in New York, when it comes to Cuba all sense of fact-checking goes out the window.

 

[EatTheRich]

]1. The suburbs are sometimes run by rich Democrats. In other cases by rich Republicans who are at least as responsible.

There are ZERO Republican fingerprints on Calfornia's increasingly third world economy.

Homelessness is a worldwide problem, but it has otherwise never skyrocketed the way it did under the right-wing governments of Ronald Reagan, Helmut Kohl, and Vladimir Putin.

Actually, the WORST homeless occurred under left wing governments like Barack Saddam Hussein Obama. Reagan created the greatest economy of the 20th Century. He INHERITED homelessness, (a pheonomenon created by JFK deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill).

2. Which is it, is California run by rich Democrats (bourgeois represented by a bourgeois party), or is it socialist?

There is NOTHING bourgeouis about Democrats. They are liberals and socialists and they are solely responsible for what has happened there.


3. The standard of living has risen in every country that has had a socialist revolution. It dropped in the former USSR and E. Europe following capitalist restoration. The only modern countries to have eliminated homelessness are socialist E. Germany and socialist Cuba.

That is absolutely false, and it's not even close to correct.

1. How about Proposition 13?
https://www.nber.org/papers/w11108.pdf
2. Liberalism is bourgeois politics. It has always been associated with “rich Democrats.” There is nothing “socialist” about it.
3. Got a counterexample?

 

[reason10]

1. How about Proposition 13?
This comes dangerously close to thread drift, but I'll hang with it. Prop 13, passed in 1978 was a raw exercise in pure Democracy in the state of California. It basically held the millage rate to 1 percent of the value of the real property. (In Florida, that's what we call the percentage of the value of the land or house.) The law said the taxes wouldn't go up more than 2 percent a year unless the property was sold. Funny. We have the same thing here in Florida with property zoned agricultural, and we don't see the massive numbers of homelessness or such a huge income gap. There is still affordable housing here. Prop13 DID limit California counties a lot of revenue so spend on useless vote buying welfare programs. You can't blame a tax cut for government's insatiable desire to buy votes with spending. And Prop 13 was put into place to keep people from losing their homes due to property taxes

2. Liberalism is bourgeois politics. It has always been associated with “rich Democrats.” There is nothing “socialist” about it.

You're going to have some argument from other liberals at this forum, (most of which seem to share your abysmal lack of education in all things economic and political.) They are trying to sell us on the fact that ANY government spending at all is Socialism. They believe roads, post offices, the military, fire protection, the court systems, any kind of government spending to be Socialism. Indeed the 1929 Socialist Platform laid out a bunch of things that could be considered liberalism but you probably wouldn't call socialist. The only two items from the Communist Manifesto that represent pure socialism are: 1. the Abolition of private property, and 2. the Abolition of the familty.

3. Got a counterexample?

The purest socialist countries of the world are ghettos. Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, the Soviet Union, most of the land in China (where most citizens are illiterate and starving to death), Iran. These are spots where the governments represent the rich and everyone else is at the bottom of the stratum. Those are the countries with the least favorable market economies. There are other countries with market economies who the liberals call socialist, (when they have mostly a lot of welfare programs and their currency devaluation hasn't caught up yet), but the ones I named are the ones where the government owns and completely controls the means of production. That IS the socialist model.

There are some sites claiming Canada is a socialist country, which is true bullshit. Canada has a market economy with some left wing welfare programs and government control of certain sectors. But that hardly makes it a socialist country.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

wait...it's not Trump's fault?????

 

[EatTheRich]

1. How about Proposition 13?
This comes dangerously close to thread drift, but I'll hang with it. Prop 13, passed in 1978 was a raw exercise in pure Democracy in the state of California. It basically held the millage rate to 1 percent of the value of the real property. (In Florida, that's what we call the percentage of the value of the land or house.) The law said the taxes wouldn't go up more than 2 percent a year unless the property was sold. Funny. We have the same thing here in Florida with property zoned agricultural, and we don't see the massive numbers of homelessness or such a huge income gap. There is still affordable housing here. Prop13 DID limit California counties a lot of revenue so spend on useless vote buying welfare programs. You can't blame a tax cut for government's insatiable desire to buy votes with spending. And Prop 13 was put into place to keep people from losing their homes due to property taxes

2. Liberalism is bourgeois politics. It has always been associated with “rich Democrats.” There is nothing “socialist” about it.

You're going to have some argument from other liberals at this forum, (most of which seem to share your abysmal lack of education in all things economic and political.) They are trying to sell us on the fact that ANY government spending at all is Socialism. They believe roads, post offices, the military, fire protection, the court systems, any kind of government spending to be Socialism. Indeed the 1929 Socialist Platform laid out a bunch of things that could be considered liberalism but you probably wouldn't call socialist. The only two items from the Communist Manifesto that represent pure socialism are: 1. the Abolition of private property, and 2. the Abolition of the familty.

3. Got a counterexample?

The purest socialist countries of the world are ghettos. Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, the Soviet Union, most of the land in China (where most citizens are illiterate and starving to death), Iran. These are spots where the governments represent the rich and everyone else is at the bottom of the stratum. Those are the countries with the least favorable market economies. There are other countries with market economies who the liberals call socialist, (when they have mostly a lot of welfare programs and their currency devaluation hasn't caught up yet), but the ones I named are the ones where the government owns and completely controls the means of production. That IS the socialist model.

There are some sites claiming Canada is a socialist country, which is true bullshit. Canada has a market economy with some left wing welfare programs and government control of certain sectors. But that hardly makes it a socialist country.

What you call “useless vote buying programs” are actually part of the safety net that keeps more people from being homeless. Florida doesn’t have more homelessness because of the massive subsidies it gets for resettlement (including housing aid) from the federal government, and because it dumps its problems on more responsible states like California. It is still due to have homelessness skyrocket the next time a big storm hits just as in Louisiana.

No, socialism does not mean “government doing stuff.” The reason I have arguments with “other” liberals is that I am not one of them and do not share the capitalist assumptions the liberals share with you.

Venezuela and Iran are capitalist states.

Was Cuba better off when its life expectancy was 20 years shorter and 1 in 5 people were illiterate? Was N. Korea better off when its people were being kidnapped for slavery and gruesome medical experiments by the racist Japanese occupiers? Was the Soviet Union better off when 98% of the population lacked access to electricity, a majority was illiterate, pogroms were frequent, and the country was ruled by an autocratic dictator?

 

[EatTheRich]

1. How about Proposition 13?
This comes dangerously close to thread drift, but I'll hang with it. Prop 13, passed in 1978 was a raw exercise in pure Democracy in the state of California. It basically held the millage rate to 1 percent of the value of the real property. (In Florida, that's what we call the percentage of the value of the land or house.) The law said the taxes wouldn't go up more than 2 percent a year unless the property was sold. Funny. We have the same thing here in Florida with property zoned agricultural, and we don't see the massive numbers of homelessness or such a huge income gap. There is still affordable housing here. Prop13 DID limit California counties a lot of revenue so spend on useless vote buying welfare programs. You can't blame a tax cut for government's insatiable desire to buy votes with spending. And Prop 13 was put into place to keep people from losing their homes due to property taxes

2. Liberalism is bourgeois politics. It has always been associated with “rich Democrats.” There is nothing “socialist” about it.

You're going to have some argument from other liberals at this forum, (most of which seem to share your abysmal lack of education in all things economic and political.) They are trying to sell us on the fact that ANY government spending at all is Socialism. They believe roads, post offices, the military, fire protection, the court systems, any kind of government spending to be Socialism. Indeed the 1929 Socialist Platform laid out a bunch of things that could be considered liberalism but you probably wouldn't call socialist. The only two items from the Communist Manifesto that represent pure socialism are: 1. the Abolition of private property, and 2. the Abolition of the familty.

3. Got a counterexample?

The purest socialist countries of the world are ghettos. Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, the Soviet Union, most of the land in China (where most citizens are illiterate and starving to death), Iran. These are spots where the governments represent the rich and everyone else is at the bottom of the stratum. Those are the countries with the least favorable market economies. There are other countries with market economies who the liberals call socialist, (when they have mostly a lot of welfare programs and their currency devaluation hasn't caught up yet), but the ones I named are the ones where the government owns and completely controls the means of production. That IS the socialist model.

There are some sites claiming Canada is a socialist country, which is true bullshit. Canada has a market economy with some left wing welfare programs and government control of certain sectors. But that hardly makes it a socialist country.

In 1949, literacy was about 20% in China and in India. Now, it is about 85% in China and about 74% in India. In 1949, famine was a regular occurrence in China and India. It is still a regular occurrence in India; China has not had a famine for more than 50 years.

 

[Spamature]

This is brazen stupidity and brass balls to the third power.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/border-war-la-officials-burbs-homelesshttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/border-war-la-officials-burbs-homeless
Border War: Los Angeles officials clash with burbs over homeless 'dumping'
This disparity has infuriated Los Angeles city councilmembers and led to claims that L.A.’s neighbors are not just shirking their responsibility in tackling the region’s homeless crisis, but are actively pushing the homeless into L.A.’s city limits

(Note: For some of the idiots here, the thread title is correct because Democrats ARE in charge of everything in CA.)

A few points:

1. How do you PUSH a homeless person anywhere? Let's see. We aren't renting this ten million dollar house to you for $100 a month. Maybe that's it. Are homeless actually industrious enough to relocate themselves from one area to another? Wonder why they hadn't thought to move to an area where the JOBS are and where rents aren't so high?

So the city's criticism is brass balls to the third degree ? Yet at the same time you defend what they say is happening and agree that the suburbs should push homeless into the city. I guess that makes your rant brass balls to the fourth degree.

 

[reason10]

In 1949, literacy was about 20% in China and in India. Now, it is about 85% in China and about 74% in India. In 1949, famine was a regular occurrence in China and India. It is still a regular occurrence in India; China has not had a famine for more than 50 years.

In the big cities. The vast majority of the population of China doesn't live in the big cities. Most of them live in the mountain regions. Most of them are starving. Most of them are illiterate. China has perhaps the world's largest competitive society for moving up the ladder. In America, the schools dumb down our population, but in China the population has to fight and compete for the barest of education. Those who make it to the cities have had to crawl over heaps of others. That's why those who make it to this country are so amazing. They've had to compete just to get to that level of excellence.

Same thing in India. The Indian immigrants we see to day are at the top of their game, having to compete over this huge population in that country. Most of India is starving to death.

 

[reason10]

So the city's criticism is brass balls to the third degree ? Yet at the same time you defend what they say is happening and agree that the suburbs should push homeless into the city. I guess that makes your rant brass balls to the fourth degree.

What I'm saying is DEMOCRAT PARTY politics created those homeless and that huge income gap in the first place.
And there are ZERO Republican fingerprints on that clusterfuck. It's ALL liberal Democrat policies.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

E. Germany (the German Democratic Republic) was the first modern country to eliminate homelessness. There was no homelessness in E. Germany for about 15 years, until capitalist norms began to be restored.

You believed that ? lol

You probably believed the Communists voting system where candidates got 100% of the vote too.

Wow, you are gullible. aka a GREAT Leftist !

 

[Nutty Cortez]

They put everyone in apartments or houses.

Or Shot them.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

Passing a law making it illegal to be homeless did NOT eliminate homelessness. And you can stick anyone in a shithole and claim they have a home. Again, that wall wasn't put up to keep people OUT.

Communist nations made it mandatory that everyone work.

Lets do that in the ghettos of the USA, See how well that goes over. And eliminate welfare.

 

[reason10]

Communist nations made it mandatory that everyone work.

Lets do that in the ghettos of the USA, See how well that goes over. And eliminate welfare.

I'll go along with that.