Republicans and Homelessness

[Iceweasel]

Do you have a credible source for the allegation? Thanks.

 

[jwoodie]

When Ronald Reagan was president in the 1980s, he cut funding for federal housing programs while at the same time many states closed mental institutions.

Liberals were in favor of deinstitutionalization.

When Reagan was governor of California, mental facilities were also closed. I see a pattern here, especially since at the time of the closings, Governor Reagan said in a speech that the care of these people was the responsibility of the families. When it looks like a republican idea, and smells like a republican idea (screw everybody but the wealthy) it usually is a republican idea.

The California Supreme Court ordered that these people could not be kept in these facilities against their will. The Democratic Legislature passed a bill (Petris-Short-Lanterman) which Reagan signed, to comply with this ruling.

 

[jwoodie]

If the Republicans had there way, we would make it easier for Christian charities to help these people instead of the liberals who don't want these beautiful Christians organizations to even help the homeless and down trodden.

Please link.

What am I linking? The liberal hate of anything Christian or the thousands of Christian organizations that help the homeless with homeless shelters, food shelters and training programs?

Strawman Fallacy.

I agree with some of what you post on USMB, but this is some partisan BS. My liberal girlfriend, who does volunteering, is a Christian. My friend, who used to be the Colorado DNC Assistant Communications Director is a Christian.

How has any liberal policy ever adversely affected the effectiveness of religious organizations to help the needy?

Opposition to school vouchers?

 

[MisterBeale]

When Ronald Reagan was president in the 1980s, he cut funding for federal housing programs while at the same time many states closed mental institutions.

Liberals were in favor of deinstitutionalization.

Link, please.

In 1967, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) a so-called "bill of rights" for those with mental health problems passed the Democratic-controlled Assembly: 77-1. The Senate approved it by similar margins. Then-Gov. Reagan signed it into law.
It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman, a Republican, and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short, both Democrats. LPS went into full effect on July 1, 1972.
The bipartisan law came about because of concerns about the involuntary civil commitment to mental health institutions in California.

Another Voice - Mental Health Myths - Ukiah Daily Journal


In 1967 the California Legislature passed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) which changed the state's mental-commitment laws to limit involuntary detention of all but the most gravely mentally ill and to provide a "patients bill of rights" regarding treatment.
With the help of conservative Republican Assemblyman Frank Lanterman of La Canada (who liked to tell the American Civil Liberties Union that he had championed the rights of mental patients long before it did), the bill was pushed primarily by a group of young, liberal activists on the Assembly Office of Research staff. It was sold to Democrats as a civil-rights measure and sold to Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan as a savings--community care, without the long-term costs of custodial care in state hospitals, would cut California's mental health care costs.
Nearly 20 years after its enactment, the bill is now blamed, at least in part, for the problems of the homeless. Its emphasis on deinstitutionalization, some policy analysts claim, has placed too many people on the streets who should, for their own sake and society's, be hospitalized for treatment. This is not what supporters intended but the evidence is all too visible.

California Good Aims Bad Results - Los Angeles Times

Ah, so in trying to help, a liberal policy ended up hurting the mentally ill.

Well, at least the liberals had good intentions and it wasn't some cynical policy to cut tax expenditures by taking advantage of the most vulnerable.

Why haven't religious organizations stepped in to fill that void?

Ah, so in trying to help, a liberal policy ended up hurting the mentally ill.

Yes.

Well, at least the liberals had good intentions

Liberals are good at intentions, bad at results. Commies too, but then I repeat myself.

This can be said of all STATISTS, not just liberals. Conservatives are just as guilty.

Didn't Nixon start the war on drugs? How's that going?

 

[Iceweasel]

This can be said of all STATISTS, not just liberals. Conservatives are just as guilty.

Didn't Nixon start the war on drugs? How's that going?

It's still going on so apparently somebody thinks it's a good idea. I do too because God knows how many more liberals we would have ended up with, along with the disabled children, nuts, deadbeats, etc. Money well spent!

 

[jwoodie]

Millions of children are mentally disabled because of drug use during pregnancy. But that's the mother's choice, right?

 

[MisterBeale]

The problem with the bleeding heart liberal policy toward the poor is that giving away all of this stuff and taxing the producers for it makes the problem worse in two ways:

1. It drives away business, which loses jobs and creates more unemployed homeless.
2. It makes unemployment and homelessness a viable option for many.

More importantly for the left, it creates more government dependant democrat voters.

Ah yes, but they are more likely to turn to drugs and crime, so the conservative STATISTS will be happy, and the PRISON industrial complex will continue to swell.

Don't you see? It's a symbiotic relationship.

Who said these cads in D.C. didn't know what they are doing? Who says they like small government? They just want their people and their bureaucrats to have the government jobs.


More authoritarian pigs on the beat, eh???

​

I seriously doubt those folks go out and vote.

I know these welfare whores do though.
Supersized and Subsidized: The Top 8 Corporate Welfare Recipients

Read more: Supersized and Subsidized The Top 8 Corporate Welfare Recipients


Too bad the mentally ill don't have lobbyists.

 

[MisterBeale]

Millions of children are mentally disabled because of drug use during pregnancy. But that's the mother's choice, right?

That's because the paradigm by the government has always been jail, not treatment.

So now the government will throw those mentally disabled people whose mothers did drugs, out on the street. Some of them, I am sure, are women, who will turn to drugs and prostitution, just like their mothers before them did, and they will have babies, and the cycle will repeat because of the short sighted politicians and bureaucrats.

​

 

[jwoodie]

Millions of children are mentally disabled because of drug use during pregnancy. But that's the mother's choice, right?

That's because the paradigm by the government has always been jail, not treatment.

So now the government will throw those mentally disabled people whose mothers did drugs, out on the street. Some of them, I am sure, are women, who will turn to drugs and prostitution, just like their mothers before them did, and they will have babies, and the cycle will repeat because of the short sighted politicians and bureaucrats.

​

Drug treatment programs have an 80% failure rate. So does your pie-in-the sky ideology.

 

[MisterBeale]

This can be said of all STATISTS, not just liberals. Conservatives are just as guilty.

Didn't Nixon start the war on drugs? How's that going?

It's still going on so apparently somebody thinks it's a good idea. I do too because God knows how many more liberals we would have ended up with, along with the disabled children, nuts, deadbeats, etc. Money well spent!

Actually, a cursory look at the literature demonstrates that times are changing. My estimate is that it will be ending within the next 10 to 15 years. Probably sooner if society collapses.

Five Nobel Prize economists have weighed in on the repercussions of the global war on drugs, outlining “the effects of prohibition on security, drug prices, rule of law and public health,” according to a press release. It concludes that governments would make better use of their money and resources by supporting evidence-based policies, and calls on these governments to do so.

5 Nobel Prize Economists Call for End to Failed War on Drugs Alternet

 

[MisterBeale]

Millions of children are mentally disabled because of drug use during pregnancy. But that's the mother's choice, right?

That's because the paradigm by the government has always been jail, not treatment.

So now the government will throw those mentally disabled people whose mothers did drugs, out on the street. Some of them, I am sure, are women, who will turn to drugs and prostitution, just like their mothers before them did, and they will have babies, and the cycle will repeat because of the short sighted politicians and bureaucrats.

​

Drug treatment programs have an 80% failure rate. So does your pie-in-the sky ideology.

I'm not going to ask where you pulled that statistic out of, since it smells like ass, I can guess where it came from.

Generally, treatment will only work if a person's life is CHANGED first. If you throw a person back into the same circumstances that led them to try the drug in the first place? Yes, you are right, treatment doesn't work. Otherwise, you stat. is incorrect.

All drugs, even Heroine is easily recoverable from.

"At first, I thought this was merely a quirk of rats, until I discovered that there was -- at the same time as the Rat Park experiment -- a helpful human equivalent taking place. It was called the Vietnam War. Time magazine reported using heroin was "as common as chewing gum" among U.S. soldiers, and there is solid evidence to back this up: some 20 percent of U.S. soldiers had become addicted to heroin there, according to a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Many people were understandably terrified; they believed a huge number of addicts were about to head home when the war ended.

But in fact some 95 percent of the addicted soldiers -- according to the same study -- simply stopped. Very few had rehab. They shifted from a terrifying cage back to a pleasant one, so didn't want the drug any more."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-causeof-addicti_b_6506936.html

"Here's one example of an experiment that is happening all around you, and may well happen to you one day. If you get run over today and you break your hip, you will probably be given diamorphine, the medical name for heroin. In the hospital around you, there will be plenty of people also given heroin for long periods, for pain relief. The heroin you will get from the doctor will have a much higher purity and potency than the heroin being used by street-addicts, who have to buy from criminals who adulterate it. So if the old theory of addiction is right -- it's the drugs that cause it; they make your body need them -- then it's obvious what should happen. Loads of people should leave the hospital and try to score smack on the streets to meet their habit.

But here's the strange thing: It virtually never happens. As the Canadian doctor Gabor Mate was the first to explain to me, medical users just stop, despite months of use. The same drug, used for the same length of time, turns street-users into desperate addicts and leaves medical patients unaffected."

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Whats needed is more taxes, more govt programs, more spending and more debt....
For the people !!!!! Lol

 

[Flopper]

There's a certain irony here.

The left and the liberal media is always trying to push this "gun control" paradigm on the nation. The conservatives and the Right are always telling us that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, and that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Now the conservatives want to turn around and take away the very options and security that the most potentially dangerous and desperate people have for security? This would then make them MORE insecure, desperate and dangerous, would it not? How can they be so short sighted?

It boggles the mind. If these representatives weren't so comfortable, one would think THEY are the mentally ill ones.

​

You got to have the nuts out there so they will have someone to shoot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When Ronald Reagan was president in the 1980s, he cut funding for federal housing programs while at the same time many states closed mental institutions.

Liberals were in favor of deinstitutionalization.

Link, please.

In 1967, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) a so-called "bill of rights" for those with mental health problems passed the Democratic-controlled Assembly: 77-1. The Senate approved it by similar margins. Then-Gov. Reagan signed it into law.
It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman, a Republican, and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short, both Democrats. LPS went into full effect on July 1, 1972.
The bipartisan law came about because of concerns about the involuntary civil commitment to mental health institutions in California.

Another Voice - Mental Health Myths - Ukiah Daily Journal


In 1967 the California Legislature passed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) which changed the state's mental-commitment laws to limit involuntary detention of all but the most gravely mentally ill and to provide a "patients bill of rights" regarding treatment.
With the help of conservative Republican Assemblyman Frank Lanterman of La Canada (who liked to tell the American Civil Liberties Union that he had championed the rights of mental patients long before it did), the bill was pushed primarily by a group of young, liberal activists on the Assembly Office of Research staff. It was sold to Democrats as a civil-rights measure and sold to Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan as a savings--community care, without the long-term costs of custodial care in state hospitals, would cut California's mental health care costs.
Nearly 20 years after its enactment, the bill is now blamed, at least in part, for the problems of the homeless. Its emphasis on deinstitutionalization, some policy analysts claim, has placed too many people on the streets who should, for their own sake and society's, be hospitalized for treatment. This is not what supporters intended but the evidence is all too visible.

California Good Aims Bad Results - Los Angeles Times

Ah, so in trying to help, a liberal policy ended up hurting the mentally ill.

Well, at least the liberals had good intentions and it wasn't some cynical policy to cut tax expenditures by taking advantage of the most vulnerable.

Why haven't religious organizations stepped in to fill that void?

Ah, so in trying to help, a liberal policy ended up hurting the mentally ill.

Yes.

Well, at least the liberals had good intentions

Liberals are good at intentions, bad at results. Commies too, but then I repeat myself.

Oh, you had to go and ruin your good point with some partisan bullshit. Too bad.

So I guess the other side of this is that conservatives achieve good results with their bad intentions?

Oh, you had to go and ruin your good point with some partisan bullshit.

Yeah, sorry for pointing out your partisan bullshit.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The problem with the bleeding heart liberal policy toward the poor is that giving away all of this stuff and taxing the producers for it makes the problem worse in two ways:

1. It drives away business, which loses jobs and creates more unemployed homeless.
2. It makes unemployment and homelessness a viable option for many.

More importantly for the left, it creates more government dependant democrat voters.

So what's the conservative plan? Let'em starve? High crime rates due to a large, impoverished population with dead bodies in the streets isn't the kind of society in which I want to live, and, it seems, neither do most of our fellow citizens.

 

[PredFan]

The problem with the bleeding heart liberal policy toward the poor is that giving away all of this stuff and taxing the producers for it makes the problem worse in two ways:

1. It drives away business, which loses jobs and creates more unemployed homeless.
2. It makes unemployment and homelessness a viable option for many.

More importantly for the left, it creates more government dependant democrat voters.

So what's the conservative plan? Let'em starve? High crime rates due to a large, impoverished population with dead bodies in the streets isn't the kind of society in which I want to live, and, it seems, neither do most of our fellow citizens.

No, that only exists in your alleged "mind". It's yet another lie you morons make up to fool yourselves with.

 

[Iceweasel]

This can be said of all STATISTS, not just liberals. Conservatives are just as guilty.

Didn't Nixon start the war on drugs? How's that going?

It's still going on so apparently somebody thinks it's a good idea. I do too because God knows how many more liberals we would have ended up with, along with the disabled children, nuts, deadbeats, etc. Money well spent!

Actually, a cursory look at the literature demonstrates that times are changing. My estimate is that it will be ending within the next 10 to 15 years. Probably sooner if society collapses.

Five Nobel Prize economists have weighed in on the repercussions of the global war on drugs, outlining “the effects of prohibition on security, drug prices, rule of law and public health,” according to a press release. It concludes that governments would make better use of their money and resources by supporting evidence-based policies, and calls on these governments to do so.

5 Nobel Prize Economists Call for End to Failed War on Drugs Alternet

You're a bit thick between the ears if you think the opinions of economists with awards from highly political group calling it the failed war of drugs means anything but propaganda. Maybe a junkie would buy it though.

 

[percysunshine]

.

Time out. It was progressive government policy of the 60s and 70s which shut down the care facilities and put the mentally ill on the streets. Did the progressives get this wrong?

.

 

[Iceweasel]

The problem with the bleeding heart liberal policy toward the poor is that giving away all of this stuff and taxing the producers for it makes the problem worse in two ways:

1. It drives away business, which loses jobs and creates more unemployed homeless.
2. It makes unemployment and homelessness a viable option for many.

More importantly for the left, it creates more government dependant democrat voters.

So what's the conservative plan? Let'em starve? High crime rates due to a large, impoverished population with dead bodies in the streets isn't the kind of society in which I want to live, and, it seems, neither do most of our fellow citizens.

People re easy to fool. 15+ trillion dollars spent on the war on poverty hasn't changed the situation and likely made it worse. Many of those could be working but can manage without it thanks to the social safety net. I see nothing wrong with letting able bodied people starve if they refuse to provide for themselves. And the crime rate can be drastically reduced with passing personal property laws that allow you to dispatch thieves.
Liberals make things worse then want more liberalism to fix it, then more, and more, etc.

 

[Disir]

When Ronald Reagan was president in the 1980s, he cut funding for federal housing programs while at the same time many states closed mental institutions.

Liberals were in favor of deinstitutionalization.

When Reagan was governor of California, mental facilities were also closed. I see a pattern here, especially since at the time of the closings, Governor Reagan said in a speech that the care of these people was the responsibility of the families. When it looks like a republican idea, and smells like a republican idea (screw everybody but the wealthy) it usually is a republican idea.

Are liberals in favor of reopening mental health facilities?

I am in favor of it, as are many others. In fact, if liberals could get some help in this area it would also help the guns at all costs folks. Of course, we might be addressing issues directly and ..........we can't have that.