Sharing Youtube discussion about LA homeless camps

[georgephillip]

Yep, and democrats call that progress.

Republicans have controlled California politics often enough to share some of the blame. Reagan, for example, laid the groundwork for today's homeless population when he closed state mental care facilities and put hundreds of developmentally disabled individuals on the streets. California is blue along the coast, but it's blood-red inland with no shortage of conservative loons:

 

[Thinker101]

Yep, and democrats call that progress.

Republicans have controlled California politics often enough to share some of the blame. Reagan, for example, laid the groundwork for today's homeless population when he closed state mental care facilities and put hundreds of developmentally disabled individuals on the streets. California is blue along the coast, but it's blood-red inland with no shortage of conservative loons:

WTF kinda BS is that California has had a democrat senate since 1956 and assembly since 1996.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm always amazed at what people make up, to justify their unsupportable position.

Again, two people working McDonald's, places them in the top 1% of income earners in the world.

How does the cost of living in the US compare with the rest of the world? Two full time McDonald's jobs barely covers market rents in many American cities.

 

[Thinker101]

I'm always amazed at what people make up, to justify their unsupportable position.

Again, two people working McDonald's, places them in the top 1% of income earners in the world.

How does the cost of living in the US compare with the rest of the world? Two full time McDonald's jobs barely covers market rents in many American cities.

WTF are you doing with two full time McDonald's jobs, are you 16?

 

[Andylusion]

I'm always amazed at what people make up, to justify their unsupportable position.

Again, two people working McDonald's, places them in the top 1% of income earners in the world.

How does the cost of living in the US compare with the rest of the world? Two full time McDonald's jobs barely covers market rents in many American cities.

The numbers are compared with PPP.

What Is Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), and How Is It Calculated?

Purchasing power parity (PPP) compares currencies by using a common basket of goods to show differences in cost of living and standards of living across countries.

www.investopedia.com

When you say it barely covers market rents in many American Cities... I would ask you which cities, and why?

Because in Ohio the minimum wage is $1,500 a month, which with 2 people is $3,000 a month. You can get a 2 bedroom house for $700 a month. That is very doable.

When I was in college, a group of guys rented an entire 4 bedroom house, for just $300 per person per month.

Of course this ignores the fact that you shouldn't be working for minimum wage.

That doesn't change the fact that two people who are working minimum wage, are enjoying a standard of living that 99% of the planet doesn't have.

But they still shouldn't be working for minimum wage. If you are over the age of 25.... I would even say 20.... and you are still working minimum wage... then you are failing as a human being. I haven't worked for minimum wage since I was 16, and I'm a college fail out.

Now, I will say that there are SOME American cities where you can't make it on minimum wage. Seattle, New York City, LA, SF.

You want to know why? Left-wing socialist ideology. It's that simple. Every single city with left-wingers in control, drives up taxes, drives up cost of living.

Cities that engage in free-market capitalism, are affordable to live in.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm always amazed at what people make up, to justify their unsupportable position.

Again, two people working McDonald's, places them in the top 1% of income earners in the world.

How does the cost of living in the US compare with the rest of the world? Two full time McDonald's jobs barely covers market rents in many American cities.

WTF are you doing with two full time McDonald's jobs, are you 16?

I'm the one that said, that a married couple, working minimum wage at McDonald's, places them in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

When people complain that the US is oh so terrible, I point out that people in the US, even the poorest of people, are living a better life than most of the entire worlds middle class.

That said, I agree with you... when left-wingers complain that you can't live a middle class life on minimum wage, I always say.... why are you working minimum wage?

I have not worked minimum wage since I was 16 (ironically given you said that). If you are over the age of 20... you should never be working minimum wage, unless you suck as an employee... and that a 'you problem', not a 'capitalism problem'.

 

[Andylusion]

Yep, and democrats call that progress.

Republicans have controlled California politics often enough to share some of the blame. Reagan, for example, laid the groundwork for today's homeless population when he closed state mental care facilities and put hundreds of developmentally disabled individuals on the streets. California is blue along the coast, but it's blood-red inland with no shortage of conservative loons:

That is insanity. Democrats have been control of the state for ages, and almost as importantly, in control of the city governments.

Moreover, the popular claims about how Reagan shut down all the mental health facilities, is greatly over stated.

https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article34968618.html

The emptying of California’s state mental hospitals resulted from the passage, in 1967, of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (named for the sponsors, two Democrats, one Republican). This bill, known as LPS, was advanced in response to pressure from mental health professionals, lawyers, patient’s rights advocates, and the ACLU. When fully implemented in 1972, LPS effectively ended involuntary civil confinement of mental patients in California.​

​

The Democrat-controlled Legislature passed LPS with overwhelming majorities; the vote was 77-1 in the Assembly, and the margin was similar in the Senate. Gov. Reagan signed the bill, but those sound like veto-proof margins to me.​

So let's review... The legislation was proposed by two democrats and one republican, was supported by left-wing ACLU, health care professionals, and left-wing patients rights advocates, and was passed by the Democrat-controlled legislature by a vote of 77-1. Which as you might guess is veto proof.

Did Reagan pass it? Sure.

And by the way... do you know WHY all these groups came up to support ending the mental institutions?

Because of the book One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

The public supported closing these institutions. The left-wingers supported closing these institutions. They were being closed in states across the country.

But... you want to blame Reagan, because that fits your ideology today, when California is over run with mental people, 16 years after he's dead, 31 years after he was in office, and 45 years since he was in charge of California.

Doesn't it tell you something, when you have to make up such ridiculous nonsense, to support your ideology?

 

[Andylusion]

Almost a 60% income tax and a 25% sales tax...that encourages the average person to strive for success?

Wouldn't that depend on how much the average person is saving on health care and higher education?

The End of the Road for Eds and Meds - Aaron M. Renn

So the median income is $68,000. 60% of that is $40,800.

The average cost of tuition, over all, is $22,000 a year.

Now that doesn't include people who live at home, and / or get 2 year degrees.

Columbus State Community College, has a yearly tuition of just $5,000.

So... You want me to pay $40,000 a year in taxes, to offset a $5,000 a year college tuition?

That is stupid.

Now I get it.... some people want to go to an out of state school, and live room and board on campus, and go to a private, or high end public university, where you are paying $30,000 a year..... and that makes you a moron.

Why should I pay the taxes for you to be a moron?

If you want to blow your money on over priced schools... then YOU should blow YOUR money on over priced schools.

However, EVEN IF... you go to an over priced expensive college or university... Say $150,000. You are still paying more in taxes, than you would have paid in University Tuition. And by the way... that's just the income tax. That doesn't include you paying 25% on everything you purchase. You are going to pay another $10,000 for your car, on top of the sale price. And then you include 25% tax on everything else you buy. Clothing, internet, furniture.... everything.

So if you think the Danish are "saving money" on university tuition, you are crazy.

Same is true of health insurance. Even now, with Obama Care regulations having driven up the cost of health insurance.... even now.... average Family policies are only $1,000 a month.

https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/resources/individual-and-family/how-much-does-individual-health-insurance-cost

Well.... 60% of your income, and 25% tax on everything you buy.... way way way more money than health insurance in the US. By a wide margin.

Wouldn't that depend on how much the average person is saving on health care and higher education?

So the answer to your question is.... they are not saving anything. The cost of taxes is way higher than the cost of tuition and premiums.

And by the way, basic logic should tell you that.

Government does not have one dollar, that it does not get from the public. Additionally, government must collect more than one dollar.... in order to give you one dollar. This is because the government has to fund the operation of their own agencies, to process that system of giving you a dollar.

So if you want $20,000 worth of education, the government has to collect from you, more than $20,000 in taxes to give you $20,000 of education.

Again, this is one of the baffling aspects of left-wingers that point to places like Denmark and Sweden as examples they want to follow, when people in Denmark and Sweden are paying massive amounts of money, to get the same or less as we do.

Of the top 50 Universities in the world.... how many are from Denmark and Sweden? Sweden zero, Denmark, ONE.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

University of Copenhagen which is 34th on the list. Go through that list, and see the dozens on dozens of US universities and colleges in the top 50.

By the way, if you are not from Denmark, the cost to get into university is about $20,000 a year. About par with the US.

So the cost of the actual education is not dramatically cheaper. So the tax payers of Denmark are paying 60% of their income for life, plus 25% taxes on everything they buy.... when could move to another country, and pay have that tax, and just pay $20,000 a year at the same university for the same education. Way more expensive to pay the taxes, by a wide margin.

By the way, do you think that if the people of Denmark were given the option, of cutting their taxes by say 2/3rd, and having to pay their own tuition and health insurance, that they would take that deal?

I think they would. I do. Why do I believe that? Because I know people from Sweden, that now live in the US, wouldn't go back. They came here kicking and screaming, because everyone said how horrible it is to pay for your own education and health care, but then they earn more than double what they did in Sweden, because they get to actually keep what they earn... and paying bills like that is nothing compared to the taxes back home.

So yeah, I honestly believe that if had an "opt-out" option, that would double their income in exchange for paying their own way through college and buying their own health insurance, they would take it.

 

[Andylusion]

I was in LA last year,I have never seen a homeless crisis like that one I saw in any other city ever.

I've lived in LA off and on since 1967, and I've never seen homelessness as prevalent as it is today. The "good" news is today's houseless population is still primarily composed of individuals, mostly male but with a significant number of females. Many, if not most of these individuals, have had years of experience surviving without shelter.

That could change drastically if we don't see some serious stimulus coming from congress after November 3rd. If evictions spike the way some a predicting there will be thousands of families who have never experienced life on the streets before surviving without shelter during winter.

Why is it congresses job? Why should I the tax payer here in Ohio, be forced to pay for LA's incompetence?

No. We shouldn't give LA a dime.

And here's the problem with your logic. California already spends $100 Billion a year on welfare.

California disproves welfare-spending theories

ADVOCATES of increased government spending on welfare programs argue those programs are based not only on moral concerns about the suffering of the poor, but also pragmatism. Supporters argue “anti-p…

oklahoman.com

From 1992 through 2015, Jackson points out, California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments and “other public welfare,” according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The state also resisted reforms designed to reduce welfare rolls that took hold elsewhere.​

​

“California — not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia — has the highest poverty rate in the United States,” Jackson writes. “According to the Census Bureau's Supplemental Poverty Measure — which accounts for the cost of housing, food, utilities, and clothing, and which includes noncash government assistance as a form of income — nearly one out of four Californians is poor.”​

​

No other state comes close to California in terms of total welfare spending

California, with its suffocating cost of living and huge population, is home to an inordinate number of households receiving public assistance. In fact, with...

www.marketwatch.com

California spends as much money on welfare and government assistance, as the next two states combined. And yet they are the ones with the biggest problem.

Ironically, New York, is the next biggest problem in the country, and they have the next largest spending.

Why is it that all the places the give the most benefits, have the biggest problems?

Well to a Conservative, this is obvious. You pay people to act badly, and they act badly.

One thing that the bugs me, is that California has been actively creating mentally ill people.

You know one of the cause of mental illness? Not having a job. Allow people to live on welfare for decades.

You know another cause of mental illness? Drug use. Letting people get high on pot, and giving out free needles, causes mental illness.

Then you want to complain Reagan closed the mental institution, while promoting policies that create mentally ill people.

 

[Andylusion]

Prior to the 1970s urban homelessness was largely confined to skid row neighborhoods. The residents were mainly young white males who were mostly migratory workers who followed crops or moved in and out of lumber camps. That all changed when gentrification leveled entire city districts, and the single occupancy hotels that the migratory workers lived in became boutique hotels or upscale housing.

Capitalism commodifies everything.

Since investment capital circulates primarily through the built environment, public space itself has become a basic urban commodity.

Privatize profits.
Socialize cost.
Pretend you're surprised.

What Causes Homelessness? Start With Capitalism.

So then how do you explain the mass homelessness of Venezuela which has no Capitalism? Or Cuba which up till recently had no Capitalism? Or China? Or North Korea?

Why is it the most socialized cities in America, that spend the most on social programs, even for the homeless, have the highest rates of homeless?

I don't believe anything you posted.

drug attics was already mentioned in the thread. you should read.

Sure, but that is not because of "capitalism". That is caused by left-wing ideology. It's democrats in California giving out free needles. It's democrats that support legalizing drugs, plus libertarians.

But that has nothing to do with capitalism.

 

[Andylusion]

While it is generally true that there are in fact cycles, that's not a failure.

That's actually a benefit of the capitalist system, is that it weeds out unproductive uses of resources.

Capitalist enterprises are organized around the conflicted and adversarial relationship between employer and employee and the competitive, zero-sum exchange of markets. Every four to seven years these structural defects of capitalism result in an economic downturn that can result in millions of productive workers losing their homes, incomes, and pensions.

Why are these downturns guaranteed?

Because the religion of capitalism worships profits.

Captains of industry (finance) make sure their shareholders receive a steady stream of dividends in spite of the fact shareholders do absolutely nothing to earn their income.

Independent capitalists - being in a competitive situation with each other - can not and will not coordinate since that would invoke the dreaded "planned" economy.

Hence the way capitalism forces the coordination NOT undertaken in advance is by means of crisis:

Why is the US Economy so Prone to Crashes?

"In other words, crisis is not introduced into this system from the outside.

"It’s the way the system itself self-corrects for the mistakes built into how the system makes decisions about investment.

"The only way to deal with that is to come up with a way that coordinates what each investor does.

"Capitalists resist giving this power to the only conceivable agency that could do it, which is the state. "

Nah, none of that is true.

For example, do you have any idea how many thousands on thousands of regulations we have on banks? And yet the banking industry is what crashed in 2008.

By the way, Canada has far fewer regulations on banks, and they didn't have a crash.

Further, the only way to avoid ever having a crash, is to eliminate freedom.

So basically if you end up under the authoritarian Gulag structure of the Soviets, you can avoid massive crashes.

But you also avoid any growth and wealth. This is why the Soviets were eating each other at the end. It wasn't because of a sudden crash in the market. It was because they were declining year over year, for decades on end.

How is that better? No crash... but we're all dying in poverty.

Just like Venezuela today. There was no sudden crash, thanks to government control. But for 20 years, food shortages got worse and worse and worse, until people are burying dead babies, rooting through garbage cans, and cooking up the family dog for food.

And contrary to the stupidity of the left... it wasn't because of sanctions. Food shortages started before a single sanction was placed against Venezuela, and in a country that was formerly a net exporter of food.

 

[georgephillip]

WTF are you doing with two full time McDonald's jobs, are you 16?

Not since 1964.
You?

 

[Thinker101]

WTF are you doing with two full time McDonald's jobs, are you 16?

Not since 1964.
You?

Great, so you're not 16 yet you have two full time jobs at McDonalds. Get some skills.

 

[georgephillip]

When you say it barely covers market rents in many American Cities... I would ask you which cities, and why?

Because in Ohio the minimum wage is $1,500 a month, which with 2 people is $3,000 a month. You can get a 2 bedroom house for $700 a month. That is very doable.

In LA a single ( 0 bedroom apartment) has a market rent of $1250 a month up from $375 twenty-five years ago.

$12 a Hour is the Minimum Wage in Los Angeles Now: New Legal Reasons #55

Depending on family size, a pair of minimum wage jobs will not provide sufficient income to cover regular food, shelter, and transportation expenses not to mention any medical or other special needs that may arise.

 

[georgephillip]

You want to know why? Left-wing socialist ideology. It's that simple. Every single city with left-wingers in control, drives up taxes, drives up cost of living.

Wage stagnation explains more about why 90% of productive US workers were better off fifty years ago:

"After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then.

"In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today."

For most Americans, real wages have barely budged for decades

 

[Andylusion]

When you say it barely covers market rents in many American Cities... I would ask you which cities, and why?

Because in Ohio the minimum wage is $1,500 a month, which with 2 people is $3,000 a month. You can get a 2 bedroom house for $700 a month. That is very doable.

In LA a single ( 0 bedroom apartment) has a market rent of $1250 a month up from $375 twenty-five years ago.

$12 a Hour is the Minimum Wage in Los Angeles Now: New Legal Reasons #55

Depending on family size, a pair of minimum wage jobs will not provide sufficient income to cover regular food, shelter, and transportation expenses not to mention any medical or other special needs that may arise.

There you go. You made my point. In left-wing states, with left-wing rules and regulations, the cost of an apartment is unaffordable. Just like I said.

And by the way... you have now pointed out yourself, that LA has some of the highest minimum wages in the country.... and yet as I said before.... LA has the biggest homeless problem.

Why didn't having a massive minimum wage result in prosperity for all?

Does it not tell you something, when every single time you try a left-wing socialist policy, it fails and you have to find someone to blame for it's failure?

 

[Andylusion]

You want to know why? Left-wing socialist ideology. It's that simple. Every single city with left-wingers in control, drives up taxes, drives up cost of living.

Wage stagnation explains more about why 90% of productive US workers were better off fifty years ago:

"After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then.

"In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today."

For most Americans, real wages have barely budged for decades

Taxes and regulations.

Every dollar, I as the employer, must pay out for Obama Care benefits and social security and medicare, is a dollar I can't pay employees.

 

[georgephillip]

That is insanity. Democrats have been control of the state for ages, and almost as importantly, in control of the city governments.

How about California counties?

California's Political Geography 2020 - Public Policy Institute of California

"California is often considered quite liberal, with strong support for the Democratic Party—but the state encompasses many people with differing political views.

"In this report, we examine California’s political geography to inform discussion for this election season and beyond.

"Our findings suggest the state continues to lean Democratic and Donald Trump is unpopular virtually everywhere.

"As California leans more Democratic in general, conservative Democrats are becoming rarer even in the places where they used to be common; meanwhile, independents, also known as No Party Preference voters, are leaning slightly more Republican in many parts of the state. However, many issues have their own geographic patterns..."

 

[georgephillip]

Moreover, the popular claims about how Reagan shut down all the mental health facilities, is greatly over stated.

Reagan had a lot of company in making that mistake including his successor Democrat Jerry Brown.

Linda Ronstadt Jerry Brown Newsweek | The Pop History Dig

 

[Andylusion]

That is insanity. Democrats have been control of the state for ages, and almost as importantly, in control of the city governments.

How about California counties?

California's Political Geography 2020 - Public Policy Institute of California

"California is often considered quite liberal, with strong support for the Democratic Party—but the state encompasses many people with differing political views.

"In this report, we examine California’s political geography to inform discussion for this election season and beyond.

"Our findings suggest the state continues to lean Democratic and Donald Trump is unpopular virtually everywhere.

"As California leans more Democratic in general, conservative Democrats are becoming rarer even in the places where they used to be common; meanwhile, independents, also known as No Party Preference voters, are leaning slightly more Republican in many parts of the state. However, many issues have their own geographic patterns..."

Do you see homeless over running those Right-leaning counties?
No you do not.

Pretty much supports what I said.