Will basic income become the califfornia norm town starts 500.00$ no string payments

[danielpalos]

How about Treasury printing a couple of platinum trillion dollar coins to create millions of living wage jobs?

Trillion dollar coin - Wikipedia

"Since the idea behind UBI is to meet every citizen’s basic needs, like housing and food, without discouraging work and industry, Stern’s plan would pay all 234 million American adults $1,000 a month, placing them at about the federal poverty line ($24,000 a year for a family of four)..."

"But how would we pay for this?

"$1,000 a month for everyone would cost approximately $2.7 trillion annually, which represents around four to five times the size of the defense budget and 15 percent of the GDP.

"In his book, Stern proposed paying for the $2.7 trillion as follows...."

• Cancel most existing antipoverty programs, which cost about $1 trillion a year, including food stamps ($76 billion a year), housing assistance ($49 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($82 billion)
• Cut military spending
• Phase out most tax expenditures (tax breaks), which currently cost $1.2 trillion a year
• Implement a federal sales tax and a financial transaction tax
• Establish a collective wealth fee and “Sky Trust” modeled after the highly successful Alaska Permanent Fund, which could pay a dividend of $5,000 per person annually

"Same Principle, Different Executions
Entitlements are often derided for their complexity, which is why the simplicity of UBI is so appealing to so many. One flat benefit for everyone, no questions asked, means very little bureaucracy or red tape. As more and more countries trial UBI programs, some of the concerns about the strategy may finally be put to bed."

Here’s How We Could Fund a UBI Program in the United States

You're being facetious...aren't you?

How would giving everyone $1,000. a month NOT just raise the bottom to $1,000 a month without making any other difference? More people would simply opt out of society and live off the backs of workers. How is that a good thing?

How would collecting trillions more in taxes benefit anyone?

there should be no homeless problems in big cities.

 

[Markle]

How about Treasury printing a couple of platinum trillion dollar coins to create millions of living wage jobs?

Trillion dollar coin - Wikipedia

"Since the idea behind UBI is to meet every citizen’s basic needs, like housing and food, without discouraging work and industry, Stern’s plan would pay all 234 million American adults $1,000 a month, placing them at about the federal poverty line ($24,000 a year for a family of four)..."

"But how would we pay for this?

"$1,000 a month for everyone would cost approximately $2.7 trillion annually, which represents around four to five times the size of the defense budget and 15 percent of the GDP.

"In his book, Stern proposed paying for the $2.7 trillion as follows...."

• Cancel most existing antipoverty programs, which cost about $1 trillion a year, including food stamps ($76 billion a year), housing assistance ($49 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($82 billion)
• Cut military spending
• Phase out most tax expenditures (tax breaks), which currently cost $1.2 trillion a year
• Implement a federal sales tax and a financial transaction tax
• Establish a collective wealth fee and “Sky Trust” modeled after the highly successful Alaska Permanent Fund, which could pay a dividend of $5,000 per person annually

"Same Principle, Different Executions
Entitlements are often derided for their complexity, which is why the simplicity of UBI is so appealing to so many. One flat benefit for everyone, no questions asked, means very little bureaucracy or red tape. As more and more countries trial UBI programs, some of the concerns about the strategy may finally be put to bed."

Here’s How We Could Fund a UBI Program in the United States

You're being facetious...aren't you?

How would giving everyone $1,000. a month NOT just raise the bottom to $1,000 a month without making any other difference? More people would simply opt out of society and live off the backs of workers. How is that a good thing?

How would collecting trillions more in taxes benefit anyone?

there should be no homeless problems in big cities.

Why?

Where are those people with mental illnesses, alcoholism, and/or drug addicts to live if they don't want to be housed in mental institutions?

 

[danielpalos]

How about Treasury printing a couple of platinum trillion dollar coins to create millions of living wage jobs?

Trillion dollar coin - Wikipedia

"Since the idea behind UBI is to meet every citizen’s basic needs, like housing and food, without discouraging work and industry, Stern’s plan would pay all 234 million American adults $1,000 a month, placing them at about the federal poverty line ($24,000 a year for a family of four)..."

"But how would we pay for this?

"$1,000 a month for everyone would cost approximately $2.7 trillion annually, which represents around four to five times the size of the defense budget and 15 percent of the GDP.

"In his book, Stern proposed paying for the $2.7 trillion as follows...."

• Cancel most existing antipoverty programs, which cost about $1 trillion a year, including food stamps ($76 billion a year), housing assistance ($49 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($82 billion)
• Cut military spending
• Phase out most tax expenditures (tax breaks), which currently cost $1.2 trillion a year
• Implement a federal sales tax and a financial transaction tax
• Establish a collective wealth fee and “Sky Trust” modeled after the highly successful Alaska Permanent Fund, which could pay a dividend of $5,000 per person annually

"Same Principle, Different Executions
Entitlements are often derided for their complexity, which is why the simplicity of UBI is so appealing to so many. One flat benefit for everyone, no questions asked, means very little bureaucracy or red tape. As more and more countries trial UBI programs, some of the concerns about the strategy may finally be put to bed."

Here’s How We Could Fund a UBI Program in the United States

You're being facetious...aren't you?

How would giving everyone $1,000. a month NOT just raise the bottom to $1,000 a month without making any other difference? More people would simply opt out of society and live off the backs of workers. How is that a good thing?

How would collecting trillions more in taxes benefit anyone?

there should be no homeless problems in big cities.

Why?

Where are those people with mental illnesses, alcoholism, and/or drug addicts to live if they don't want to be housed in mental institutions?

under Capitalism, only capital must circulate not fools or horses.

 

[Markle]

How about Treasury printing a couple of platinum trillion dollar coins to create millions of living wage jobs?

Trillion dollar coin - Wikipedia

"Since the idea behind UBI is to meet every citizen’s basic needs, like housing and food, without discouraging work and industry, Stern’s plan would pay all 234 million American adults $1,000 a month, placing them at about the federal poverty line ($24,000 a year for a family of four)..."

"But how would we pay for this?

"$1,000 a month for everyone would cost approximately $2.7 trillion annually, which represents around four to five times the size of the defense budget and 15 percent of the GDP.

"In his book, Stern proposed paying for the $2.7 trillion as follows...."

• Cancel most existing antipoverty programs, which cost about $1 trillion a year, including food stamps ($76 billion a year), housing assistance ($49 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($82 billion)
• Cut military spending
• Phase out most tax expenditures (tax breaks), which currently cost $1.2 trillion a year
• Implement a federal sales tax and a financial transaction tax
• Establish a collective wealth fee and “Sky Trust” modeled after the highly successful Alaska Permanent Fund, which could pay a dividend of $5,000 per person annually

"Same Principle, Different Executions
Entitlements are often derided for their complexity, which is why the simplicity of UBI is so appealing to so many. One flat benefit for everyone, no questions asked, means very little bureaucracy or red tape. As more and more countries trial UBI programs, some of the concerns about the strategy may finally be put to bed."

Here’s How We Could Fund a UBI Program in the United States

You're being facetious...aren't you?

How would giving everyone $1,000. a month NOT just raise the bottom to $1,000 a month without making any other difference? More people would simply opt out of society and live off the backs of workers. How is that a good thing?

How would collecting trillions more in taxes benefit anyone?

there should be no homeless problems in big cities.

Why?

Where are those people with mental illnesses, alcoholism, and/or drug addicts to live if they don't want to be housed in mental institutions?

under Capitalism, only capital must circulate not fools or horses.

 

[georgephillip]

How about Treasury printing a couple of platinum trillion dollar coins to create millions of living wage jobs?

Trillion dollar coin - Wikipedia

"Since the idea behind UBI is to meet every citizen’s basic needs, like housing and food, without discouraging work and industry, Stern’s plan would pay all 234 million American adults $1,000 a month, placing them at about the federal poverty line ($24,000 a year for a family of four)..."

"But how would we pay for this?

"$1,000 a month for everyone would cost approximately $2.7 trillion annually, which represents around four to five times the size of the defense budget and 15 percent of the GDP.

"In his book, Stern proposed paying for the $2.7 trillion as follows...."

• Cancel most existing antipoverty programs, which cost about $1 trillion a year, including food stamps ($76 billion a year), housing assistance ($49 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($82 billion)
• Cut military spending
• Phase out most tax expenditures (tax breaks), which currently cost $1.2 trillion a year
• Implement a federal sales tax and a financial transaction tax
• Establish a collective wealth fee and “Sky Trust” modeled after the highly successful Alaska Permanent Fund, which could pay a dividend of $5,000 per person annually

"Same Principle, Different Executions
Entitlements are often derided for their complexity, which is why the simplicity of UBI is so appealing to so many. One flat benefit for everyone, no questions asked, means very little bureaucracy or red tape. As more and more countries trial UBI programs, some of the concerns about the strategy may finally be put to bed."

Here’s How We Could Fund a UBI Program in the United States

You're being facetious...aren't you?

How would giving everyone $1,000. a month NOT just raise the bottom to $1,000 a month without making any other difference? More people would simply opt out of society and live off the backs of workers. How is that a good thing?

How would collecting trillions more in taxes benefit anyone?

there should be no homeless problems in big cities.

Why?

Where are those people with mental illnesses, alcoholism, and/or drug addicts to live if they don't want to be housed in mental institutions?

under Capitalism, only capital must circulate not fools or horses.

Francis Bacon (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[georgephillip]

How about Treasury printing a couple of platinum trillion dollar coins to create millions of living wage jobs?

Trillion dollar coin - Wikipedia

"Since the idea behind UBI is to meet every citizen’s basic needs, like housing and food, without discouraging work and industry, Stern’s plan would pay all 234 million American adults $1,000 a month, placing them at about the federal poverty line ($24,000 a year for a family of four)..."

"But how would we pay for this?

"$1,000 a month for everyone would cost approximately $2.7 trillion annually, which represents around four to five times the size of the defense budget and 15 percent of the GDP.

"In his book, Stern proposed paying for the $2.7 trillion as follows...."

• Cancel most existing antipoverty programs, which cost about $1 trillion a year, including food stamps ($76 billion a year), housing assistance ($49 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($82 billion)
• Cut military spending
• Phase out most tax expenditures (tax breaks), which currently cost $1.2 trillion a year
• Implement a federal sales tax and a financial transaction tax
• Establish a collective wealth fee and “Sky Trust” modeled after the highly successful Alaska Permanent Fund, which could pay a dividend of $5,000 per person annually

"Same Principle, Different Executions
Entitlements are often derided for their complexity, which is why the simplicity of UBI is so appealing to so many. One flat benefit for everyone, no questions asked, means very little bureaucracy or red tape. As more and more countries trial UBI programs, some of the concerns about the strategy may finally be put to bed."

Here’s How We Could Fund a UBI Program in the United States

You're being facetious...aren't you?

How would giving everyone $1,000. a month NOT just raise the bottom to $1,000 a month without making any other difference? More people would simply opt out of society and live off the backs of workers. How is that a good thing?

How would collecting trillions more in taxes benefit anyone?

there should be no homeless problems in big cities.

there should be no homeless problems in big cities.

When Ronald Reagan was governor of California he "freed" many formerly incarcerated 5150s (mentally challenged) patients from state mental facilities' his successor, Jerry Brown, continued the practice primarily as a cost cutting measure.

These people are seen as easy victims by urban predators who well know which day of the month SSI deposits arrive.

As POTUS in 1982, Reagan used a recession to cut spending on a social safety net that had existed since the Great Depression, and virtually all of his successors have followed suit. We are all living with the consequences today.

The Great Eliminator: How Ronald Reagan Made Homelessness Permanent - June 29, 2016 - SF Weekly

 

[danielpalos]

How about Treasury printing a couple of platinum trillion dollar coins to create millions of living wage jobs?

Trillion dollar coin - Wikipedia

"Since the idea behind UBI is to meet every citizen’s basic needs, like housing and food, without discouraging work and industry, Stern’s plan would pay all 234 million American adults $1,000 a month, placing them at about the federal poverty line ($24,000 a year for a family of four)..."

"But how would we pay for this?

"$1,000 a month for everyone would cost approximately $2.7 trillion annually, which represents around four to five times the size of the defense budget and 15 percent of the GDP.

"In his book, Stern proposed paying for the $2.7 trillion as follows...."

• Cancel most existing antipoverty programs, which cost about $1 trillion a year, including food stamps ($76 billion a year), housing assistance ($49 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($82 billion)
• Cut military spending
• Phase out most tax expenditures (tax breaks), which currently cost $1.2 trillion a year
• Implement a federal sales tax and a financial transaction tax
• Establish a collective wealth fee and “Sky Trust” modeled after the highly successful Alaska Permanent Fund, which could pay a dividend of $5,000 per person annually

"Same Principle, Different Executions
Entitlements are often derided for their complexity, which is why the simplicity of UBI is so appealing to so many. One flat benefit for everyone, no questions asked, means very little bureaucracy or red tape. As more and more countries trial UBI programs, some of the concerns about the strategy may finally be put to bed."

Here’s How We Could Fund a UBI Program in the United States

You're being facetious...aren't you?

How would giving everyone $1,000. a month NOT just raise the bottom to $1,000 a month without making any other difference? More people would simply opt out of society and live off the backs of workers. How is that a good thing?

How would collecting trillions more in taxes benefit anyone?

there should be no homeless problems in big cities.

Why?

Where are those people with mental illnesses, alcoholism, and/or drug addicts to live if they don't want to be housed in mental institutions?

under Capitalism, only capital must circulate not fools or horses.

there should be no desperation in our Glorious Republic, even if You have to work for it.

 

[danielpalos]

How about Treasury printing a couple of platinum trillion dollar coins to create millions of living wage jobs?

Trillion dollar coin - Wikipedia

"Since the idea behind UBI is to meet every citizen’s basic needs, like housing and food, without discouraging work and industry, Stern’s plan would pay all 234 million American adults $1,000 a month, placing them at about the federal poverty line ($24,000 a year for a family of four)..."

"But how would we pay for this?

"$1,000 a month for everyone would cost approximately $2.7 trillion annually, which represents around four to five times the size of the defense budget and 15 percent of the GDP.

"In his book, Stern proposed paying for the $2.7 trillion as follows...."

• Cancel most existing antipoverty programs, which cost about $1 trillion a year, including food stamps ($76 billion a year), housing assistance ($49 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($82 billion)
• Cut military spending
• Phase out most tax expenditures (tax breaks), which currently cost $1.2 trillion a year
• Implement a federal sales tax and a financial transaction tax
• Establish a collective wealth fee and “Sky Trust” modeled after the highly successful Alaska Permanent Fund, which could pay a dividend of $5,000 per person annually

"Same Principle, Different Executions
Entitlements are often derided for their complexity, which is why the simplicity of UBI is so appealing to so many. One flat benefit for everyone, no questions asked, means very little bureaucracy or red tape. As more and more countries trial UBI programs, some of the concerns about the strategy may finally be put to bed."

Here’s How We Could Fund a UBI Program in the United States

You're being facetious...aren't you?

How would giving everyone $1,000. a month NOT just raise the bottom to $1,000 a month without making any other difference? More people would simply opt out of society and live off the backs of workers. How is that a good thing?

How would collecting trillions more in taxes benefit anyone?

there should be no homeless problems in big cities.

there should be no homeless problems in big cities.

When Ronald Reagan was governor of California he "freed" many formerly incarcerated 5150s (mentally challenged) patients from state mental facilities' his successor, Jerry Brown, continued the practice primarily as a cost cutting measure.

These people are seen as easy victims by urban predators who well know which day of the month SSI deposits arrive.

As POTUS in 1982, Reagan used a recession to cut spending on a social safety net that had existed since the Great Depression, and virtually all of his successors have followed suit. We are all living with the consequences today.

The Great Eliminator: How Ronald Reagan Made Homelessness Permanent - June 29, 2016 - SF Weekly

did you know that there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine?

equal protection of the law is a federal obligation if the States are unwilling.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is equal protection of the law regarding employment at will in our at-will employment States.

How would the several citizens in our several States be worse off?

 

[georgephillip]

How about Treasury printing a couple of platinum trillion dollar coins to create millions of living wage jobs?

Trillion dollar coin - Wikipedia

"Since the idea behind UBI is to meet every citizen’s basic needs, like housing and food, without discouraging work and industry, Stern’s plan would pay all 234 million American adults $1,000 a month, placing them at about the federal poverty line ($24,000 a year for a family of four)..."

"But how would we pay for this?

"$1,000 a month for everyone would cost approximately $2.7 trillion annually, which represents around four to five times the size of the defense budget and 15 percent of the GDP.

"In his book, Stern proposed paying for the $2.7 trillion as follows...."

• Cancel most existing antipoverty programs, which cost about $1 trillion a year, including food stamps ($76 billion a year), housing assistance ($49 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($82 billion)
• Cut military spending
• Phase out most tax expenditures (tax breaks), which currently cost $1.2 trillion a year
• Implement a federal sales tax and a financial transaction tax
• Establish a collective wealth fee and “Sky Trust” modeled after the highly successful Alaska Permanent Fund, which could pay a dividend of $5,000 per person annually

"Same Principle, Different Executions
Entitlements are often derided for their complexity, which is why the simplicity of UBI is so appealing to so many. One flat benefit for everyone, no questions asked, means very little bureaucracy or red tape. As more and more countries trial UBI programs, some of the concerns about the strategy may finally be put to bed."

Here’s How We Could Fund a UBI Program in the United States

You're being facetious...aren't you?

How would giving everyone $1,000. a month NOT just raise the bottom to $1,000 a month without making any other difference? More people would simply opt out of society and live off the backs of workers. How is that a good thing?

How would collecting trillions more in taxes benefit anyone?

You're being facetious...aren't you?

How would giving everyone $1,000. a month NOT just raise the bottom to $1,000 a month without making any other difference? More people would simply opt out of society and live off the backs of workers. How is that a good thing?

How would collecting trillions more in taxes benefit anyone?

I think you need to consider UBI as part of a greater Green New Deal Program that would include creating millions of living wage jobs with UBI providing the social safety net that is now supplied by programs like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance.

"The issuance of paper currency is subject to various accounting and quantity restrictions that platinum coinage is not. According to the United States Mint, coinage is accounted for as follows:[3]"

How much would GDP increase in order to collect trillion$ more in taxes? There's nothing to prevent Treasury from spending a trillion dollars directly into the economy in order to create millions of productive jobs that would begin rebuilding US infrastructure.

That money would immediately be spent into the economy, directly stimulating GDP increases.

Then there's the notion of how a US Sovereign Wealth Fund could solve this problem:


Why America should stop taxing corporations — and start seizing their stock

"Economist Dean Baker has an elegant and radical solution to the problem of corporate tax reform: Scrap the corporate income tax entirely, and require that every corporation turn over 25 to 30 percent of their stock to the government.

"When you own a stock, the company pays you a regular dividend out of its profits. When the company or anyone else buys the stock, you get paid for the purchase.

"With Baker's idea, those dividends and payouts become a source of government revenue. But the proposal is also a clever backdoor way for the U.S. federal government to embrace a far more ambitious idea: Namely, a sovereign wealth fund.

 

[danielpalos]

Only lousy capitalists lose money on public policies and whine about Taxes.

 

[Markle]

When Ronald Reagan was governor of California he "freed" many formerly incarcerated 5150s (mentally challenged) patients from state mental facilities' his successor, Jerry Brown, continued the practice primarily as a cost cutting measure.

These people are seen as easy victims by urban predators who well know which day of the month SSI deposits arrive.

As POTUS in 1982, Reagan used a recession to cut spending on a social safety net that had existed since the Great Depression, and virtually all of his successors have followed suit. We are all living with the consequences today.

The Great Eliminator: How Ronald Reagan Made Homelessness Permanent - June 29, 2016 - SF Weekly

Georgephillip...oops, you got that a bit backward. Try finding a legitimate source next time. A weekly tabloid from San Francisco?

From the New York Times. You know, that far-right rag?

ARCHIVES | 1984
HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN
By RICHARD D. LYONS OCT. 30, 1984

[...]
In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved. ''They've gone far, too far, in letting people out,'' he said in an interview.

Dr. Robert H. Felix, who was then director of the National Institute of Mental Health and a major figure in the shift to community centers, says now on reflection: ''Many of those patients who left the state hospitals never should have done so. We psychiatrists saw too much of the old snake pit, saw too many people who shouldn't have been there and we overreacted. The result is not what we intended, and perhaps we didn't ask the questions that should have been asked when developing a new concept, but psychiatrists are human, too, and we tried our damnedest.''
[...]
HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN

 

[Markle]

Only lousy capitalists lose money on public policies and whine about Taxes.

What are you talking about?

 

[georgephillip]

When Ronald Reagan was governor of California he "freed" many formerly incarcerated 5150s (mentally challenged) patients from state mental facilities' his successor, Jerry Brown, continued the practice primarily as a cost cutting measure.

These people are seen as easy victims by urban predators who well know which day of the month SSI deposits arrive.

As POTUS in 1982, Reagan used a recession to cut spending on a social safety net that had existed since the Great Depression, and virtually all of his successors have followed suit. We are all living with the consequences today.

The Great Eliminator: How Ronald Reagan Made Homelessness Permanent - June 29, 2016 - SF Weekly

Georgephillip...oops, you got that a bit backward. Try finding a legitimate source next time. A weekly tabloid from San Francisco?

From the New York Times. You know, that far-right rag?

ARCHIVES | 1984
HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN
By RICHARD D. LYONS OCT. 30, 1984

[...]
In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved. ''They've gone far, too far, in letting people out,'' he said in an interview.

Dr. Robert H. Felix, who was then director of the National Institute of Mental Health and a major figure in the shift to community centers, says now on reflection: ''Many of those patients who left the state hospitals never should have done so. We psychiatrists saw too much of the old snake pit, saw too many people who shouldn't have been there and we overreacted. The result is not what we intended, and perhaps we didn't ask the questions that should have been asked when developing a new concept, but psychiatrists are human, too, and we tried our damnedest.''
[...]
HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN

In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr.

I had it wrong. The release of patients preceded Reagan's arrival in Sacramento. The Gipper made the situation much worse when he took his act to DC:

The Great Eliminator: How Ronald Reagan Made Homelessness Permanent - June 29, 2016 - SF Weekly

"During a speech at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in 1981, his first year in office, the new president — who would use the recession as an excuse to cut taxes and slash government spending to spark growth, the infamous 'Reaganomics' — presented a solution to homelessness, an issue seen at the time as a temporary problem that would soon cycle itself away, just as it had several times before.

"In classic small-government fashion, Reagan's fix did not involve government. If only 'every church and synagogue would take in 10 welfare families' each, the president said, the problem could be weathered until it passed

"It was a truly conservative approach, reminiscent of how homelessness was addressed in the 19th century."

Reagan didn't create the homeless problem, but his neoliberal economic policies have "trickled down" over the past forty years to make the situation much worse.

 

[danielpalos]

Only lousy capitalists lose money on public policies and whine about Taxes.

What are you talking about?

Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause.

Why are we losing money on public policies?

 

[Markle]

When Ronald Reagan was governor of California he "freed" many formerly incarcerated 5150s (mentally challenged) patients from state mental facilities' his successor, Jerry Brown, continued the practice primarily as a cost cutting measure.

These people are seen as easy victims by urban predators who well know which day of the month SSI deposits arrive.

As POTUS in 1982, Reagan used a recession to cut spending on a social safety net that had existed since the Great Depression, and virtually all of his successors have followed suit. We are all living with the consequences today.

The Great Eliminator: How Ronald Reagan Made Homelessness Permanent - June 29, 2016 - SF Weekly

Georgephillip...oops, you got that a bit backward. Try finding a legitimate source next time. A weekly tabloid from San Francisco?

From the New York Times. You know, that far-right rag?

ARCHIVES | 1984
HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN
By RICHARD D. LYONS OCT. 30, 1984

[...]
In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved. ''They've gone far, too far, in letting people out,'' he said in an interview.

Dr. Robert H. Felix, who was then director of the National Institute of Mental Health and a major figure in the shift to community centers, says now on reflection: ''Many of those patients who left the state hospitals never should have done so. We psychiatrists saw too much of the old snake pit, saw too many people who shouldn't have been there and we overreacted. The result is not what we intended, and perhaps we didn't ask the questions that should have been asked when developing a new concept, but psychiatrists are human, too, and we tried our damnedest.''
[...]
HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN

In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr.

I had it wrong. The release of patients preceded Reagan's arrival in Sacramento. The Gipper made the situation much worse when he took his act to DC:

The Great Eliminator: How Ronald Reagan Made Homelessness Permanent - June 29, 2016 - SF Weekly

"During a speech at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in 1981, his first year in office, the new president — who would use the recession as an excuse to cut taxes and slash government spending to spark growth, the infamous 'Reaganomics' — presented a solution to homelessness, an issue seen at the time as a temporary problem that would soon cycle itself away, just as it had several times before.

"In classic small-government fashion, Reagan's fix did not involve government. If only 'every church and synagogue would take in 10 welfare families' each, the president said, the problem could be weathered until it passed

"It was a truly conservative approach, reminiscent of how homelessness was addressed in the 19th century."

Reagan didn't create the homeless problem, but his neoliberal economic policies have "trickled down" over the past forty years to make the situation much worse.

Your desperation is duly noted. Face up to the fact that you were WRONG, 100% WRONG. Citing a far left wing weekly rag does your position no good.

 

[Markle]

Only lousy capitalists lose money on public policies and whine about Taxes.

What are you talking about?

Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause.

Why are we losing money on public policies?

What are you talking about?

 

[danielpalos]

Only lousy capitalists lose money on public policies and whine about Taxes.

What are you talking about?

Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause.

Why are we losing money on public policies?

What are you talking about?

Our federal Constitution.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

WIll make cigarette companies happy!
I imagine lottery sales will break new records.

 

[danielpalos]

WIll make cigarette companies happy!
I imagine lottery sales will break new records.

some people may be able to actually do something with five hundred a month.

 

[georgephillip]

When Ronald Reagan was governor of California he "freed" many formerly incarcerated 5150s (mentally challenged) patients from state mental facilities' his successor, Jerry Brown, continued the practice primarily as a cost cutting measure.

These people are seen as easy victims by urban predators who well know which day of the month SSI deposits arrive.

As POTUS in 1982, Reagan used a recession to cut spending on a social safety net that had existed since the Great Depression, and virtually all of his successors have followed suit. We are all living with the consequences today.

The Great Eliminator: How Ronald Reagan Made Homelessness Permanent - June 29, 2016 - SF Weekly

Georgephillip...oops, you got that a bit backward. Try finding a legitimate source next time. A weekly tabloid from San Francisco?

From the New York Times. You know, that far-right rag?

ARCHIVES | 1984
HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN
By RICHARD D. LYONS OCT. 30, 1984

[...]
In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved. ''They've gone far, too far, in letting people out,'' he said in an interview.

Dr. Robert H. Felix, who was then director of the National Institute of Mental Health and a major figure in the shift to community centers, says now on reflection: ''Many of those patients who left the state hospitals never should have done so. We psychiatrists saw too much of the old snake pit, saw too many people who shouldn't have been there and we overreacted. The result is not what we intended, and perhaps we didn't ask the questions that should have been asked when developing a new concept, but psychiatrists are human, too, and we tried our damnedest.''
[...]
HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN

In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr.

I had it wrong. The release of patients preceded Reagan's arrival in Sacramento. The Gipper made the situation much worse when he took his act to DC:

The Great Eliminator: How Ronald Reagan Made Homelessness Permanent - June 29, 2016 - SF Weekly

"During a speech at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in 1981, his first year in office, the new president — who would use the recession as an excuse to cut taxes and slash government spending to spark growth, the infamous 'Reaganomics' — presented a solution to homelessness, an issue seen at the time as a temporary problem that would soon cycle itself away, just as it had several times before.

"In classic small-government fashion, Reagan's fix did not involve government. If only 'every church and synagogue would take in 10 welfare families' each, the president said, the problem could be weathered until it passed

"It was a truly conservative approach, reminiscent of how homelessness was addressed in the 19th century."

Reagan didn't create the homeless problem, but his neoliberal economic policies have "trickled down" over the past forty years to make the situation much worse.

Your desperation is duly noted. Face up to the fact that you were WRONG, 100% WRONG. Citing a far left wing weekly rag does your position no good.

Your desperation is duly noted. Face up to the fact that you were WRONG, 100% WRONG. Citing a far left wing weekly rag does your position no good

Glad you like it:

The Great Eliminator: How Ronald Reagan Made Homelessness Permanent - June 29, 2016 - SF Weekly

"By the time Reagan took office, HUD was the main federal agency that offered housing and other programs aimed at helping poor and working-class people.

"And beginning under Reagan but continuing with the next three presidents, HUD would see its funding reduced.

"By the time George W. Bush took office, it had been slashed almost 60 percent.

"Reagan — who famously could not recognize Samuel Pierce, his own HUD secretary, and failed to recognize and halt a scandal in which HUD money was funneled to Republican consultants rather than building and repairing low-income-housing — didn't shirk his responsibility.

"He abdicated it, a wholesale abandonment that signaled the near-end of the federal government's role in managing homelessness and housing policies, a legacy carried on by every American president since."