• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nearly Half Of The US Homeless Live In California

Plentiful recreational drugs?
HA! Now I know for a fact that you're a teetotaller.

There is quite a bit of middle ground between being a teetotaler and being a crack, meth or heroin addict camping and ****ing on the streets.
 
If camping, ****ing and shooting up dope on the streets is decriminalized then it is no wonder that it persists. When the choice is between free camping on the streets and shooting up dope whenever they feel like it and going to jail and suffering withdrawal then perhaps different choices will be made.

How does camping get criminalized? How does one make it a crime to live in a tent when you can't afford rent or the up front deposit to even GET a rental?

****ing? Where does one defecate if one has no place to do so?

And shooting up dope? Is it your belief that ALL homeless shoot up dope?
Do you really honestly believe that 100% of homeless are druggies?
No? Fifty percent? What percentage do you think are druggies?
 
You say you made no such references, but then you did.

Have a nice night

I made no references to CA being third world, in fact, I pointed out (as you did) that CA has loads of rich folks who simply don't much care what goes on in parts of the city where they do not care to go. Rest assured that these rich folks would singing a much different tune if "the homeless" chose their (gated community?) neighborhoods to camp in.
 
You should check to see what your house is made of before you start throwing rocks. California pays the most in Federal taxes, and your good state of Kentucky is the fourth neediest state in the country, receiving 40.9% of state revenue as Federal assistance.

So have fun finding things to dump on California for, but that state is primary reason why your state is able to function.

Which States Pay the Most Federal Taxes?
Which States Rely the Most on Federal Aid? | Tax Foundation

Oh, and Kentucky is 11th for most firearm-related deaths, while California is nearly at the bottom of the list at 42nd.

Firearm death rates in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Fix your state!

It would seem to me that voters in California are voting against their own self interest then. All of that federal money getting transferred from Blue states to Red are done through programs the politicians from blue states create. If they would concentrate on their own state rather than do everything at the federal level they would have more to build up their own communities until then thanks for the cash :p
 
It would seem to me that voters in California are voting against their own self interest then. All of that federal money getting transferred from Blue states to Red are done through programs the politicians from blue states create. If they would concentrate on their own state rather than do everything at the federal level they would have more to build up their own communities until then thanks for the cash :p

Or, you know, politicians in red states could fix their states.

It's funny how people are. Those who yell the loudest about sexual deviancy are the most sexually deviant. Those who preach against homosexuality end up coming out of the closet. And the people who scream the loudest about socialism happily take money from the Federal government every chance they get.

Hypocrites, all of them.
 
How does camping get criminalized? How does one make it a crime to live in a tent when you can't afford rent or the up front deposit to even GET a rental?

****ing? Where does one defecate if one has no place to do so?

And shooting up dope? Is it your belief that ALL homeless shoot up dope?
Do you really honestly believe that 100% of homeless are druggies?
No? Fifty percent? What percentage do you think are druggies?

A good guesstimate is between 60% and 80%.
 
That’s rich coming from the trolling comments you post. Take your hypocritical comments elsewhere.

I didn't say that you Troll... I said that you post stupid ****.
 
Or, you know, politicians in red states could fix their states.

It's funny how people are. Those who yell the loudest about sexual deviancy are the most sexually deviant. Those who preach against homosexuality end up coming out of the closet. And the people who scream the loudest about socialism happily take money from the Federal government every chance they get.

Hypocrites, all of them.

They would be hypocrites if they were the ones who create the policies that contribute to it. Seems rather ridiculous for those in blue states to be upset about red states benefiting from the policies that they implement.
 
There is quite a bit of middle ground between being a teetotaler and being a crack, meth or heroin addict camping and ****ing on the streets.

Yes I get that but I suspect you have no earthly idea how much dope costs.
I do, because twenty five years ago I was a major league crackhead. And I do mean MAJOR league.

Look, when we first moved back to L.A. we lived in a rental house in Downey, on Studebaker Road, right near where the I-5 and I-605 cross each other. The local convenience store was two blocks up.
(A-1 Beer and Wine)
A homeless guy was allowed to live BEHIND the strip mall. All he had to do was sweep up the parking lot, wash some windows, help a little bit with unloading stock and keep an eye on the place at night.

A1foodstore.jpg

He was a really nice guy, but he had some pretty distinct health issues. He'd been a victim of domestic violence, his brother beat him so badly that he'd been in the ICU for several months and when he got out he had memory problems.
Never saw so much as drink a beer, smoke a joint or shoot up anything.
In fact, when we got ready to move out and move into the house we bought, I hired him to help us pack the U-Haul truck. Karen is a medical pot user, so we had medical pot.
I offered him a joint and he turned down the offer. I offered him a cold beer, again he turned it down and drank bottled water instead.

For a guy with a cracked braincase and slammed grey matter and a limp, he sure did work pretty hard.
He earned every penny of the hundred bucks I gave him for helping.

Freddy died last year of a cerebral hemorrhage, or at least that is what the A-1 store owner believes the cause of death was.
Now, Freddy might not be every homeless person wandering around L.A. but I suspect there are quite a few like him, but sure...the druggies and drunks are generally much more visible. Freddy always kept a low profile.
You'd have to look for him to find him.
 
Or perhaps the other state bus their homeless to California, to get rid of their problem and make it California's

Personally I think California should give each homeless person a bus ticket, and $200 to move to Kansas. The $200 can only be accessed 2 weeks after being in Kansas.

More like California cities have policies that make it so homeless people can do w/e they want and it just attracts more and more of them. San Fran and that area is just a good place to be homeless anyways, due to moderate temperatures year-round.
 
They would be hypocrites if they were the ones who create the policies that contribute to it. Seems rather ridiculous for those in blue states to be upset about red states benefiting from the policies that they implement.

Hahaha. "Why should we fix our own states when we can just take money from blue states? Also, boooo socialism!"

I remember when Conservatism used to be an ideology. Now it's just garbage kleptocracy married with kakacracy.
 
They would be hypocrites if they were the ones who create the policies that contribute to it. Seems rather ridiculous for those in blue states to be upset about red states benefiting from the policies that they implement.

Really? Did LIBERALS create the law that requires hospital ER's to administer stabilizing treatment to all regardless of ability to pay or immigration status?

EMTALA, the Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act was written by Republicans, and signed into law by Reagan in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. (which was actually signed into law in 1986 as well)
The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government, so it has been characterized as an unfunded mandate. Uncompensated care represents 6% of total hospital costs.
 
I made no such references. That would be closer to what you did with your reference to MS. Why folks pick on CA is precisely because it is chock full of very rich liberals, claims to have a state budget surplus and yet has folks (criminally?) camping, ****ing and shooting up dope on its cities' streets.

It is hard to explain why such a rich and liberal utopia as CA would allow such nonsense to occur. Their "solution" appears to be to decriminalize everything short of rape, armed robbery and murder.

Again, how does one criminalize the act of sleeping in a tent? And what percentage of homeless do you really think are addicts?
 
A good guesstimate is between 60% and 80%.

Would you agree that San Diego is a little bit more conservative than the rest of Southern California?
After all OANN (Trump's new favorite "pro-Trump" news network) is headquartered in San Diego.
The military has a pretty strong presence in San Diego and the military is definitely majority conservative.

“Almost all homelessness is linked to drugs or alcohol,” El Cajon Mayor Bill Wells said in an Oct. 29 interview with Fox 5 San Diego.

DETERMINATION: False

During the ten years I was engaged with my love affair with cocaine (later on, crack cocaine) I was never homeless for even an instant. Wanna know when I WAS homeless?
In 1978, in Minneapolis, when the college I went there to attend screwed up my paperwork and moved my start date to January instead of September.
Bye bye housing voucher...I was reduced to living in my truck for almost six weeks till an incredibly lucky break happened and I found myself living in a rehearsal studio and wound up as a member of a moderately successful band.
And it is very lucky because winter in Minnesota was approaching, and shortly after moving in, I actually saw my very first frozen to death Minneapolis street bum.

I soon took a part time job as a dishwasher in a greasy spoon as well. That, together with the little bit of coin I earned playing gigs was more than enough for a 120 SF efficiency bachelor pad above a storefront on East Lake Street.
The rent was $110 a month, which is about $450 today.

If there were plenty of 450 dollar a month efficiency pads available today, I daresay we would see homelessness in California drop sharply.
 
1) Again, how does one criminalize the act of sleeping in a tent? 2) And what percentage of homeless do you really think are addicts?

1) By limiting camping to proper camping facilities. Sidewalks, streets and parking lots are not among them.

Last month, Austin’s city council relaxed its camping, panhandling and "no sit, no lie" ordinances.

Before July 1, having a tent up was illegal on public sidewalks.

Enforcement of new panhandling, camping rules in Austin begins | kvue.com

2) As I said before, between 60% and 80%.

According to Didenko and Pankratz (2007), two-thirds of homeless people report that drugs and/or alcohol were a major reason for their becoming homeless.

https://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf
 
More like California cities have policies that make it so homeless people can do w/e they want and it just attracts more and more of them. San Fran and that area is just a good place to be homeless anyways, due to moderate temperatures year-round.

Have you BEEN to San Francisco? Because it would be amusing to watch city residents react to your description of their weather, which is inaccurate to say the least. It's not Chicago, but it's also not a sunny warm resort climate either.
People have written about San Francisco's weather in books, you know.

The city is surrounded on three sides by water, which is part of a N-S Alaska current.
 
More like California cities have policies that make it so homeless people can do w/e they want and it just attracts more and more of them. San Fran and that area is just a good place to be homeless anyways, due to moderate temperatures year-round.

What would you do then? Lock the homeless up in prison, push them into camps. How do you stop the homeless from doing what they want besides arresting them?
 
1) By limiting camping to proper camping facilities. Sidewalks, streets and parking lots are not among them.



Enforcement of new panhandling, camping rules in Austin begins | kvue.com

2) As I said before, between 60% and 80%.



https://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf

You realize you're citing a study that uses data from 2007 and 2009.
In 2007 or even 2009, the homeless situation was markedly different out here.

By the way, you're ignoring the very advice that the PDF mentions.

Finally, much of public policy has favored a punitive approach to substance abuse, even though medical and public health experts agree that treatment and prevention are more effective. Since substance abuse is both a cause and a result of homelessness, both issues need to be addressed simultaneously.
According to Didenko and Pankratz (2007), stable housing during and after treatment decreases the risk of relapse. Substance abuse on its own is inadequate and needs to be combined with supported housing opportunities. In addition to housing, supported housing programs offer services such as mental health treatment, physical health care, education and employment opportunities, peer support, and daily living and money management skills training.

So go ahead, continue to recommend punishment, despite the fact that the very study you referenced says that it's a dumb approach and won't have much of an effect, except on already stressed state budgets.

The fact is, California's drunk/addict population has always been large, but the ranks of the homeless did not swell because of a sudden increase in drugs, it swelled because of a large increase in the number of economically displaced individuals and families and a marked upswing in housing costs.

Millions of people did not just suddenly up and decide to become bums because it was fun.
People were having the same conversations in the 1930's when Hoovervilles started popping up everywhere.
When it finally became clear that almost 30 percent of the nation was unemployed and bankrupt, people finally began to realize that it wasn't just lazy people and addicts.

Sorry, there's no question that alcohol and drug addiction play a role, but the notion that these are the only cause of homelessness is ridiculous.

But even if we play devil's advocate and go along with your beliefs, that still leaves twenty to forty percent of people who are economically displaced.
Twtt, how'd you like to see a 20 to 40% REDUCTION in homeless population?
Do you think a reduction of that size would make a big difference?

I think it would.
 
This is depressing.
It appears that history is going to repeat itself.
Half the country thinks a few million people just decided to become bums for the fun of it.

Of course, the same nonsense got bandied about when all the Hoovervilles started popping up in the 1930's during the Great Depression.

Yeah sure, a working family finds themselves on the street or living in their cars.
Solution? JAIL THEM!!! :lamo
 
I made no such references. That would be closer to what you did with your reference to MS. Why folks pick on CA is precisely because it is chock full of very rich liberals, claims to have a state budget surplus and yet has folks (criminally?) camping, ****ing and shooting up dope on its cities' streets.

It is hard to explain why such a rich and liberal utopia as CA would allow such nonsense to occur. Their "solution" appears to be to decriminalize everything short of rape, armed robbery and murder.

Repeating trump’s cultural war. Lee Atwater would be proud. And not a single suggestion on how to improve things. Typical T-publican behavior.
 
Living on the street, and pooping on the street are benefits?

Now $200 in two weeks is a better deal than $50

"In Los Angeles, there are some of the best permanent supportive housing providers in the country, with some of the most innovative projects, engagement of the public health system directly in the work of homelessness, the city-county partnership... There’s a lot that’s going on there.”"

"Michele Fuller-Hallauer, who runs homeless services for three counties in the state, said she regularly calls her counterparts in Los Angeles and San Francisco to get their advice on several matters, such as how best to set up shelters that can help people get off the streets and then quickly get those people into housing."
California has the most homeless people of any state. But L.A. is still a national model - Los Angeles Times

Billions of dollars to help California’s homeless population are piling up — and going unspent - Los Angeles Times
Info & Resources > CDSS Programs > Housing Programs > CalWORKs Homeless Assistance

Looks like many belief CA is the model to help the homeless. I figured by word of mouth the homeless know its better in CA. :mrgreen:
 
Really? Did LIBERALS create the law that requires hospital ER's to administer stabilizing treatment to all regardless of ability to pay or immigration status?

EMTALA, the Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act was written by Republicans, and signed into law by Reagan in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. (which was actually signed into law in 1986 as well)
The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government, so it has been characterized as an unfunded mandate. Uncompensated care represents 6% of total hospital costs.

What does that have to do with what were are talking about?
 
Hahaha. "Why should we fix our own states when we can just take money from blue states? Also, boooo socialism!"

I remember when Conservatism used to be an ideology. Now it's just garbage kleptocracy married with kakacracy.

They aren't "taking" money from blue states, blue states enacted policies that send their money to red states. If you put $20 in my wallet despite me telling you I don't want it then you have no right to complain about me having that $20 as that was your choice.
 
They aren't "taking" money from blue states, blue states enacted policies that send their money to red states. If you put $20 in my wallet despite me telling you I don't want it then you have no right to complain about me having that $20 as that was your choice.

Or, you know, red states could fix their states so they wouldn't need to take that money. But like I said, Conservatism isn't an ideology or a set of principles anymore. It's just garbage kleptocracy and kakocracy.
 
Back
Top Bottom