It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

San Frans New DA Panders To Homeless Won't Prosecute Public Urination And Camping

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The biggest mistake, in my opinion, that government has ever made, was when Reagan shut down funding for federal mental health facilities.

It's the ONLY type of socialized medicine I support and would gladly pay my tax dollars towards.


I didn't think you of all people would fall for that bit of revisionist history.

What facilities did he actually close, when did they close, and how did he close them? And what bill did he sign that specified these closings?

Or is it a case that bipartisan governments at the state and federal levels attempted to improve healthcare treatment and that bipartisan governments within the states screwed things up so badly that individual departments of health closed down less effective facilities?

There was bipartisan support for the Mental Health Planning Act of 1986. Which was to give more funding control to the states. in 1986, he also signed into a law another bipartisan solution to have Medicaid assist with funding.
edit on 16-11-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Without boning up on it, I can't say for sure.

What I do know is that individual states dropped the ball after the federal government stopped funding mental health facilities.

Mental health is a black hole financially and should be done by the federal government because there's really no profit in it.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do find that map interesting, especially if you look at DC. Have been there off and on for the last couple of months, and there's quite a few tents downtown. This is during 20-30 degree temps during the day as well. I don't ascribe any politics to it, because quite frankly I don't understand the situation well enough to comment. It is pretty wild that they are number one, yet the number of unsheltered seems to be higher, based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen over the last couple of months.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Did i not say that? Lemme reread my post .......yep, sure did.




a reply to: Gothmog




posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do find that map interesting, especially if you look at DC. Have been there off and on for the last couple of months, and there's quite a few tents downtown. This is during 20-30 degree temps during the day as well. I don't ascribe any politics to it, because quite frankly I don't understand the situation well enough to comment. It is pretty wild that they are number one, yet the number of unsheltered seems to be higher, based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen over the last couple of months.


The most fair thing to say is that there is a constellation of factors that result in homelessness, and sure, political ideology could be one of them. In more authoritarian areas, the homeless are physically removed, in more liberal areas, they are afforded some small dignity in some cases.

The OP is complaining about the EFFECTS of large numbers of unsheltered homeless. I didn’t think I had to point that out. Those effects are people living in the rough on streets and parks, human defecation on streets and sidewalks, etc. Those effects (unsheltered homelessness and it’s results) can be linked to population density in an urban setting.

It’s certainly not directly resultant to the general political ideology of the State as some are claiming. That cheapens the whole tragedy and frankly insults the intelligence of anyone reading.
edit on 17-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:52 AM
link   
This has more to do with the fact that CA is a populous state with a warm climate than anything else.

The democrat don't cause warm winters. If CA were colder more would die each winter and more would leave.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:52 AM
link   
This has more to do with the fact that CA is a populous state with a warm climate than anything else.

The democrat don't cause warm winters. If CA were colder more would die each winter and more would leave.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Without boning up on it, I can't say for sure.

What I do know is that individual states dropped the ball after the federal government stopped funding mental health facilities.

Mental health is a black hole financially and should be done by the federal government because there's really no profit in it.


You aren’t falling for “revisionist history” DC ... in fact, you’re resisting the effect of that quite admirably.




In 1981, when both parties in Congress agreed to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, President Reagan signed that into law. One of it many provisions was to eliminate federal funding for community services and thereby transfer funding back to individual funding or state-funded efforts.


Source

This quote is actually from an article making the same spurious claim that Wardaddy did above. I include this from that source for a reason.

Yes, it is certainly true that President Reagan did not personally go around closing mental health facilities. What is also true is that he was the champion of this legislation and signed it CLAIMING that it was necessary to cut the Federal budget and restore healthcare control to the States. What it ACTUALLY DID was to cut all Federal funding to the States which was essentially the same thing as closing the State facilities.

Wardaddy and others are making a semantic argument; you are stating the fact.

Reagan did essentially the same thing as Governor of CA in 1967, with the same disastrous results, so he knew what he was doing.
edit on 17-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noting



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Let’s address the political aspect of it then.

The OP and several others have made a typical political play here. The OPs argument is basically an authoritarian one, i.e. the problems expressed are the result of the laws not being enforced properly. And, let’s be real about it, that is in some degree true. Areas across the country that are not as densely populated as CA or San Francisco in particular do have an easier time “controlling” the problem by aggressive law enforcement that either removes the homeless or incarcerates them or more accurately constrains them to certain out of the way areas.

However, in regard to areas like CA that have attracted large populations due to economic success, this is not as easy or directly a solution as in other places (like Atlanta for example, which I can speak of with first hand knowledge.). In Atlanta, we have had considerable economic growth in the last few decades, which is resulting in a housing boom, which has resulted in an increase in unsheltered homelessness and it’s resultant negative effects ... but all of this on a MUCH SMALLER SCALE than San Francisco, LA or San Jose.

It really is a matter of degree. It’s a matter of how concentrated people are in a certain special area.

The OP is closely followed up by arguments claiming that homelessness itself is a function of liberal political ideology. Actually, this is such a ridiculous argument I didn’t even address it. I submitted that population density is a factor that we can see in many locations that suffer from high unsheltered homelessness (people are living on the street) as well as sheltered homelessness (where most people have available temporary housing, as in New York City) but that the EFFECTS that were churned up for emotional effect (i.e. poop in the streets) is mostly a function of a) the number of people which results in a higher b) homeless population which results in c) a higher UNSHELTERED homeless population which results in d) negative effects as described.

As opposed to the several attempts to misconstrue and misrepresent my argument, what I’m saying and have been saying is that there are MANY FACTORS which come together to create the issues that CA is seeing (which are of course, the darlings of partisan-media claiming that “liberal California” is a poster child for the failure of “liberal” policies) but that we should note that population density is a more significant direct cause than who you voted for.
edit on 17-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:08 AM
link   
The issue Cali has is Values.

They lack values and strong foundation.

It is an uncomfortable view point and not one people like to see, however, it must be stated.

They lack the moral etiquette to stand up to it, they lack the values to approach it and possess no civility to challenge it.

In otherwords, a lost society, focused too much on ME.

Coupled with entitlement programs and no effective edcuation, you get ignorant homeless and lawmakers.

A real shame too.

I'm not religious, but Christian folk of the past kepted things relatively nice and shunned those that didn't resonate.

Sometimes you gotta have a strong foundation steeped in whatever tradition to enforce social standards.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

You’ve just made a categorical statement about nearly 40 million people, sure it’s only your opinion, but still it’s a claim.

So ... let’s take up your proposition and see if it bears out, right?

Start with the last Presidential election, since that is the usual point-of-departure for determination if a State is “Red or Blue.” Voter turn out was at 75% which is actually far above the national percentage of 55%.

Clinton got 61.73% of the vote and Trump, 31.62%.

Let’s agree that the Population of CA is about 40 M.

So, there are about 24.7 million on the Blue Team and 12.6 million on the Red Team (for the sake of the example).

Yet, according to you, the whole 40 million Californians are low value and without strong foundation (dog whistle for Republican/Conservative/authoritarian BS).

The statement is absurd on multiple bases but specifically on the most obvious presumes every one in California is a far left dark blue liberal Democrat, and your general opinion is well established on how you feel about those people.

Source
edit on 17-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I can speak on Atlanta. I was born and raised there. The city has always had a large homeless population. Again, I am failing to see how the economic boom in Atlanta has contributed to the chronic homelessness in that city or any other for that matter.

You keep making this claim / link but have not actually shown or expressed any connection.

What I do see contributing is allowing homeless to congregate in one area, lack of enforcement of public norms, easy supply of narcotics, and lack of mental health facilities.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Gryphon66

I can speak on Atlanta. I was born and raised there. The city has always had a large homeless population. Again, I am failing to see how the economic boom in Atlanta has contributed to the chronic homelessness in that city or any other for that matter.

You keep making this claim / link but have not actually shown or expressed any connection.

What I do see contributing is allowing homeless to congregate in one area, lack of enforcement of public norms, easy supply of narcotics, and lack of mental health facilities.


Interestingly, I have backed up my claim multiple times. You, however, have misrepresented my claim several times.

Now you’re switching to claiming that I’m blaming an “economic boom” for homelessness which I am not, further, I did not blame homelessness on population density.

I’ve noted in all posts in the thread that there are some obvious connections or correlations if you will to the effects that OP was complaining about, those being, quantity of people literally living on the street, unsheltered, the resultant trash, litter and poop on the streets, etc.

The largest areas of homelessness are in population dense areas in major cities. San Francisco is the 2nd most population dense city in the country after New York City which actually has the HIGHEST CONCENTRATION of homeless in the nation the main difference being in NYC the homeless are by a great majority living in SHELTER, but in CA cities they are NOT.

Thus, while you see the same effects in any major city with unsheltered homeless, it is more prevalent in areas of high population density.

There are other factors as well, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

If you don’t agree with my claims argue against them, but don’t keep denying what I’m actually saying.

You consider yourself a libertarian, right? If we made you Mayor of SF tomorrow, where would you start?



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 08:11 AM
link   
This type of mentality encourages this behavior.

I'm more scared of the majority that voted him in.

I don't think people understand how many politically correct liberal Democrats there are..

Real dangerous people with a real dangerous mentality



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 08:12 AM
link   
His parents were cop killers....and his voters love it.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Again, all you did was point out a no sh*t correlation. I am trying to get you to think deeper. It is literally like if I threw up a study that said large cities have more crime. I mean, duh? Who woulda thunk? That is some Ph.D level analyses right there...

As I mentioned in another post, could it be that more populous cities are also largely liberal? So it isn't the density, but the politics that come with dense cities.

So again, we have REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS as to what is going on in LA, San Fran, Austin, Portland, and Seattle. All of the cities have been implementing virtually the same policies by the same rabid, woke leftist politicians, and they all are experiencing very similar homeless problems.

We can lead you to water, but can't make you drink.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Gryphon66

Again, all you did was point out a no sh*t correlation. I am trying to get you to think deeper. It is literally like if I threw up a study that said large cities have more crime. I mean, duh? Who woulda thunk? That is some Ph.D level analyses right there...

As I mentioned in another post, could it be that more populous cities are also largely liberal? So it isn't the density, but the politics that come with dense cities.

So again, we have REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS as to what is going on in LA, San Fran, Austin, Portland, and Seattle. All of the cities have been implementing virtually the same policies by the same rabid, woke leftist politicians, and they all are experiencing very similar homeless problems.

We can lead you to water, but can't make you drink.




LOL ... well, a no-# correlation that follows from the evidence is better to my mind than fallacious claims about political ideology of an entire State having the specific effects the OP is moaning about. You’re not trying to get me to think “deeper” you’re arguing for your position, which I specifically don’t agree with except for the point I recently acknowledged that liberal ideals are typically less authoritarian than conservative measures. Of course, in a police state, there would be no homeless potentially because you either incarcerate all of them or destroy them.

Is that what you’re arguing for? I think not.

The politics that come with dense cities? Hmmm ... I see you’re winding toward a different answer.

So again, you have “real world observations” of what? That unsheltered homeless people still have to poop?

How, if my observation was “no #” I guess yours is “full of #” eh?

You’re not leading anyone to anything. You’re advocating for ... what? You haven’t provided any solutions aside from repeatedly hawking the zero-sum-game that “liberals are bad.”

I provided multiple real world examples for my claims. You are providing NOTHING besides a negative claim that you haven’t done anything to support. Now you’re appealing to some sort of “we” that you think is trying to teach me basic economics ... all you and the others are doing is bleating out the time-worn tropes that the autocratic right-wing favors.

SO, you are or you aren’t a Libertarian? If you are, give us a three sentence solution for the current issue in San Francisco that meets libertarian ideals. If not, feel free to move on to some other poster because to me, as opposed to what I’m doing, you’re merely rehashing vague meaningless garbage from the partisan-media.
edit on 17-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Format



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Can you link to the data and methodology that underlies the chart?


It was from last year, not sure if it's still there however it was fairly simple, it shows how much each state gets back in Federal aid for every dollar they contribute to the Treasury.

Actually, here's some recent data.


And here's the original data updated through 2017.



edit on 17-11-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁❤🍕



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It was a spurious request Augustus. Someone else provided the direct link and the result was hand-waving and vague “as I thought that is wrong” nonsense.

The real matter underneath all this is the false partisan dichotomy and the accompanying BS vocabulary.

ETA: Well done. I predict the next gambit will be to go back to the claim that they’re talking about urban areas not States.

Round and round and round they go ... and where they stop, everybody knows: police state.

edit on 17-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, I still found it and I'm still resolved to move to South Carolina, the Welfare Queen of the Republic, so I can get seven fitty back for each dollar I send to the Treasury. I want my moochie bucks.




top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join