The results when you put liberal democrats in charge! Los Angeles Video

It could easily be solved by MASS importation of third world peoples who do NOT want to work but want to be GIVEN homes, welfare FOR LIFE, tv’s, phones, cars etc and be 100% exempt from all laws especially regarding deportation.

That would be a great first-step in solving the homeless PROBLEM that America faces.

I live 6 hours north of LA, and we have the same problem, and yes, this is caused by liberal government, and liberal taxes, They drive people to poverty.

I got up for work one morning at 415, turn on the light down stairs, and immediately get a knock on my front door. Its a homeless woman about 25 years old. She says," can I come in"? I said WHAT? She says " Can I come in, I need to charge my phone". I said no, and shut the door. She was a Methamatician. WHAT A TWEEK!

I need your address TerryMcGuire. Ill give it to her next time she comes knocking. Liberal policies and massive taxes have ruined my once fine state. Eventually they will take over the federal government, and you will all share the fun! Do you know how much tax they put on a gallon of gas here? Go look it up. Complete utter stupidity. They are freaks, like AOC and Talib. Real bright people

a reply to: visitedbythem

Oh and by the way.....My city is a sanctuary city. Imagine that!

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Admitted
I've never even been to California and have no interest in going. But the targeting of the homeless problem there by the right irritates me.

Saying it is the result of the left's policies is just ignorant. Trump saying he is going to solve the homeless problem is just plain stupid.

It doesn't matter your politics. Drug addiction, mental health problems, health care costs bankrupting normal people, etc. All of these problems will exist no matter who is running the show. California has a large homeless problem because the weather is suited for living outside year-round and, more basically, they are a huge state with a huge population and a lot of money. Everything there is going to be more exaggerated.

But wait, Trump said he was going to solve this homeless problem so, no worries right?

When the liberal policies offer free everything, and protection from federal laws, only a moron would think it is not going to result in this type of situation. One of the jobs of the city should be to protect its citizens, all of them, from the spread of disease and drug use. This situation of allowing people to live on the streets creates a very large case for rampant disease and infestation of vermin that will spread to the rest of the population. It is a fact that LA has seen a significant rise in the rat population over the last few years. That rise is exacerbated by the unsanitary living conditions in these areas.

If LA truly wanted to help these people, they would use some of the public land to erect buildings (or renovate older empty structures) to make free housing for these people. If they do not go there, you bring them there. If they refuse to live there, and still want to live on the street, then you enforce the vagrancy laws on the books (if any are there). Soon you will see the ones that do not want to make a positive impact on society leave.

Now you say, "where should they go?". Well, there are places as I mentioned. Here's an idea. How about all those whining and complaining about "caring" for these people take one into their homes, or allow them to camp on their property? You will be helping them out, and providing a safe area for them to stay. If, that is, you really are interested in helping them and not just virtue signaling to present yourself as "compassionate and woke".


As the old saying goes, "We're closed. You have to leave now. You don't have to go home but you can't stay here."

I seen a story recently of a billionaire in Seattle who was going to build something for homeless people; where they could stay and work. Strict rules would need to be enforced. The problem with these kinds of ideas, as you state "erecting buildings" on public property or renovating old ones; they would fill immediately. And more would come. Do the ones who get in stay forever?

It's the underlying cause of homelessness (addictions, criminal histories, mental health, financial difficulty) that need to be addressed. It's a huge problem I don't believe any one entity can solve.

Where I live (Fargo, ND) there only a few homeless shelters and they are always at or over capacity, many sleep outside. In the winter churches often take the overflow. I live in a very red state, it's not the politics. The numbers here are smaller because of weather (tough to live on street when it's 20 below), lack of resources/help for such and the transients move on quickly. That said, they are always around because mental health, pvoerty, and addiction is always around. Everywhere.

I don't have answers to solve homelessness. I just don't see purpose in singling out left/right policies as the culprit. You demonize these people (the homeless) as largely not wanting to have a positive impact on society. I'm guessing you don't know any of them. People get stuck, broke, addicted, make terrible mistakes (like moving to CA, lol).

It just has ZERO to do with the dems in charge. Zero to do with illegals aliens or rats or diseases. These are people with problems. I believe these things should be handled locally by people who understand the local concerns. More non-profits and churches than governments. As for government: healthcare for all, drug law reform, and increased mental health services availability would go a long way. The recent first-step act passed by Trump was fantastic. Now if they can get jobs with their criminal history...another story.

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: Admitted

Why so disingenuous? So in you mind Trump also caused this. Trump is trying to slow the mass migration into the USA but the 9th Circuit has tied his hands along with a Catholic Governor. Call a spade a spade.

Of course Trump didn't cause this. It existed before him and will exist after him.

If I see a spade I will call it such.

Be nice if there were someone actually running something.

All I see are chickens with their heads cut off.

originally posted by: Admitted
lack of resources/help for such and the transients move on quickly.

Ding! Ding! Ding!
You say it has nothing to do with Left or Right policies and politics, but you managed to cite exactly why it is a Left or Right policy issue on the local levels. The more programs a community has, the more likely their indigents are to remain there, and the more likely indigents from surrounding communities with fewer handouts and "benefits" are to get themselves to the city with all the programs. Anchorage is a great example of this. The majority of our homeless aren't from Anchorage, they're congregated here in HUGE numbers because of a liberal local government that has at times prioritized caring for these chronic addicts, inebriates, and criminals over basic civil service funding like police and schools... every other community in Alaska's homeless end up here and they all got their hands out 24/7 looking for the money to buy their next bottle of rotgut while crapping on sidewalks and strewing trash from hell to breakfast.

Now, imagine a country where none of the communities had those programs and handouts. Hell, we might actually see something as refreshing as Americans trying to illegally immigrate to Mexico if such a thing happened! What a delightful hoot that would be.

a reply to: Waterglass

What none have family? Back in the early 1900's many families had 3 to 4 generations under one roof because they were poor]

Check it out Glass. The early 1900s did have generational dwelling. Back then it was necessary to live in generational dwellings just as it had been for centuries before that. It was capitalism and mass production that changed that.

Mass production made it possible for product to be produced at such a high rate that almost over night the ability to produce far out stripped the need to consume. For every ten toasters that could be produced there were only three buyers because grandma, mom and daughters were all using the same toasters. Spread that limit to the entire consumer index and something needed to change.

Enter the consumer era. People had to be changed to believe that living out on their own was better than living with family. The nuclear family came into being so that product sales could double, triple and quadruple it's ability to make profit for the producers,,,,capitalists. This is why we see rapid increase of advertising and marketing at that time in tandem with the rise of knowledge of psychological manipulation. See Edward Bernays.

Democrats rule the entire state Terry. California laws have led to mass exodus of business [loss of jobs] migration of illegal aliens and crazy laws that cost everyone.

To a degree this is true that Dems rule the state though as I pointed out there are some very strong conservative counties there as well. But you say there is mass exodus and job loss, well that seems a bit severe in it's assesment.

Look at the economy. It is almost double the second largest state Texas and Texas out strips almost every other state.
The economy of California is so large that that is where so many people go to work. The cost of living is so high because so many people work there that living production and rents and stuff can get away with their high costs because people are capable of paying it.

What ''crazy laws''?

"Capitalist". Sure Terry tell us like it really is under Socialism. Even the Chinese have moved toward Capitalism

Yes, China is capitalist. Not free market but capitalist. The government runs the economy and controls it. There is little to no free market there, so how is that capitalist really. Only in the sense that China operates like a huge corporation, not like a land of socialism.

But Glass, I am not even saying anything here about socialism vrs capitalism as you seem to jump to. I am not. What I am saying as I mentioned in my original reply was that the problems we face are problems within that system, how we use it and let it run. That is what I am saying we all need to talk about and address.
The way I see it is socialism lost and capitalism won. So now we need to make capitalism work better for all of us rather than letting those who have run it for so long

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Admitted
lack of resources/help for such and the transients move on quickly.

Ding! Ding! Ding!
You say it has nothing to do with Left or Right policies and politics, but you managed to cite exactly why it is a Left or Right policy issue on the local levels. The more programs a community has, the more likely their indigents are to remain there, and the more likely indigents from surrounding communities with fewer handouts and "benefits" are to get themselves to the city with all the programs. Anchorage is a great example of this. The majority of our homeless aren't from Anchorage, they're congregated here in HUGE numbers because of a liberal local government that has at times prioritized caring for these chronic addicts, inebriates, and criminals over basic civil service funding like police and schools... every other community in Alaska's homeless end up here and they all got their hands out 24/7 looking for the money to buy their next bottle of rotgut while crapping on sidewalks and strewing trash from hell to breakfast.

Now, imagine a country where none of the communities had those programs and handouts. Hell, we might actually see something as refreshing as Americans trying to illegally immigrate to Mexico if such a thing happened! What a delightful hoot that would be.

Ding nothing. That doesn't solve the problem - it just moves it somewhere else. Some of us have moved on to object permanence.

ETA: Even if there were no where in the country where it would be feasible for a large homeless population to exist (like Fargo)...homelessness would still exist. And crimes of desperation would be greatly exacerbated.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

How does drug and alcohol addiction for the majority of homeless people equate to a failure of capitalism?

Looks more like a failure of socialism with a smattering of hypocrisy on the part of "compassionate" Dem leadership.



Simple daddy. One, socialism is nowhere in sight. There is no socialism in the US, only capitalism and varying degrees of how it is utilized to make it work without collapsing in on itself. Anyone who tells you that all those rich people who donate money to liberal causes are socialists are pulling your leg.

Did you notice that when I said capitalism in that reply that what I said was '' the failed side of our capitalist economy ''?

This is what we could be looking at instead of jumping automatically to socialism and communism as the only alternatives we should consider.

Marketing and advertising are products of the capitalist system. Advertising drives sales by saying you can have all of this and then goes on to set the bench mark for people to want. When that false picture of life is pushed at people and when they find out that in reality it is not as easy as it is presented to be, they turn to drugs and stuff and the spiral goes down hill from there.

originally posted by: Admitted
Ding nothing. That doesn't solve the problem - it just moves it somewhere else. Some of us have moved on to object permanence.

Considering we're largely talking about local taxation footing the bill for both the programs and the increases in crime, health care, and declining home values as well as businesses leaving, moving it somewhere else is absolutely a solution on the local level.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Burd, your reply is a fish run fishing hole of delightful topics for lengthy discussion. But right now, I don't have the time for trying to consider them in depth. So maybe I can remember to reply to your points later on. I have found discussion with you to be good for me.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Fair enough. I have also enjoyed our past discussions.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Admitted
Ding nothing. That doesn't solve the problem - it just moves it somewhere else. Some of us have moved on to object permanence.

Considering we're largely talking about local taxation footing the bill for both the programs and the increases in crime, health care, and declining home values as well as businesses leaving, moving it somewhere else is absolutely a solution on the local level.

That's fair. An a better distribution would help greatly. How to implement such though? I don't believe it is by simply removing existing help for localities.

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Admitted
Ding nothing. That doesn't solve the problem - it just moves it somewhere else. Some of us have moved on to object permanence.

Considering we're largely talking about local taxation footing the bill for both the programs and the increases in crime, health care, and declining home values as well as businesses leaving, moving it somewhere else is absolutely a solution on the local level.

That's fair. An a better distribution would help greatly. How to implement such though? I don't believe it is by simply removing existing help for localities.

At least limit those helps and their growth. Look, Alaska is obviously unique, but it's bad here in Anchorage, real, real bad. The majority of our homeless population are from bush communities which have had a long standing history of kicking out their problem residents, who end up on Anchorage's streets. There are parts of this city where the homeless outnumber those with homes, and those parts are centered around the social services buildings and charities. Anyone who owns a business or residence within a block or two of one of those centers is sitting holding a property nobody has any desire to visit because they'll immediately be beset upon by panhandlers or (far worse) predatory homeless. Throw in the technically housed tweaker zombies that Anchorage has become a playground for, and property crime, theft, and assaults are ridiculously high here. That's while considering the fact that the law abiding tax payers in Anchorage are among the most dangerous people on the west coast, with very high gun ownership rates and a general "I'll wreck your day if you look at me" attitude... if we were firearm unfriendly like major CA, OR, and WA coastal cities are this place would be totally abandoned to all but the hardcore and predators of society.

I disagree with people on the root cause here, for whatever that's worth. I don't think addiction is a cause, I think it is a symptom. Many of these people were born into chaos and squalor and the push to modernize and diversify economics in the Alaskan bush was untenable to them. Their ancestors didn't work a 9-5, or really do much beyond hunting, fishing, and firewood gathering, so why should they be any different today seems to be a common viewpoint among the native homeless here. The substance abuse was born as a byproduct of boredom and laziness and got out of hand, leading to them eventually being outcast from their own villages and finding themselves here where there is a slight majority of the population not willing to express the hard love of a kick to the ass in the direction of the road heading out of town as their home villages showed them.

The end result is Anchorage taking on all of the costs of caring for other communities' problems, same as we're seeing in LA, San Fran, and Seattle... if you offer it, they will come. If you refuse to offer it, they will keep on trucking. If they reach a point where nobody is offering it, they will either clean up and contribute to their own well being or they will die. It sounds harsh and I've been called a monster for it, but that seems like a logical consequence and is in line with millions of years of human evolution.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I can see how Alaska is a different sort of animal.

I don't disagree with you until the end. When there is nowhere to go where resources exist to help the homeless, some may get their s**t together, clean up, and make it somehow on their own. Others will certainly die; suicide, O.D. or otherwise. The majority though, I believe, will turn to crime and end up one of the many millions in our prisons which we taxpayers also have to pay for.

I prefer to pay for the more humane route of transitional housing for criminals who have served their time. Addiction and mental health services...things that offer hope of a way out of a bad situation.

But, yes, it need be addressed more on the local level. Communities taking care of self. This issue in national politics is a bit absurd.

Gotta run,

I don’t think it would be fair to blame dems entirely for the homeless situation but they’ve definitely dropped the ball in trying to fix it. If they would put as much effort into helping the homeless as they do trying to import illegals into this country, it could make a huge difference in some of these people’s life. Imagine if we took all the billions of dollars the dems want for shelters, food, medical and welfare for illegals and actually used it to help our own citizens living in poverty. Nobody on this site can tell me it’s not going to have a major and positive impact on the problem.

The fact that the dems want to provide all this help to illegals and completely ignore citizens suffering greatly makes me sick. It’s irresponsible to take on more welfare cases when you won’t even help the ones we have on our doorstep. Notice I said won’t and not can’t because we certainly could be giving these people some sort of hope in life, instead of the life of desperation and destitute they have now.

I lived in LA for many years and have done a good share of volunteer work at the Mission at 5th St and LA St. which is in the same area the film footage was shot. The one thing that always made an impression on me was the gratitude the homeless had for even the smallest bit of kindness and help. They feel forgotten and invisible by the rest of the world. I never once left there not feeling humble and grateful for what I had. It’s a sad situation that doesn’t have to be as bad as it is if we collectively put an effort to change it.

Our city, state and federal government could change much of this if they really wanted to address the problem. Problem being, helping to solve the homeless issue doesn’t guarantee them votes the way giving illegals a free ride does. They’re helping illegals solely for their self-serving agenda.

I love all the excuses for Cali in this thread...ya know its warm in a lot of states and pretty conducive to living outside with plenty of water...funny how I dont remember the massive camps on the sidewalks of Orlando or having to dodge blocks on blocks of human #.

You know what else is pretty funny...when I stayed 2 months in Seattle there were massive homeless camps all over there too...not sure where they poop but the sidewalks weren't bad from what I could tell...but a much larger homeless camp presence than anywhere I have personally lived. That includes about 4 other states of varying climates.

So why is it because of climate? Also why would prison have anything to do with it...most places I know make you stay in a halfway house for a while after release. You have to get a job and drug test...you fail you go back. How is this not a thing in Cali?

I will say though the worse the opioid abuse gets among the population the more homeless people I see asking for money living on the streets...maybe anecdotal but I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed this.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I see coddling them as being an example of society failing Social Darwinism. In no other population of species on Earth do we see the persistance to carry anchors around and make life and survivial harder on those thriving than we see in humanity where the homeless, indigent infirmed, and addicted are concerned. It is a self damaging tendency which is utterly devoid of logic and sense.

Ok then...Social Darwinism. If,,, we hold to Social Darwinism being a true science being in direct corespondence with Evolutionary Darwinism then I can see this arguement holding water. But is it? The notion of survival of the fittest holding true for human interchange, that is the competition between individuals and other individuals or individuals and society or for that matter any '''human constructs'' is one of long standing debate. Many hold that it is, many hold that it is not.

I hold that there are common principles to them but that there are other considerations to take into account.

For the coddling bit, that for one is agreeably one aspect of our juvenilazation of American culture. But to my mind, coddling and indeed ''over coddling'' is an outgrowth of nurturing. Here, again for me, is one of the reasons i do not hold so much with Social Darwinism.
Looking a the rest of the animal kingdom i see that for the most part, the nurturing period of parent and child is relatively short. Days, weeks, even one set of seasons is again for the most part, enough training and time for the baby to become self sufficient, having the ability to care for itself in that world of survival of the fittest.


However in the case of human pups, this period is fundamentally longer. Indeed, a human pup cannot even walk on it's own until around one year and the time period for other survival technique development much, even much, longer.

Carrying my rejection of Social Darwinism even further I hold that survival of the fittest does hold true on a species vrs species basis.. Our human species has survived not because we are physically superiour to other species but because we and organized better.

Our opposable thumbs aside, a major reason we even made it out of the trees was because we could organize to take out the bigger,faster, stronger predators, the food that would have eaten us had we not as groups learned to kill and trap them instead. Cooperation has been the key to our survival down the ages.

What a ferkin tangent.

But yeah, that nurturing has turned into coddling and over coddling. In the oppostie direction from Social Darwinism we now seem to be bending over in the other direction, nurturing people for too long. But even that to my mind is not a final ''why'' . Our culture, a culture built on the economic principles of capitalism does not nurture enough people into true mature adulthood, but rather caters to the wants of immature people. People who seem to not know the difference between what they need and what they want. How much of our economy is based on wants instead of needs.

I need to stop now as it is time for me to listen again, I want to keep talking but I need to listen now.

this is how the mafia moves into a neighborhood.

1. The streets are over-run with petty criminals, who break in because they are not afraid of armed homeowners.

2. A local "[ethnicity]-American Businessmen's Association" moves in, and "cleans" up the streets.

3. Crime drops to zero, but they come around and ask for a contribution of $25 bucks a week in "fire insurance." Nice place ya got here. Be a shame if .... something happened to it.

4. And don't call the cops when you have a problem. Call me. I'll be right there every time.

Because I'm a problem solver.



When it comes to that, most people will pay $100 a month, and be grateful for it, because the sidewalks are clean again.