Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[ati87]

If by "fought for" you mean, "tried to get killed"



Oh, I guess you did mean that

But the people that voted for him don't see it like that. What they see is somebody that build the wall while democrats destroyed the wall. Was the wall actually built? Not really, but the headlines were all about Democrats something something wall.

Biden would have been more populaire if he went out said to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema "you assholes will vote for my bills, or I will support a primary challanger" (small example the President of the US has a lot of ways to pressure politicians), at least when his approval ratings (2021) was high.

Biden didn't do that, and instead you got damming headlines like this The other Joe: how Manchin destroys Biden’s plans, angering Democrats
Biden could have learned a lot from Trump.

[Doomcookie]

You did though, you were just too embarassed to say it directly and were all "it's really such a shame but we don't have a choice except to put the homeless in prison for their own sake", with also a side of victim blaming by putting the responsbility on them.



It is objectively fascist to put the homeless in prison based on some flimsy, technical pretext of crime - that was literally what authoritarian regimes did all throughout history, put minority demographics including the poor, homeless and destitute into prisons, concentration camps and slums by legislating specifically against them.

You are the one who is offended that your actions fit the label, it's frankly disgusting how you can spin it as some sort of moral victory on your part.

That poster was talking about crimes, other than being homeless or on drugs. It's logical.

Homeless people commit a fair number of crimes that do impact other people. We're talking about fires, murders, assaults, and even trespassing on private property. These are all things that can, and should be prosecuted.

Helping homeless people is a good thing, especially for those who don't want to actually be homeless. But, with any government-based program, it's going to involve rules and guidelines that need to be followed. Regardless of all the societal failings that can cause homelessness, getting out of it still requires personal responsibility. No amount of assistance will help someone who is unwilling.

- - - Updated - - -

But the people that voted for him don't see it like that. What they see is somebody that build the wall while democrats destroyed the wall. Was the wall actually built? Not really, but the headlines were all about Democrats something something wall.

Biden would have been more populaire if he went out said to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema "you assholes will vote for my bills, or I will support a primary challanger" (small example the President of the US has a lot of ways to pressure politicians), at least when his approval ratings (2021) was high.

Biden didn't do that, and instead you got damming headlines like this The other Joe: how Manchin destroys Biden’s plans, angering Democrats
Biden could have learned a lot from Trump.

That primary challenger would have lost the Democrats a seat.

Those two are popular in their states, because they are the fence sitters. It gives them more power.

[Celista]

You did though, you were just too embarassed to say it directly and were all "it's really such a shame but we don't have a choice except to put the homeless in prison for their own sake", with also a side of victim blaming by putting the responsbility on them.



It is objectively fascist to put the homeless in prison based on some flimsy, technical pretext of crime - that was literally what authoritarian regimes did all throughout history, put minority demographics including the poor, homeless and destitute into prisons, concentration camps and slums by legislating specifically against them.

You are the one who is offended that your actions fit the label, it's frankly disgusting how you can spin it as some sort of moral victory on your part.

I am not embarrassed or offended by anything. I was a staunch supporter of Housing First and progressive initiatives as it relates to homeless policies and they have abjectly failed here. Maybe you need some actual experience with homeless populations and policies that have not worked before acting like you are morally superior.

[Draco-Onis]

I am not embarrassed or offended by anything. I was a staunch supporter of Housing First and progressive initiatives as it relates to homeless policies and they have abjectly failed here. Maybe you need some actual experience with homeless populations and policies that have not worked before acting like you are morally superior.

The progressive policies have failed due to corruption where they have been bogged by several scandals. There's no reason that these policies that have been proven to work in other countries don't work here. It also suffers from an optics problem similar to safe injection sites for drug addicts, Americans are just not comfortable with homeless people getting a place. The American public has decades upon decades of conditioning making them think homelessness is a personal fault or a lifestyle choice.

[shimerra]

There is a difference between "shortage of homeless services" versus "shortage in affordable housing". There is a lack of affordable housing in all 50 states. Oregon spends a massive amount of money on homeless services but a significant amount is spent on services other than housing. Both housing and services can be underutilized due to a variety of reasons and people who are chronically homeless will certainly make you aware of these things if you work with them. I have seen people turn down services/shelter due to not wanting to get drug tested, not wanting to give up a pet or not having anyone to take care of a pet, roadblocks with employment due to a criminal record, etc. One homeless man I worked with had a long history of not feeling safe living inside due to a trauma history so it was a lot of time and effort getting him to the point of feeling comfortable living in an an apartment. The chronically homeless are often dealing with both addiction issues and mental health issues and in both of those situations they often want to continue living their lifestyle on the street and do not want to change. Nothing short of incarceration/forced treatment will get them to change their behavior.

That's cool. All your anecdotes did is show that while there are services they're often not adequate to serve the needs of the homeless population in your area. Oregon spends "a massive amount of money" and it's still not enough. Oregon has the second highest homeless population in the nation and pet issues, criminal records, and more forcing chronic housing issues undermines the point you're supposedly trying to make. And in none of the research I've done showed you have enough housing to cover your homeless population let alone that there was an overabundance of services provided that people just turned down or couldn't access. At this point it's so blatantly obvious I'm going to have to ask you for the data you're seeing, not personal anecdote, that goes to show that people just don't want to be helped despite help being there. Or did the Governor declare a state of emergency regarding the homeless situation in 2023 for funsies?

Regarding your inane incarceration/forced treatment comment I think even you know forced incarceration makes the problem worse and costs more. What you don't seem to get is that despite your claims even if we wanted to force treatment we can't. Because the services aren't there to provide that treatment even optionally right now for them.


And unlucky for you I also have personal experience with helping the homeless. Not that that helped you because your own examples undermined the very point you tried to make. I'm well aware of people like the gentlemen you mentioned who have issues using shelters. That is directly tied to the quality of services provided and their availability.

I am not embarrassed or offended by anything. I was a staunch supporter of Housing First and progressive initiatives as it relates to homeless policies and they have abjectly failed here. Maybe you need some actual experience with homeless populations and policies that have not worked before acting like you are morally superior.

I can't say that direct experience has helped your understanding of the situation. Because even your most basic claims have proven to be false and all it seems to have done is provide a horrible misunderstanding about the chronically homeless and effective ways to address the situation/help those who are chronically homeless. hint: the supreme court decision isn't one of those ways.

Encampments are the logical consequence of a society that fails to address the needs of these populations. Both through affordable housing and social services. And history has shown us further criminalization, which is the result of this decision, of these populations doesn't do anything to make the situation better for the homeless even if clearing camps makes some of those in homes feel better in the short term.

[Doomcookie]

That's cool. All your anecdotes did is show that while there are services they're often not adequate to serve the needs of the homeless population in your area. Oregon spends "a massive amount of money" and it's still not enough. Oregon has the second highest homeless population in the nation and pet issues, criminal records, and more forcing chronic housing issues undermines the point you're supposedly trying to make. And in none of the research I've done showed you have enough housing to cover your homeless population let alone that there was an overabundance of services provided that people just turned down or couldn't access. At this point it's so blatantly obvious I'm going to have to ask you for the data you're seeing, not personal anecdote, that goes to show that people just don't want to be helped despite help being there. Or did the Governor declare a state of emergency regarding the homeless situation in 2023 for funsies?

Regarding your inane incarceration/forced treatment comment I think even you know forced incarceration makes the problem worse and costs more. What you don't seem to get is that despite your claims even if we wanted to force treatment we can't. Because the services aren't there to provide that treatment even optionally right now for them.


And unlucky for you I also have personal experience with helping the homeless. Not that that helped you because your own examples undermined the very point you tried to make. I'm well aware of people like the gentlemen you mentioned who have issues using shelters. That is directly tied to the quality of services provided and their availability.



I can't say that direct experience has helped your understanding of the situation. Because even your most basic claims have proven to be false and all it seems to have done is provide a horrible misunderstanding about the chronically homeless and effective ways to address the situation/help those who are chronically homeless. hint: the supreme court decision isn't one of those ways.

Encampments are the logical consequence of a society that fails to address the needs of these populations. Both through affordable housing and social services. And history has shown us further criminalization, which is the result of this decision, of these populations doesn't do anything to make the situation better for the homeless even if clearing camps makes some of those in homes feel better in the short term.

Blue states tend to have higher rates of homelessness than red states. Some of this can be attributed to the cost of rent, but not all of it. Blue states also tend to provide more assistance to the homeless. Logically, either red states are better and more efficient with how they spend their money for homelessness, or blue states and their increased spending on the homeless problem, leads to more people seeking that assistance in those states.

The only way to really sell homeless programs to voting citizens, is to be able to show positive results, and a reasonable return on the money spent. It's an easier sell, if you can show that they are successfully leading them to become productive members of society.

[Celista]

That's cool. All your anecdotes did is show that while there are services they're often not adequate to serve the needs of the homeless population in your area. Oregon spends "a massive amount of money" and it's still not enough. Oregon has the second highest homeless population in the nation and pet issues, criminal records, and more forcing chronic housing issues undermines the point you're supposedly trying to make. And in none of the research I've done showed you have enough housing to cover your homeless population let alone that there was an overabundance of services provided that people just turned down or couldn't access. At this point it's so blatantly obvious I'm going to have to ask you for the data you're seeing, not personal anecdote, that goes to show that people just don't want to be helped despite help being there. Or did the Governor declare a state of emergency regarding the homeless situation in 2023 for funsies?

Regarding your inane incarceration/forced treatment comment I think even you know forced incarceration makes the problem worse and costs more. What you don't seem to get is that despite your claims even if we wanted to force treatment we can't. Because the services aren't there to provide that treatment even optionally right now for them.


And unlucky for you I also have personal experience with helping the homeless. Not that that helped you because your own examples undermined the very point you tried to make. I'm well aware of people like the gentlemen you mentioned who have issues using shelters. That is directly tied to the quality of services provided and their availability.



I can't say that direct experience has helped your understanding of the situation. Because even your most basic claims have proven to be false and all it seems to have done is provide a horrible misunderstanding about the chronically homeless and effective ways to address the situation/help those who are chronically homeless. hint: the supreme court decision isn't one of those ways.

Encampments are the logical consequence of a society that fails to address the needs of these populations. Both through affordable housing and social services. And history has shown us further criminalization, which is the result of this decision, of these populations doesn't do anything to make the situation better for the homeless even if clearing camps makes some of those in homes feel better in the short term.

Really, lots of claims here. What is your solution to the issue that has not already been tried here? A lot of moral grandstanding with no solutions and no acknowledgement of the real problems caused in areas where homeless policies have done nothing to ameliorate the issue.

You would think that people who truly care about the homeless would want better for them than perpetually living in camps, with the risk of communicable disease and violence is extremely high.

This is not the appropriate thread to continue this conversation as it is off topic but the moral grandstanding is nauseating.

Real progressives admit when something is not working and seek new solutions. I know it is hard for you to but there is a variety of reasons why people are homeless; if throwing money and housing at the issue fixed everything then the issues would not continue to exist. There has to be some acknowledgement that on some level homelessness is not just the result of macro level societal issues and that not everyone who is homeless takes help when offered.

I swear half of the people who support these policies feel like they do not care how people are affected by homelessness and just want to watch the world burn with their pro anarchistic ideologies.

That is all I have to say on this as almost none of these replies have had significant substance for discussion. Not bothering to reply to whoever else quoted me. Maybe start a separate thread.

[Shadowferal]

Blue maga mindset has so many issues. I can look at things objectvly and see that Trump has his strong points. It's time for you to move out of your own bubble.

“Donald Trump hired 44 cabinet members, 75 percent of them want nothing to do with the guy. His secretary of state called him a ‘fucking moron.’ His chief of staff said he’s ‘the most flawed person I’ve ever met.’ You know why he needs a new vice-presidential running mate? He tried to get the last one killed!”
~Jon Stewart

- - - Updated - - -

Really, lots of claims here. What is your solution to the issue that has not already been tried here?

That's the question...hence my mockery of the Supreme Court.
Giving out fines or jail time seems not just counterintuitive but flat out wrong.
I get it from the other side of the perspective...a desire to see a clean street not smelling like a well-used toilet.

I don't know.

[shimerra]

Blue states tend to have higher rates of homelessness than red states. Some of this can be attributed to the cost of rent, but not all of it. Blue states also tend to provide more assistance to the homeless. Logically, either red states are better and more efficient with how they spend their money for homelessness, or blue states and their increased spending on the homeless problem, leads to more people seeking that assistance in those states.

The only way to really sell homeless programs to voting citizens, is to be able to show positive results, and a reasonable return on the money spent. It's an easier sell, if you can show that they are successfully leading them to become productive members of society.

Your logic is largely crap because it's obscenely narrow minded and to put it in statistical terms omits about 50 different variables. And there are plenty of programs that show that. Utah as one example basically just gave their homeless housing/paid for it. Because funny thing is there's actually a decent amount of unoccupied housing and apartments in some places it's just not affordable to the homeless populations. As a result crime dropped, jail spending dropped, the state picked up less ER tabs because the homeless weren't suffering from exposure related medical issues, etc. It was a massive savings for the state. It's still a hard sell largely due to conservatives and my next point:


Your second part has also been shown to be demonstrable crap. We show positive results all the time and they're still opposed. The best way to illustrate this is the shelters themselves. Everyone agrees we need them. Absolutely fucking no one wants them in their "back yard" so to speak. This bickering results is frequently nothing getting done, lack of funding, or suboptimal services and is a huge problem when enacting policy and "selling it".

Really, lots of claims here. What is your solution to the issue that has not already been tried here? A lot of moral grandstanding with no solutions and no acknowledgement of the real problems caused in areas where homeless policies have done nothing to ameliorate the issue.

You would think that people who truly care about the homeless would want better for them than perpetually living in camps, with the risk of communicable disease and violence is extremely high.

This is not the appropriate thread to continue this conversation as it is off topic but the moral grandstanding is nauseating.

Real progressives admit when something is not working and seek new solutions. I know it is hard for you to but there is a variety of reasons why people are homeless; if throwing money and housing at the issue fixed everything then the issues would not continue to exist. There has to be some acknowledgement that on some level homelessness is not just the result of macro level societal issues and that not everyone who is homeless takes help when offered.

I swear half of the people who support these policies feel like they do not care how people are affected by homelessness and just want to watch the world burn with their pro anarchistic ideologies.

That is all I have to say on this as almost none of these replies have had significant substance for discussion. Not bothering to reply to whoever else quoted me. Maybe start a separate thread.

I mean you've done nothing but makes claims with your own bullshit anecdotes. Not sure why I'm held to a higher standard then you hold yourself other than hypocrisy. Here's a bunch of articles showing your own claims about your own state are wrong:

https://www.oregon.gov/ohcs/pages/housing-eo.aspx

https://www.koin.com/news/homeless/p...ists-04162024/

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/04/...sponse-agency/

The third article for example showing waitlists of up to a year and doing a meh job at moving people to permanent housing. A key part of addressing chronic homelessness. Oregon's made improvements but to say that it's adequately address the problem or that it's simply homeless people choosing not to access available services are bold faced lies.


And spare me your droll "real progressive bullshit". I was specifically tackling your two bullshit claims. 1. That the Supreme court decision was a good thing and 2. That Oregon provides sufficient services that are simply being ignored.


I never once advocated for people living in camps and only pointed out that they're an obvious consequence of a shittily structured society that's failing to address the issue and unlike you understand that simply banning homeless encampments makes the problems for the homeless worse. Not better. And because I don't share your glee at criminalizing them and making their lives harder as nothing is done to address why the camps existed I simply pointed out it's a shit way to help things. Which you'd think someone who claims to have helped/volunteered for the homeless would agree with. The decision also doesn't just ban these large encampments. It effectively makes it okay to exist in any amount of comfort such as having a sleeping bag or sleeping outside at all meaning the only option these people frequently have is now a criminal act which makes eventually gaining housing even harder. Duh.

What is truly nauseating is your profound ignorance and shifting of the goal posts. You never asked for my ideas for solutions and above I indicated the Utah example which unfortuntely wasn't made as widespread because of well people like you:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-homes-n352966

Instead you made to bullshit claims that were blatantly untrue and only attempted to defend them with anecdote. Please point out in my post where I said throwing money at it was the only answer or where I said the current solutions were effective/sufficient. I've quite literally argued the opposite even if you even attempted to skim my posts.


If you don't like me calling out the bullshit that the Supreme Court ruling was a shit one and that homeless services fail to address the problem nationally, and in Oregon where you claimed the homeless simply just need to use what was there, then address that instead of claiming I think the current solutions are acceptable. But even if that was my position I'll happily take that over celebrating actively making things worse like yourself.

[Doomcookie]

Your logic is largely crap because it's obscenely narrow minded and to put it in statistical terms omits about 50 different variables. And there are plenty of programs that show that. Utah as one example basically just gave their homeless housing/paid for it. Because funny thing is there's actually a decent amount of unoccupied housing and apartments in some places it's just not affordable to the homeless populations. As a result crime dropped, jail spending dropped, the state picked up less ER tabs because the homeless weren't suffering from exposure related medical issues, etc. It was a massive savings for the state. It's still a hard sell largely due to conservatives and my next point:


Your second part has also been shown to be demonstrable crap. We show positive results all the time and they're still opposed. The best way to illustrate this is the shelters themselves. Everyone agrees we need them. Absolutely fucking no one wants them in their "back yard" so to speak. This bickering results is frequently nothing getting done, lack of funding, or suboptimal services and is a huge problem when enacting policy and "selling it".

Utah did do that, they spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-70 million to do it. it also happens to be a red state.

The issue is that homeless people don't tend to want to live in rural areas, they gravitate towards cities. There's more resources, and more people from which to also panhandle (for those who do). California and other coastal states have very high housing costs, especially in the cities. Building in cities is also often more expensive, and suburbs fight tooth and nail against low-income housing and even apartments being built there. For California, or Oregon, it's simply cheaper to provide housing in rural areas. So, let that be the option. Mathematically, many blue states would be better off paying for homeless people to move to red states, where the cost of housing is cheaper.

People don't like to see their money going to waste, especially on other people who they deem to be "lazy." That's where the issue comes into to them becoming productive members of society. If that's not the actual goal, then the plan is never going to sell well. If you want more housing to be built, then that means spreading to rural areas, and rural states. That means easing the cost to actually build in those states.

As for "positive results," homelessness rates are trending upwards. That's going backwards.

https://usafacts.org/articles/which-...-homelessness/

[shimerra]

Utah did do that, they spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-70 million to do it. it also happens to be a red state.

/[/url]

They're a red state. The policies, and many of these others, are frequently enacted by the bluer's parts of it. And guess what because it's a redstate despite the fact that it was working they took it away and failed to expand the program.


I'm going to spare addressing the rest of your dribble. My degree's in economics and I recently bought a house in a high cost area. "Just build in rural areas or ship others to other states" is a toddler's idea of fixing the problem. And you, in agreeance with my point, mentioned suburbs fighting low-income housing tooth and nail but you for some reason magically think that Red states, well known for their acceptance of liberal city dwellers and outsiders, will be okay with it?

You've confuse red states having a smaller problem to deal with, and usually failing to address it just like blue states but unlike blue states simultaneously slashing assistance, with blue states difficulty tacking a larger problem as red states being more effective.

The current employment rate is trending upwards but only slightly and remains at a ridiculously low 4.1%. Due to a variety of factors there's just simply going to be some unemployment and it's not always bad. 3-6% is usually okay/normal. If you had any point it would be about the impact of labor participation rates, which the chronically homeless skew, and the unemployment rate but you weirdly decided to point out a perfectly normal unemployment as a worrying sign.

[Sunseeker]

"Unemployment" has little to do with the homeless, especially the chronically homeless. Most unemployment statistics are based off self reporting, mostly from people who were working, now arent, and are looking for work. The "chronically unemployed" and people who simply arent looking anymore, not to even mention the homeless, simply arent included in the standard unemployment numbers.

Therea good reason "the homeless" dont want to live in rural areas, and theyre the same reasons the "homed" dont either:
1. There are far fewer resources, from help to employment.
2. Weather conditions are often more seasonally extreme.
3. Locals are wary, aggressive or otherwise intolerant of any percieved outsider, homeless or not.
4. It is not drmatically more affordable. The homeless dont just have little money, they have NO money. An apartment being 800/mo vs 2000/mo is just as unaffordable.

As someone who lives in a "rural" area, we have our own homeless problems, being "rural" doesnt make it easier to solve, just less overt. 3 people living under a bridge or in the park is a lot less noticable than 30.

[Endus]

People don't like to see their money going to waste, especially on other people who they deem to be "lazy." That's where the issue comes into to them becoming productive members of society.

Nah. This is propagandistic horseshit. "People don't like to see their money go to waste, especially on blacks". Same fuckin' difference; it's a statement of those particular people's failures of character and basic human empathy. Those aren't an argument, those are things you should condemn those people for expressing.

"Productive members of society" is also horseshit propaganda terminology. If we expected people to be "productive", rich people wouldn't exist, because a great many rich people aren't "productive". The entire basis of capitalism as a system is that you profit by owning, not working.

There's a limit to how much productivity society can produce. There's also a limit on how much said society can consume. Productivity serves that need for consumption. If we truly expanded productivity to max capacity, we'd have essentially no unemployment, and we'd be overproducing by such a margin that everything would be dirt cheap, because supply is getting tossed into landfills if people won't buy it. That's not particularly desirable, right? So the question can only be; is productivity currently meeting consumptive demands? If the answer is "yes", then we don't need more people to be "productive members of society".

The goal, for the worker class at least, should be to minimize labor force participation rates. The fewer workers we need to meet productive capacity, the better. The problem with that is we've also tied wages to labor, so the entire system gets royally fucked (intentionally) in ways that foster worker desperation and allow employers to exploit duress in negotiations. There is no inherent benefit to maximizing labor force participation rates. The only ones who benefit from that are capitalists, exploiting that mass of labor, and using the competition that results to keep wages depressed.

While simultaneously selling those workers lines of bullshit like "having to be a productive member of society".

If that's not the actual goal, then the plan is never going to sell well. If you want more housing to be built, then that means spreading to rural areas, and rural states. That means easing the cost to actually build in those states.

That's not remotely required. Most cities have a lot of capacity for further development, upwards. We're not starved for space. We're starved for funding for affordable housing, because property developers are greedy and landlords are useless parasites.

[Doomcookie]

They're a red state. The policies, and many of these others, are frequently enacted by the bluer's parts of it. And guess what because it's a redstate despite the fact that it was working they took it away and failed to expand the program.


I'm going to spare addressing the rest of your dribble. My degree's in economics and I recently bought a house in a high cost area. "Just build in rural areas or ship others to other states" is a toddler's idea of fixing the problem. And you, in agreeance with my point, mentioned suburbs fighting low-income housing tooth and nail but you for some reason magically think that Red states, well known for their acceptance of liberal city dwellers and outsiders, will be okay with it?

You've confuse red states having a smaller problem to deal with, and usually failing to address it just like blue states but unlike blue states simultaneously slashing assistance, with blue states difficulty tacking a larger problem as red states being more effective.

The current employment rate is trending upwards but only slightly and remains at a ridiculously low 4.1%. Due to a variety of factors there's just simply going to be some unemployment and it's not always bad. 3-6% is usually okay/normal. If you had any point it would be about the impact of labor participation rates, which the chronically homeless skew, and the unemployment rate but you weirdly decided to point out a perfectly normal unemployment as a worrying sign.

You're free to ignore it, which proves that other poster right.

The bottom line is that many progressive policies in blue states are simply not working. throwing even more money at them is not going to make them work better. Utah was your argument, so you're now arguing against your own argument. Rural states wouldn't have any say it in it, if someone is simply buying/renting property with another state's money. Red states often avoid addressing it, and spend less. Sure, they may have many other issues regarding the working poor. But, as you can see, homelessness is on the rise, so the status quo is clearly not working very well.

So, ask yourself why those states have a smaller problem, and have for many years?

As for my comment about "unemployment" rates, I meant homelessness rates. I'll fix it.

- - - Updated - - -

"Unemployment" has little to do with the homeless, especially the chronically homeless. Most unemployment statistics are based off self reporting, mostly from people who were working, now arent, and are looking for work. The "chronically unemployed" and people who simply arent looking anymore, not to even mention the homeless, simply arent included in the standard unemployment numbers.

Therea good reason "the homeless" dont want to live in rural areas, and theyre the same reasons the "homed" dont either:
1. There are far fewer resources, from help to employment.
2. Weather conditions are often more seasonally extreme.
3. Locals are wary, aggressive or otherwise intolerant of any percieved outsider, homeless or not.
4. It is not drmatically more affordable. The homeless dont just have little money, they have NO money. An apartment being 800/mo vs 2000/mo is just as unaffordable.

As someone who lives in a "rural" area, we have our own homeless problems, being "rural" doesnt make it easier to solve, just less overt. 3 people living under a bridge or in the park is a lot less noticable than 30.

I meant "homelessness" rates were on the rise, that was a typo in my brain.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah. This is propagandistic horseshit. "People don't like to see their money go to waste, especially on blacks". Same fuckin' difference; it's a statement of those particular people's failures of character and basic human empathy. Those aren't an argument, those are things you should condemn those people for expressing.

"Productive members of society" is also horseshit propaganda terminology. If we expected people to be "productive", rich people wouldn't exist, because a great many rich people aren't "productive". The entire basis of capitalism as a system is that you profit by owning, not working.

There's a limit to how much productivity society can produce. There's also a limit on how much said society can consume. Productivity serves that need for consumption. If we truly expanded productivity to max capacity, we'd have essentially no unemployment, and we'd be overproducing by such a margin that everything would be dirt cheap, because supply is getting tossed into landfills if people won't buy it. That's not particularly desirable, right? So the question can only be; is productivity currently meeting consumptive demands? If the answer is "yes", then we don't need more people to be "productive members of society".

The goal, for the worker class at least, should be to minimize labor force participation rates. The fewer workers we need to meet productive capacity, the better. The problem with that is we've also tied wages to labor, so the entire system gets royally fucked (intentionally) in ways that foster worker desperation and allow employers to exploit duress in negotiations. There is no inherent benefit to maximizing labor force participation rates. The only ones who benefit from that are capitalists, exploiting that mass of labor, and using the competition that results to keep wages depressed.

While simultaneously selling those workers lines of bullshit like "having to be a productive member of society".



That's not remotely required. Most cities have a lot of capacity for further development, upwards. We're not starved for space. We're starved for funding for affordable housing, because property developers are greedy and landlords are useless parasites.



They're still very low. 4.1% versus the average of about 5.7%. Anything under 2% is considered an actual problem, itself.

No, it's not the same thing. People want to see that their money is being spent well by government. This isn't some radical concept. if a state is spending a lot of money on homelessness, and the issue is only getting worse, they will get upset.

The issue with minimizing the LFPR, is that the people who are laboring, are not going to be so happy to see others living off the results of their labor. Lower LFPR is good, mainly when it comes to minimizing labor hours within a household. That's more about single-income families, and less about shifting income from workers to non-workers.

I'm sure you've had co-workers who didn't pull their weight. Did you resent them for making the same as you for doing very little?

[Edge-]

Let's put it this way.

If your argument is that 3 years ago SC reform would have failed, then why do this now? If your going to push for anything as president, you do that when youir favorability is high, not when it's so low that you

Second. It wasn't like a secret how much gifts (read bribes) SC justices were getting. If I'm a political operative is it that hard to look through the disclosers of my political opponents and their Facebook and the pictures they post publicly?

Why now?

Because the SCOTUS has made a ton of bullshit, deeply questionable rulings and decisions over those years. Because it's taken a long time for public sentiment to change, which is required for major policy proposals like this to have any stickiness. Because it now introduces the topic into the mainstream discussion in a major way, likely with a goal of making it an election topic.

Also because there was a lot more immediate, pressing shit to deal with in the wake of the last administration's failures and while there are a ton of people in the West Wing there are only so many hours in a day.

The "Why now and not earlier" argument is pretty consistently not great.

And it was a secret, generally. It wasn't until reporting spearheaded by Propublica that we had confirmations of any of these improper gifts that were not claimed by conservative Justices.

Why are you being like this?

[unfilteredJW]

time to work on your zingers because they suck and aren't smart.

Well that's just projection.

/me looks up at you spewing out terms like blue MAGA like it's clever and not showing your true colors

[Edge-]

Just to hammer the point home - https://thehill.com/regulation/court...-historic-low/

Americans’ approval rating of the Supreme Court is nearing a historic low, according to new polling from Gallup.

The new Gallup poll found 43 percent of Americans approve of how the nation’s highest court is performing its job, while 52 percent said they disapproved. The approval rating is just shy of the record-low recorded in September 2021, when 40 percent said they approved.

Gallup noted that since September 2021, the Supreme Court has not seen an approval rating of higher than 43 percent.

The court received its highest rating of 62 percent in 2000 and 2001. Between 2000 and 2001, Gallup said majorities of Americans approved of the court in nearly every poll taken.

The latest poll found that Republicans were more likely to approve of the court than Democrats, likely due to the conservative majority on the bench. Sixty-six percent of Republicans approved, while just 15 percent of Democrats said they did. Forty-four percent of independents said they approved of the court.

[Endus]

No, it's not the same thing. People want to see that their money is being spent well by government. This isn't some radical concept. if a state is spending a lot of money on homelessness, and the issue is only getting worse, they will get upset.

You've moved the goalposts. You said people didn't like seeing their money wasted. Now you've moved them here; where the money's spent but the problem's not getting better.

That could just as easily mean the amount spent is simply insufficient for the problem, not that money is being "wasted". You're making the argument that piling sandbags to redirect floodwaters is a "wasted effort" because water's still getting over the top as you're piling them up. It's not a reasonable position.

The issue with minimizing the LFPR, is that the people who are laboring, are not going to be so happy to see others living off the results of their labor.

So, straight selfishness, open greed, and a dollop of misanthropy and a desire to see other people suffer.

This isn't just "not an argument", these are bad people arguing to increase human misery because they revel in it.

I'm sure you've had co-workers who didn't pull their weight. Did you resent them for making the same as you for doing very little?

Why would I? It doesn't make any sense, on any level whatsoever.

1> If I have any frustration, it's aimed at my employer, who's not dealing with the staffing issues.
2> If my coworker can get by doing a half-assed job and make the same money I am, and not get fired, then the actual issue is that I'm overworking and not being rewarded for it in any way, and my response should be to put in the same effort as that colleague. We all should. That's what's expected, clearly, and doing more does not benefit you in any way.
3> I don't know what's going on in that coworker's life. Maybe they lost a loved one. Maybe they're struggling with non-visible health issues. Why would I add to whatever burden they're bearing? Seems cruel for cruelty's sake.

Your argument isn't just nonsensical, it's inhumane. You're encouraging immoral and abusive attitudes.

[Doomcookie]

You've moved the goalposts. You said people didn't like seeing their money wasted. Now you've moved them here; where the money's spent but the problem's not getting better.

That could just as easily mean the amount spent is simply insufficient for the problem, not that money is being "wasted". You're making the argument that piling sandbags to redirect floodwaters is a "wasted effort" because water's still getting over the top as you're piling them up. It's not a reasonable position.



So, straight selfishness, open greed, and a dollop of misanthropy and a desire to see other people suffer.

This isn't just "not an argument", these are bad people arguing to increase human misery because they revel in it.



Why would I? It doesn't make any sense, on any level whatsoever.

1> If I have any frustration, it's aimed at my employer, who's not dealing with the staffing issues.
2> If my coworker can get by doing a half-assed job and make the same money I am, and not get fired, then the actual issue is that I'm overworking and not being rewarded for it in any way, and my response should be to put in the same effort as that colleague. We all should. That's what's expected, clearly, and doing more does not benefit you in any way.
3> I don't know what's going on in that coworker's life. Maybe he lost a loved one. Maybe he's struggling with non-visible health issues. Why would I add to whatever burden he's bearing? Seems cruel for cruelty's sake.

Your argument isn't just nonsensical, it's inhumane. You're encouraging immoral and abusive attitudes.

I didn't move them, I wanted to make sure to clarify exactly what I meant, and further back my argument. Money not being spent well IS BEING WASTED in their eyes. This is not a complicated concept.

People see money getting spent on homelessness, and the homeless problem getting worse. That's a reality that needs to be understood. The efforts that states put in, has not actually caused homeless rates to go down.

It's not selfish to not want to labor for others. Otherwise, you are arguing that those who are not working, yet getting the benefits, are even more selfish. Is that your argument? It's not inhumane to resent people for being lazy, any more than it is to resent them for being fascists, or Trump supporters.

On your reaction to unproductive employees making as much as you, there would be no "staffing" issues, as they are getting everything done. If you choose to work less, requiring they hire more people, then you are going against your desire to minimize the LFPR.

[Edge-]

It's not selfish to not want to labor for others. Otherwise, you are arguing that those who are not working, yet getting the benefits, are even more selfish. Is that your argument? It's not inhumane to resent people for being lazy, any more than it is to resent them for being fascists, or Trump supporters.

Most folks on public benefits aren't lazy, especially considering how fucking hard it is to actually get on those benefits much of the time. Really, Reagan's "welfare queen" bullshit is doing generational brain damage.