Act Acting » Acting School » Lefty Liberals ignore the real causes of homelessness and failures of their own policies…

Lefty Liberals ignore the real causes of homelessness and failures of their own policies…

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just curious….when was the last time that a free-market huckster like yourself give a sucker an even break? I admitted you had an opinion. "Having an opinion sure beats having you for dinner, Spam. With or without the Chianti…..Pfffffsssssst." So, George, is this flood of silly remarks your way of telling us that you are incapable of engaging in substantive debate about the causes of homelessness in Santa Cruz and other "bum-friendly" environments?  Funny how you feel compelled to continue the thread, but use every tactic to avoid discussing the issue at hand. Once again, to get you back on track, I assert that the infestation of homelessness in Santa Cruz is due to several factors: (1)  Stubborn refusal to abandon the concept of homeless as "victims" and instead look at the causes of homelessness (addiction, mental problems, criminal behavior, failure to take personal responsibility). What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a "failure to communicate" with anything other than well-worn and  over-used conservative concepts.  Ever heard of Greed, circumstances beyond someone’s control, genocide by gentrification, getting used-up unfairly in a biased labor market,

Sure, I have heard of all of those, from people who look for every reason but the obvious, and invent others when those don’t fly. The homeless in Santa Cruz aren’t there because they were working, paying rent, then one day got evicted. Once again, you’re launching into tirades to avoid dealing with the facts… equity by pyramid scam,  being born into the Lucky Sperm Club, and, of course, that tried and true formula for maintaining spiked realty values–called the "HOUSING CRISIS IN AMERICA,"

Brought on by nutcase Lefty Liberals, of course (but thanks for reminding me). :O) The housing farce http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com — A RECENTLY published housing study says: "San Francisco is one of the densest large cities in the U.S." That is true in both senses of the word "dense." Nowhere are San Franciscans more dense than when talking about housing — especially that perennial will o’ the wisp, "affordable housing." Tight rent control laws in San Francisco are supposed to help the poor. But the recent housing study shows that 26 percent of the households living in rent-controlled apartments have incomes of $100,000 or more. Rent control laws are supposed to keep down rents. But rents today are more than five times what they were in 1979, when such laws were passed in San Francisco. The average apartment rent in the city today is $2,100 a month… In short, the goals of rent control and its actual consequences are at opposite poles. Nor is this peculiar to San Francisco. Studies show that rents are usually higher and homelessness is greater in cities with rent control. Three quarters of the rent-controlled housing in San Francisco was built before 1950. Again, this is not peculiar to San Francisco. Nothing brings private building to a halt like rent control. Housing shortages have followed rent control in cities across the United States, as well as in Europe, Asia and Australia. What makes all this a complete farce is that the very people who push such notions as rent control and drastic restrictions on building are forever wringing their hands about a need for "affordable housing" and deploring homelessness. Yet the very word "builder" is anathema to such people. All sorts of notions and fashions can be indulged when you don’t pay the costs. Arbitrary zoning, "open space" and other restrictive laws escalate the cost of building housing, often to the point where numerous people cannot afford it… Meanwhile, vast tracts of unused land in prime locations with magnificent views remain idle in a city with a severe housing shortage. If this land were sold in the open market, it would probably bring in more money than a bond issue — and this would be income to the city, not debt to be repaid by the taxpayers. But that would not cater to the fashionable notions among the politically correct in San Francisco, so such land will remain largely unused while the hand-wringing about "affordable housing" goes on and on. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp Funny, but I seem to recall that Berkeley and Santa Monica ALSO have rent control. So perhaps the reason for this lack of ‘affordable housing’ is yet ANOTHER stupid policy of Lefty Liberals? Wouldn’t surprise me one bit… just to mention a few constructs outside of your narrow frame of reference?

Rant on, George. Let me know if you actually have something cogent to say… :O| (2)  Creation of a "bum-friendly" environment that attracts homeless from other areas, creating a disproportionately large homeless population in the target area. Your concept of "Bum-friendly environment" precludes, a priori, any chance to reasonably discuss the necessary steps required to "recover" anyone that has fallen through the cracks in the social substructure.

Want to avoid ‘falling through the cracks"? Stay sober, finish high school, avoid criminal behavior, don’t have children out of wedlock, and avoid taking advice from Lefty Liberals, who are more interested in advancing their own agendas (and keeping others dependent) than offering sound advice. At best, it’s a shell game-scheme promulgated in an attempt to lure people from Santa Cruz to "anywhere else, but NIMBY."

Good idea, as far as I’m concerned. Why would people with little or no prospects other than low-income employment benefit from staying in an area with a high cost of living, and competition with college students for minimum-wage jobs? Perhaps moving out to Turlock or Fresno (with more potential job prospects and cheaper housing) would make a lot more sense. Of course, if you’re more concerned about stirring up shit than genuinely helping out, it might screw up your best-laid plans to foment a revolution of the unwashed masses, but I’m sure that others can live with it… At its worse, it is Jack Boot power ploy that fosters further social attrition, denies those much-touted inalienable rights to certain classes of people based on a "means test"—

ALL of us are subject to a "means test", and there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. I can’t afford to live in a 4 BR, 2 BA house overlooking the Pacific, so I find suitable accomodations within my means on the Penninsula with the rest of the middle class. I don’t demand special favors, nor do I have any resentment for those who got their financial house in order so they could afford such accomodations. Even amongst people I know who bring home 6-figure incomes, I hear them wondering aloud if they want to remain in the area, with the taxes, traffic, high property values (and loonies like you), contemplating whether they would be better of taking a slight pay cut and moving elsewhere.  SO, if even reasonably successful people acknowledge that there is no given right to live in a certain area, what makes YOU think that people who contribute LITTLE OR NOTHING TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY (keeping social workers and self-proclaimed activists busy is NOT productive activity) have any RIGHT to camp out in places they obviously can’t afford? from those who have little, it shall be taken…and to those who have more, it shall be given—upside down Marxism for the benefit of the so-called "beneficent," and encourages the necessary sentiments for "socially-acceptable genocide" ("pro bono publico").

Sorry, but I don’t think you’re going to find a dictionary that equates not subsidizing bums in high-rent areas with "genocide". More proof that you lost it a long time ago, George. No embryonic Capitalist Pig that is presently not worth even his weight in pork fat is going to heed your advice and move his ass to Barstow, CA , just because the rent is cheaper there and the chicks are free.

And if he can afford to live where he currently is, he won’t (but at the same time, he’ll take a 1 BR apartment near compensatory employment before he camps out in a floodplain just to be near the beach).  However, your charges (who aren’t exactly on the ‘fast track’) might benefit from such a move. You understand why places like Barstow exist, don’t you? They allow people of modest means and minimum skills to live in an environment where rent is cheap enough that one who WISHES to work can find it, and afford digs with a roof over their head and a lock on the front door. Ever considered that some people may find that PREFERABLE to living a life dependent on self-proclaimed "do-gooders" like you? :O( And just what is it that is stopping the so-called affluent citizens from moving away from the madding crowd?  They’re not *that* affluent, I take it.  Many just a paycheck or mortgage payment away from a "Bum-friendly" social program.  Sorry, your metaphor has become a cliche.

Sorry, but most people aren’t a paycheck away from homelessness and poverty, regardless of the crap your believe by others whose understanding of basic economics is as suspect as yours. (3) Misrepresenting above situation created by (2) in order to give others the impression that the problem is greater than it actually is, and using this as a wedge to demand special considerations in the allottment of social services, funding, and to extract leniency in the enforcement of certain ordinances, such as those addressing loitering, tresspassing, and behavior jeapordizing the health and safety of the general populace. You mean creation and/or further maintenance of a welfare state that provides cushy jobs for middle class stalwarts and their minions?

And self-proclaimed … read more »

Response:

No, I was the guy who went to the gym, shaved and showered before showing up to work, and moved into an apartment when I had down payment for the rent. I did the same thing at Cal one semester when I ran out of money. It was my senior year, so there was no way in hell I was going to give up going to school because of a minor inconvenience. One of my classmates lived out of a station wagon for a year when he was working old mineral claims in in Arizona. He has even more contempt for lazy homeless bums than I do…

OK, explain the economy of that situation:  Neither of the two of you has any money so you are both homeless.  What did the two of you do?  Trade eachother the common dollar in exchange for a throat swabing? Is *that* where you learned all of yer "economics"? "Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love." — "A General Theory Of Love"  Thanks, Mom

Response:

How uncaring must you be to overlook the hardships Stain underwent as a pimply young lad shyly blossoming under the neglectful tutelage of his adoptive parents, Siegfried and Roy, those infamous gay twin commie siblings of the Rosenbergs.  

You are correct, of course.  It was out of line for me to not recognize that he was that close to the Rosenbergs. Some of the old habits Stain acquired back then die harder than others, his transvestite dress sense being one of them.  You have to admit that for a short fat balding constipated guy with a harelip, Stain indeed looks particularly felching in that maroon spandex DKNY teddy, his convenience crotch coyly set to "stun".

Gee, thanks *so* much.  You recognize that now, as I drift off to sleep tonight, the mental image that you just gave me will drift into my mind, causing me to sit bolt-upright. Between attending ‘trade’ shows at his local faith-based spoo kitchen, Stain scores a little ready cash to supplement his dole money by giving his fellow lonely gay Republicans a ‘helping hand’ under the table, up and down the soi-disant ‘peninsula’.  Stain de STD’s lifestyle choices may not be to everyone’s taste, nor have any taste whatsoever; but he does like to strut his stuff in the public eye, no matter how hideous it makes him appear.  

So, according to your observations of him, he *doesn’t sleep under overpasses? I’m not questioning what you are saying.  It seems that you know him far better than do I (and a great deal more than I would want to).  I just want to make sure that I understand correctly. If that is true, it is the state that suffers.  According to the nuze releases from CalTrans, they have to take down all of the ‘Murikun flags, suggesting that we really *need* asome sort of non-political decorations done to the underpasses and I’m thinking that Scam is just the one to do it.  You know, those types have a very good sense of style. You can either take Stain de STD with a pinch of bleach and baking soda, given his role as the GOP’s shared needle, or else reject Stain’s loathsome pleas for attention out of hand.  I really don’t blame you for choosing the latter.  

Well, I’m just as anxious to avoid his hand, given the many places where it has been. A little bit of Stain’s drag show goes a long way.  The rest of him is obviously going nowhere.

I understand that he has reservations at Tinkers Dam, this cuming Satyrday night.  That suggests that he is going at least there. "Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love." — "A General Theory Of Love"  Thanks, Mom

Response:

Glen Appleby wrote of Stain de STD: Alors, maintenant, je me pr

Related Posts

Leave a Reply