San Francisco Passes Proposition C Also Known as the "Homeless Tax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Build up the jails, no niceties in them. (small cells with a toilet, sink, and bed, no TV, no radio, no phones, no windows, no nothing - maybe self help reading material of an agreed upon kind).

Get caught sleeping on the streets, peeing on the streets, or panhandling, automatic spend 3 days in jail with nothing but bread and water for food and drink. (No that's not inhumane...)

50% of the pan handlers and bums and freeloaders would disappear elsewhere after the first 90 days because there is now a real consequence. Sure, you'd have a percentage that really can't fix things themselves - and need assistance - but that number would be pretty dramatically reduced.

New York City cleaned up their streets under Giuliani. San Fran could do it too.
 
Archaea said:
Build up the jails, no niceties in them. (small cells with a toilet, sink, and bed, no TV, no radio, no phones, no windows, no nothing - maybe self help reading material of an agreed upon kind).

Get caught sleeping on the streets, peeing on the streets, or panhandling, automatic spend 3 days in jail with nothing but bread and water for food and drink. (No that's not inhumane...)

50% of the pan handlers and bums and freeloaders would disappear elsewhere after the first 90 days because there is now a real consequence. Sure, you'd have a percentage that really can't fix things themselves - and need assistance - but that number would be pretty dramatically reduced.

New York City cleaned up their streets under Giuliani. San Fran could do it too.
Click to expand...

No, you got it all wrong. San Farn needs to build buildings designated as safe places for the homeless to shoot up. I can not wait for the first ones to open up, homeless crisis averted.
 
filip said:
What? Both sides buy votes (speech) according to you, but did you know both sides take money (speech) from private interests. Yes money is speech for everyone, supreme court decided this.

Now the Super PAC funnel this money to your politician of choice. There is no right or left everyone has their hand in the cookie jar, just ask the justice department: they bought 250 muffins for $4200 with taxpayers money.

If the government pays that much for muffins how much is spent for everything else on our dollar?
Click to expand...

I get the impression that you believe we disagree, but I am not clear on exactly what.

Yes, both sides absolutely have their hands in the cookie jar, but Citizens United -- the SCOTUS decision you alluded to -- was very split along party lines. More $$ in politics == more corruption. It's inevitable.
 
A very high percentage of homeless do have some form of mental disorder. And public housing shelters aren't all peaches and cream. They have to hire security gaurds to protect people from predators and mentally dangerous people. A lot will have to sleep in an open area that isn't exactly the quietest place.

I worked the soup kitchen and food bank mutiple times. I've seen families but most of those coming in had some serious mental or addiction issues. Some of them smelled like brew houses.

That's not to say that good people don't end up homeless. But soup kitchens and food banks also take in homeless and offer them jobs. If the person works hard and is honest reliable and stays clean they get placed. It's a second humble start.

I don't pass judgement on the down trodden. They have their own life issues they have to navigate on their own or with the help of their higher power. None of us are perfect.

That said the effectiveness of such programs is questionable past a certain point.
 
After getting into a smaller and yet similar discussion on Facebook a few days ago, I have also left it, and decided that most of this is silly stuff... "I got my stuff, to heck with anyone else" still seems to be in here tho... Someday, after we lose all of our jobs to Ais and robots, or we die out due to weather conditions and wars, this will all be moot anyway. No one will have anything. /exit stage left.
 
purple_monster said:
yeah that might work for the US if we didnt have this giant thing called Mexico next to us. It hurts to hear I know.
Click to expand...
And yet Romanian and Bulgarian people are not invading Denmark and living off the system, although they could.
Hell all they have to do is get in a car and drive, there isn't even a border check to pass through all the nations that you have to cross to get there since they're in the EU.
 
bugleyman said:
I get the impression that you believe we disagree, but I am not clear on exactly what.

Yes, both sides absolutely have their hands in the cookie jar, but Citizens United -- the SCOTUS decision you alluded to -- was very split along party lines. More $$ in politics == more corruption. It's inevitable.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that more money in politics is NOT good. However, the Citizens United decision merely balanced the playing field. Previously, money was allowed to flood in from predominantly leftist sources. CU allowed right-wing sources to flood their money into politics.

As I see it, there are two conflicting sides to the money in politics issue:

1. Freedom of Expression and Assembly means that anyone can say what they'd like, as in "support Candidate A". They do this via advertising and other marketplace activities....which takes money. Hence, donations to a cause are a form of expression (and the free movement of money correlates to a basic right in a true capitalist system).

2. Corruption of elected officials is a real problem. When money floods in, corruption occurs. Advertising sways opinion and changes behavior (or else Tide and Cheer would not spend millions on advertising). This means that big money will win more votes than less money. This is fundamentally wrong.

My solution would be to allow anyone to contribute towards campaigns, but all the money goes into one big pot and then gets allocated equally to all candidates. (Obviously, this would mean spurious candidates would pop up to grab money and funnel it to their friends in the media.)

My better solution would be to a ban ALL money or outside influence. There are precedents for limiting Freedom of Speech in certain cases. This would be one more. The problem with this would be determining the line between outright (banned) campaigning, and "soft" influencing.

Meantime, I'm eager to see what happens to the $50 Million businesses in San Fran. I wonder how many will stay there?
 
NukeDukem said:
BINGO. How do people think nations like Germany afford such lavish social benefits? THEY DON'T HAVE A MILITARY BUDGET. They have been living high off the backs of the UNITED STATES TAXPAYER for decades. It is time for Europe (and Japan) to defend themselves. It is time to close up shop and start using OUR tax money for OUR people. (San Francisco homeless included.)
Click to expand...

Sometimes USAers are so full of themselves.

Both countries you're using as examples can NOT have a military per agreements past WW II. So it's not like you guys are nice and charitable, it's just that they were hamstrung in order to not have the means to rebel.

It's not a benefit, it's punishment.
 
NukeDukem said:
BINGO. How do people think nations like Germany afford such lavish social benefits? THEY DON'T HAVE A MILITARY BUDGET. They have been living high off the backs of the UNITED STATES TAXPAYER for decades. It is time for Europe (and Japan) to defend themselves. It is time to close up shop and start using OUR tax money for OUR people. (San Francisco homeless included.)
Click to expand...
I understand that the US loves to take credit for "protecting" other countries ... does it also take credit for making the world much less safe and stable? Such as;

Overthrowing the government of Afghanistan by funding, supplying and training the Mujahideen, including Osama Bin Laden, who eventually took control of Afghanistan and certain factions splintered off and became part of Al Quaeda.

Or When the US helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran, because the Iranians grew tired of ~98% of Irans oil wealth being funnelled out of the country. The US installed the pro-western Shah who brutalized the people. The people turned to the only other option they had, Khomeini.

There are also the governments of Guatemala in 1954, The Congo in 1960, The Dominican Republic in 1961, South Vietnam in 1963, Brazil in 1964, Chile in 1974.

More recently there is the mess with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria ... the list goes on an on.

My point is you shouldn't be so quick to pat yourself on the back.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yeah, I've seen that article. It hangs its hat too much on the word "socialst".

The likes of Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez aren't socialist either. Yes they use that term, but they define it differently than you do. They define it to mean exactly what the Scandinavian countries have done traditionally, using regulated free market capitalism to pay for an advanced social safety net.

Neither Bernie nor Ocasio-Cortez are proposing Soviet style planned economies in the U.S. They probably should have chosen to call themselves "Social Democrats" instead of Socialists. This would have been more accurate.

The bottom line is, the policies they propose are similar to those traditionally used in Scandinavia. The label you apply to it (Socialism, or Social Democracy) is really just semantics.
Click to expand...

I think that depends on what you think is Socialist. I consider the government providing everything as socialist. When you control a person's daily needs, it is socialist imo.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/35921/ocasio-cortez-stumped-when-asked-how-shell-pay-40-joseph-curl

In this article, she couldn't explain how she would pay for a Medicare for all
NukeDukem said:
BINGO. How do people think nations like Germany afford such lavish social benefits? THEY DON'T HAVE A MILITARY BUDGET. They have been living high off the backs of the UNITED STATES TAXPAYER for decades. It is time for Europe (and Japan) to defend themselves. It is time to close up shop and start using OUR tax money for OUR people. (San Francisco homeless included.)
Click to expand...

Interesting you bring that up. Back when I used to work at HP and they were going through huge cuts, we had a bunch of Costa Ricans come to San Diego for training. They were all nice and very well educated. I didn't know enough programming to move into another position and after talking to one of them, they said I should go to Costa Rica to get a bachelor's in computer science saying a 4-year degree there would only run me about $3000 to $4000. He even offered a place to live. I asked how they could have such cheap schooling and his response was "you know your military?" I say yeah and then he says "that's our military". In other words they do not have a huge military budget. I had no idea this was a thing for the U.S. to 'loan' out our military to other countries. This allowed them to have extremely cheap college.

On a side note, compared to Costa Rica, apparently we put too much salt in our food. When his mother first saw him after coming back she said he looked 'puffy'. He said Americans we put salt in everything and would probably find Costa Rican food bland.
 
bugleyman said:
Here's a funny story: I had never, ever visited Reddit until the umpteenth time someone on these boards told me to "go back to Reddit."

Reddit isn't perfect, but at least most subreddits don't bother with the pretense of impartiality. If you log into r/Conservative, you know what you're getting.
Click to expand...
like anywhere else, including here, its a bubble. I was just referring to this particular conversation where its clear some users haven't been challenged on this issue before anywhere else or irl most likely, so they go straight for the predictable leftist platitudes. r/diy is one of my favorite forums of all time though :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top