Californians are fleeing the state in droves.....273,833 people lost since 2010 (San Francisco: floors, bus)

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

Because they were tied up, put on a bus and forcibly shipped out? This is a red herring. By that I mean that whatever the financial costs of this it can't possibly amount to anything that would be considered substantial budget wise. If I were homeless in TN I'd do my best to make it to CA. Bus is probably cheapest so that is what I would try. I'd come to CA for the good weather, rich tourists to panhandle, and assistance. The article that Gentoo posted mentions 500 people. Could 500 people make a dent in CA? Again, you get less of what you tax and more of what you subsidize. Right wrong or indifferent, this is just how humans work.

And how can you not fathom a place that is pretty darned expensive to live might have a lot of homeless? Does that take a leap of faith?

Yes, they come from all over, and we are expected to take care of all of them. So our taxes go up, and more come, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that an ever-increasing percentage of public funds are used to take care of everybody else's "problem children". Meanwhile, we get heckled for attempting to do so by those who wouldn't bother to try to take care of their own.

In such a situation, it's understandable to question a liberal philosophy that appears to naively save the world, at the expense of sound fiscal practice. But is that worse than simply ignoring problems in states' own back yards?

[Wilson502]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

This is statistically impossible.

According to the Census Bureau's 2012 estimates, the biggest 'program' is public health and of the 96 million Americans who recieve health care from the govt, 11 million live in CA.

11 million is not a third of 96 million.

As far as cash public assistance, the Census Bureau says out of 3.3 million Americans who recieve such aid, 500,000 live in CA.

The percentages are roughly the same for SSI and food stamps.

So it seems that your point is largely inaccurate.


I can dig this but its generally unrelated to welfare and actually caring for those who need it.

Im not talking about public health, im talking about welfare/public assistance, and California has about 1.5 million who get it not 500,000. And that works out to roughly 33% of the nation's public assistance recipients.

http://www.utsandiego.com/documents/...fornia-stacks/

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Great. Where are you going to put all these people, and how many habitats shall be destroyed in the process?

What habitats have been destroyed as a result of Dade County high rise developments, from Miami Beach northwards to Palm Beach?

If they had disallowed the high rise developments along the coast line, more habitats would have been destroyed, eating up more of the Everglades with single family homes!

25 miles of coastline in Malibu alone! Let the cranes rise to the skies!

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Yes, they come from all over, and we are expected to take care of all of them. So our taxes go up, and more come, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that an ever-increasing percentage of public funds are used to take care of everybody else's "problem children". Meanwhile, we get heckled for attempting to do so by those who wouldn't bother to try to take care of their own.

In such a situation, it's understandable to question a liberal philosophy that appears to naively save the world, at the expense of sound fiscal practice. But is that worse than simply ignoring problems in states' own back yards?

All the problems that are easy to solve were solved a long time ago. This is a problem that isn't easy to solve and no country has solved it. I don't know if I can buy that this is a significant budget factor. I'm talking about aid to the homeless specifically. I can't say one way or the other without seeing a breakdown.

[Fjroekdk]

Originally Posted by tijlover

What habitats have been destroyed as a result of Dade County high rise developments, from Miami Beach northwards to Palm Beach?

If they had disallowed the high rise developments along the coast line, more habitats would have been destroyed, eating up more of the Everglades with single family homes!

25 miles of coastline in Malibu alone! Let the cranes rise to the skies!

Dade county may not be here in a hundred years. 3-5 feet of water is all it will take.

The "glades" are as good as gone. CA would be wise to suspend any development below 50 feet of seal level.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Wilson502

Im not talking about public health, im talking about welfare/public assistance, and California has about 1.5 million who get it not 500,000. And that works out to roughly 33% of the nation's public assistance recipients.

Welfare: How California stacks up | UTSanDiego.com

Well, According to the Census Bureau, 3.3 million Americans recieved public assistance in 2012 and CA is home to 500,000, which is about 15%

Slightly higher than our fair share, but we also send way more than our fair share to DC to a point where plenty of states are mooching off of us, so I dont mind 15% of cash assistance recipients being from CA.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by tijlover

What habitats have been destroyed as a result of Dade County high rise developments, from Miami Beach northwards to Palm Beach?

If they had disallowed the high rise developments along the coast line, more habitats would have been destroyed, eating up more of the Everglades with single family homes!

25 miles of coastline in Malibu alone! Let the cranes rise to the skies!

This would work on those who don't know any better but no. the Everglades are STILL being destroyed due to all that development due to water being diverted.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

All the problems that are easy to solve were solved a long time ago. This is a problem that isn't easy to solve and no country has solved it.

Before I can respond properly I need to know, what's your reason for saying this?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Well, According to the Census Bureau, 3.3 million Americans recieved public assistance in 2012 and CA is home to 500,000, which is about 15%

Slightly higher than our fair share, but we also send way more than our fair share to DC to a point where plenty of states are mooching off of us, so I dont mind 15% of cash assistance recipients being from CA.

^^Well said +1

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Before I can respond properly I need to know, what's your reason for saying this?

He brought up the homeless problem. It's a difficult problem to solve. Ditto for poverty. If those problems were easy to solve they would have been solved long ago and in many countries. This is not to be construed as meaning we do nothing, just that we acknowledge it isn't easy. The difficult problems are analogous to a medical condition that requires medication with a lot of side effects. I don't think the homeless are much of a factor in the budget though. I think it's a red herring. Non-profits, especially religious organizations, do more to help the homeless than any government does. Maybe some localities offer their own assistance, but non-profits and Churches do the bulk of the aid. San Francisco in particular offers more than most. One of the types of assistance San Francisco offers is a bus ticket home. They offer it for both homeless and low income people. A Bus Ticket Home