"High taxes be damned, the rich keep moving to California"

When one is a socialist, they fight hard to preserve socialism, and each time assuring us, hah, this country is not socialist.

Sure, I walk slowly back since they breed and infect posters.

 

Right. I said it is an economic system where the government owns and operates means of production, which is precisely what it is.

 

Fine, put out the numbers. How much do they collect in total, and how much is spend on illegals?

 

Military is a service funded and operated by the government, so it would suggest we must be a socialist country already.

However, the question is whether or not the military is really socialism. It goes back to "means of production", and the military really doesn't qualify. It is a public service like police and fire department. Other countries include health care and education as public service.

So there are public services and there are means of production. In a socialist country the government owns and operates means of production aka corporations.

 

It is ironic that the communists in America now suggest moving to Russia to escape communism.....

 

They do? I had no idea, but then again I don't know any communists. Sounds like you have some inside information.

I also didn't know Russia is still communist.

You expressed your desire to be as far from liberals as possible, and I think Russia would fit the bill.

 

If you know liberals, then you know communists.

 

I know some liberals, but all of them favor free market economies. None of them come anywhere close to being communists.

Learn the meaning of words before using them in sentences.

 

No liberals favor free market economies. They support government control of buisness. Minimum wage, Social Security, Fed OSHA, FCC, FTC, IRS, NTS, USDA, and on, and on, and on.

 

More like this...

 

Sure they do. I never ran into one who favors a system where the government owns and operates means of production. I lived in a Nordic country, and even they are all for free market economies, even though they also support taxpayer funded public services.

But now I see where your confusion stems from. You do not know the difference between a "Public Service" and "Means of Production". Military is a public service as is the police force, but they are not socialist, or communist as you suggest. The Constitution authorizes the government to promote/provide public services. The never ending argument in US is which public services the government should provide, and which ones is should not. Some argue health care is a public service the government should provide, and others argue it is not. Neither POV is unconstitutional.

 

In the meanwhile in Houston, TX. Whats the point of posting these kinds of pics when every State has homeless people?

 

What do you suggest to solve the issue of homeless Americans? Los Angeles can't remove the belongings of the poor on the streets per court order. California is trying to help these folks but the sheer number of homeless is staggering. Honolulu/ Seattle/ Miami are facing similar challenges.

 

Homeless are attracted to liberal areas. Liberal areas subsidize homelessness. If you subsidize something, you get more of it.
I am not concerned with trying to solve the homeless problem, I am concerned with getting away from it.

 

Down here in South Florida many of the homeless are clearly not well mentally, so maybe helping such people would be a start. Those who are not mentally ill are another story. Some homeless come to FL, because they can live outdoors all year round and same is probably true with CA and south Texas. They seem to have given up on life, and choose to live on the streets and do drugs. In this country you can do everything right all your life, and then lose everything due to illness, or because of an accident, and I think there is room for improvement in that arena to reduce the numbers, but in the end of the day there are always bums who have chosen to be homeless. IMO they can be left alone, and cities can create laws to forbid "camping" in downtown areas.

 

I worked for 2 years at a Catholic shelter in Skid Row [near downtown LA]. Many if not most of the homeless were either mentally ill or chronic substance abusers [often both]. A surprisingly high number were Vietnam War vets. Private non-profit organizations as well as public funded social service departments are building low income/ no income housing. Social workers/ community workers work in homeless encampments attempting to assist these desperate people. New York city has made significant progress in providing shelter and hardly anyone lives on the streets like they do in other cities.

 

The mentally ill are a minority of the homeless population, although a significant fraction. For the most part homelessness is a lifestyle choice, one that burdens the rest of society.
This entire issue started when liberals decided it was somehow cruel to institutionalize and take care of people who could not take care of themselves. They reasoned it would be better to close the institutions, and to give the people support in the form of a check monthly and support services.
We can all see how that is working out.
I firmly believe everyone should have the freedom to live their lives as they please, so long as they do not prevent others from doing the same. The problem is, the homeless have demonstrated clearly they cannot exist within those perimeters. They burden society in serious and multiple ways. They lower the standard of living for everyone and are a public health danger.
If you want to go out in the wilderness and live off the land, go for it, but sleeping and crapping on city streets is unacceptable.
It is time to re-examine the use of institutions to care for those who have demonstrated that they cannot, or choose not to care for themselves.

 

You clearly don't understand and are ignorant about homelessness in America. Evidently you don't care and like many so-called Christian Republicans you blame the victim. Sorry you have zero credibility and humanity regarding this issue in my opinion.

 

Homelessness is caused by drug abuse and mental problems mostly. Giving social services might attract them to a certain area, but it doesn't cause more homelessness, just moves them around. The solution is better mental health treatment and fighting the opiod problem. Homelessness is exploding because of the opiod epidemic and meth epidemic, not because of some welfare state. I just spent 3 months in Spain, which has so much more of a welfare state than the US and you hardly see homeless people there at all. It is a solvable problem.

 

About 25% of homeless are mentally ill, while about 16% of prison population are mentally ill.

The biggest reasons or de-institutionalization was to save money, and the idea that new medications was enough to treat them, and because of the conditions in many mental health institutions.

Blaming the victim and partisan finger pointing are not solutions, but thanks for trying.

 

Jesus was homeless

 

I live In Los Angeles. I was taking my dog on a walk through the Sepulveda dam area and there is a huge homeless population there. There were tents, BBQs, fires, beers, music playing, and the smell of pot was everywhere. Shelters don't allow drugs or alcohol. Unless we are willing to enforce vagrancy laws and force them into shelters, how can we make a difference?

 

Yes homeless camps around the rivers [Los Angeles/ Santa Ana] are unsightly and present health problems [ie. typhoid outbreaks]. California must find housing for these folks. It is viewed as a crisis.

 

Los Angeles passed measures to fund programs for the homeless. Shelters exist and have empty beds. Again, they don't allow drugs or alcohol, so many choose to live in these encampments. The question is if we should make them go?

 

Then do us both a favor and stop replying to my posts.