Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

by Jack

What do you get with unbridled compassion, absent common sense and accountability?  You get filthy s- – – holes.  You get epic squalor in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, etc.  Now read on:

2018- LATimes:  “Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor. That’s according to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in the cost of housing, food, utilities and clothing, and which includes noncash government assistance as a form of income.” 

Cont- “California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments and “other public welfare,” according to the Census Bureau. California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients.

The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse.

A recent study said a large portion of the homeless were either mentally ill or drug addicts or a combination thereof with estimates as high as 92%.  The drug addiction either caused or contributed to their mental illness.  In such cases, without forced intervention there is almost zero prospects for recovery and we have virtually no forced intervention save for the most extreme cases.   Even under the best of circumstances an addict has less than a 10% chance for recovery, heroin is about 2%.

California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price.

Tiny houses and wet shelters aka low barrier shelters aren’t doing anything to solve the major issues, they are just feel good efforts for the liberals.  And I believe they are helping to exacerbate the problem for the communities that offer such things!    The communities that don’t offer the homeless perks and educate their citizens about giving money directly to panhandlers fair much better.

California has long been one of the top states for welfare benefits and as such its also become a tremendous magnet for the nations poor, mentally ill, drug addicted and chronic homeless.   Of course the liberals would deny this reality, but the evidence is becoming overwhelming.  Assemblyman Travis Allen portrayed the depths of California’s human emergency thusly:  “Homelessness has skyrocketed across California. We have the nation’s highest homelessness rate and the nation’s highest homeless population.”  And liberals think its all about minimum wage and affordable housing. 

In 2017 HUD said California had the third highest homeless rate nationally with 34 in every 10,000 people in the state experiencing homelessness.  Two states are worse off: New York and Hawaii.  And what does CA, NY and Hi have in common?  Same thing Seattle and San Francisco have… they are bastions of unbridled liberalism.

If we could raise the minimum wage high enough we could solve the homeless problem…..right?

“California lawmakers recently passed a measure raising the minimum wage from $10 an hour to $15 an hour by 2022 — but a higher minimum wage will do nothing for the 60% of Californians who live in poverty and don’t have jobs. And research indicates that it could cause many who do have jobs to lose them. A Harvard University study found evidence that “higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants” in the Bay Area, where more than a dozen cities and counties, including San Francisco, have changed their minimum-wage ordinances in the last five years. “Estimates suggest that a one-dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14% increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating),” the report says. These restaurants are a significant source of employment for low-skilled and entry-level workers.” (LA Times)

Locally, the new Chico city council is proving that they have learned absolutely nothing from the bad examples in other cities and now Chico wants to try it, even thought past practice says it does not work!  Specifically, this would be Chico’s attempt to build more shelters, more tiny houses and a new wet shelter.  Even worse, they have not figured out that most basic principle of all, that the more you offer the more will come.  

At this advanced stage of the game the city council still has no clue who they are trying to help?  Are they helping drug addicts, alcoholics, mentally ill, chronically homeless, exactly who are they trying to reach and where do they come from?   How can they expect success without knowing something so elemental?    

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

  1. J Soden says:

    It’s no coincidence that the states with the highest taxes and most intrusive goofernment have become $hitholes and have been run by the Demwits for decades. Giveaway$ to welfare recipients and Illegal aliens – yes, I said Illegal aliens – have done nothing to help the taxpayers in IL, NY and Taxifornia.
    Those who can have already left and those who can’t are outnumbered at the voting booth by the recipients of such large$$. Was born in what was once the Golden State that has been replaced with Bums, Illegals and Druggies. Have no desire to ever return.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Thanks Pie and JS. Chris Humanitarian Jack is alive and well, but I believe in tough love and accountability as part of my humanitarian outreach.

  2. Pie Guevara says:

    “Tiny houses and wet shelters aka low barrier shelters aren’t doing anything to solve the major issues, they are just feel good efforts for the liberals. And I believe they are helping to exacerbate the problem for the communities that offer such things!”

    Precisely.

  3. Chris says:

    Well, Humanitarian Jack didn’t last long.

    But Libby and I will keep trying to appeal to your better angels. If not for your betterment, than for our own.

    • Joe says:

      Lead by example.

      Take 5 homeless into your own home then report back.

      • Chris says:

        It will never cease to amaze me how many on the right seem to think this is not only a good argument, but a trump card that instantly shuts down the conversation and wins the debate.

        The liberal argument is not that everybody should take 5 homeless people into their home. It’s that the poor should be helped through government programs funded by taxpayers. As long as liberals vote for politicians who will support such programs, and pay their taxes accordingly, it makes no sense to accuse us of hypocrisy for not doing something that we’re not asking anyone else to do. All we’re asking you to do is support the same policies we support. That isn’t hypocrisy.

        If liberals were asking others to take 5 homeless people into their home, you’d have a point. But we’re not, so you don’t.

        If you’re going to constantly accuse the other side of hypocrisy, you might want to learn what the word means and how it works.

        • Joe says:

          What if people think taking money (by force if necessary) from others to fund huge bureaucracies to help homeless people is not the best approach?

          Do these bureaucracies have any incentive to end homelessness or even decrease it? If they do, what happens to their budgets? Can you name one bureaucracy that solved the problem it was task with solving?

          • Chris says:

            What if people think taking money (by force if necessary) from others to fund huge bureaucracies to help homeless people is not the best approach?

            Then they should make that argument, instead of calling people who disagree with hypocrites.

          • Chris says:

            *instead of falsely calling people who disagree with them hypocrites.

          • Joe says:

            Again, you choose not to answer the questions:

            Do these bureaucracies have any incentive to end homelessness or even decrease it? If they do, what happens to their budgets? Can you name one bureaucracy that solved the problem it was task with solving?

          • Chris says:

            I answer your questions a great deal more often than you answer mine, so you can show a little patience and self-awareness.

            Yes, of course the government has a responsibility to reduce homelessness. As for “bureaucracies,” I don’t put much stock in those, but social welfare programs have made a difference—poverty fell by half in the decade after the Great Society programs were implemented. We’ve also since 2010 seen the results from Obama’s stimulus policies, which resulted in nine consistent years of falling unemployment and poverty rates. Of course, the right wants to pretend those first six years never happened and that we were in a never-ending recession that began when Obama was sworn in and lasted until Trump was sworn in. But the facts tell a different story.

      • Pie Guevara says:

        Joe, Chris declines.

        Evidently it is one thing to accept (if not advocate) the filth, needles, drug abuse, crime and mountains of trash that typify homeless camps inundating California cities (including Chico) and another to actually have to live with them.

        Moreover, I doubt you will see Chris offering personal sanctuary to any illegal aliens. It is also one thing to accept (if not advocate) 100,000 dirt poor brown people a month flooding across the border and another to actually have to live with them.

        Pie Guevara is a trademark of Engulf and Devour Investments LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Walton Industries which, in turn, is wholly owned by David Walton. You can follow me on Twitter (@pieguevara) but I would not recommend it.

        • Chris says:

          “100,000 dirt poor brown people a month flooding across the border”

          A racist fantasy in your head. Cite the source for this number. You can’t, racist.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Oops, I misspoke. More than 103,000 migrants were arrested for crossing or denied entry at the Mexico border in March. About 92,000 of the 103,000 migrants were apprehended between ports of entry. That is to say, they crossed over into the United States illegally. That amounts to approximately 2,967 illegal crossings a day.

            These numbers come from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. You can look it up for yourself, Chris, I would not want to deny you the pleasure of finding it out for yourself.

            Calling me a racist again, eh? You pathetic, sociopathic, brain-dead progressive twit. What a laughable, predictable and silly little boy you are. Does your mother know what you are up to? How about your poor wife? Has she left you yet? Perhaps she has no idea what a ridiculous, disgusting and infantile little creep you are. Keep up the good work, master(de)bater!

          • Chris says:

            You took the highest number ever and represented it as an average, when it is nowhere close to the average. But sure.

            https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

            And yes, ranting about how we need to stop the threat of “dirt poor brown people” is racist. You are a racist.

            Next.

        • Joe says:

          “Joe, Chris declines.”

          Sometimes I think Chris and Libby are not people but DNC bots designed to waste our time.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Naw, I have written software that is much better than them. They are for real. No programmer worth his salt would design a program so pathetic that it acted like Chris and Lippy.

    • Pie Guevara says:

      I love it when Chris and Lippy put on their holier-than-thou hats and strut. They’re so cute.

      • Chris says:

        You do make it easy, gleefully celebrating the idea of dropping off (in your view) hardened criminals into cities so that they can hurt people who vote differently than you do. If you don’t want people thinking they’re better than you, then…be better. Hey, maybe even take the first lady’s advice, even though her husband never will: be best!

        • Pie Guevara says:

          There ya go, Chris, making an ass out of yourself with assumptions. I am not gleeful about sending hardened criminals into cities, I am gleeful at your and the Democrats blatant and hilarious hypocrisy. Trump played you perfectly. Now you have to eat your own bs. Keep twisting, dodging and spinning, dude! I love it!

          Pie Guevara is a trademark of Engulf and Devour Investments LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Walton Industries which, in turn, is wholly owned by David Walton. You can follow me on Twitter (@pieguevara) but I would not recommend it.

          • Chris says:

            Explain the hypocrisy. You can’t. I don’t believe most illegal immigrants are “hardened criminals,” so the plan to release illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities would be a hilarious failure on his part—hence why the mayors of those cities have said that those immigrants would be welcome.

            The left can acknowledge that fact while also condemning Trump’s *intention* to release people he believes are hardened criminals into cities that tend to vote in ways he doesn’t like. There is no contradiction between those two things. You either don’t know what hypocrisy is, or you’re pretending not to in order to curry favor with idiots.

            I’d like to believe the latter. But maybe I’m just overly optimistic about your intelligence. Hey, I’m a teacher. I live to see untapped potential.

    • Joe says:

      What about the poor “migrants,” Chris?

      How much do you donate to “migrangs” vs “homeless?”

      You do understand, that for every dollar you, OK, not you as you want the government to take other people’s money instead of using your own…anyway, every dollar the government spends on a migrant it can’t spend it on a homeless.

      And regarding “migrants,” how can you have open borders and a generous welfare state? How can the needs of millions of poor immigrants be paid for?

      Do you acknowledge any limits to immigration? If so what are they?

      • Joe says:

        Again, Chris refuses to answer the questions.

      • Chris says:

        How much do you donate to “migrangs” vs “homeless?”

        I make a monthly donation to the ACLU, which fights for the rights of migrants (and for your rights). I can’t recall donating to a charity specifically devoted to helping the homeless. (But again, this is irrelevant to my position on funding programs for both through taxes.)

        You do understand, that for every dollar you, OK, not you as you want the government to take other people’s money instead of using your own…

        I want the government to take some of my money, too.

        anyway, every dollar the government spends on a migrant it can’t spend it on a homeless.

        K.

        And regarding “migrants,” how can you have open borders and a generous welfare state? How can the needs of millions of poor immigrants be paid for?

        I don’t favor completely open borders.

        Do you acknowledge any limits to immigration? If so what are they?

        I don’t think we should allow anyone in with a criminal record. If we limited it to just that, we’d save innumerable resources that we currently devote to, for example, deporting Gold Star spouses who’ve been here for fifteen years and have never committed any other crime.

        https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2019/04/15/ice-deports-gonzalez-spouse-u-s-soldier-killed-afghanistan/3477332002/

  4. Post Scripts says:

    Re – Tiny Houses….”Why The Tiny House Movement Is Doomed To Fail

    1.The tiny house movement is a counter-culture movement: I was born in the early 1960s. As a kid, I remember the hippies. People were living in Volkswagon busses and traveling around the country smoking pot, preaching about love and freedom. The tiny house movement feels similar. There may be less pot smoking, but the idea behind it is the same: to find ways to live more freely. The problem is that counter-culture movements rarely work their way into mainstream culture.

    2. The tiny house movement has an escapist mindset: I’ve often dreamed of escaping the 9-to-5 world and moving to a cabin in the mountains. I’ve pictured myself living in a tiny house next to the ocean. It’s an escapist fantasy. Sure, I might be able to scale down and live in a quiet and peaceful place when I retire, but right now I need to work and take care of Annie. Let’s be realistic. I wonder how many people who build tiny houses live in them long term? I’ve known several people who have moved out to the country, only to abandon the lifestyle after a few years due to the constraints and limitations.

    3. The tiny house movement is evasive of authority: If we want to make a new culture stick, we need to work with authority, not against it. Most tiny houses are now built on wheels. This makes little sense to me. If I wanted something on wheels, I’d just buy a small travel trailer. But I understand that people build tiny houses on wheels to evade building codes and taxes. Evading rules and regulations is not a great way to move a cause forward. It’s hard to get governmental and cultural support for something that goes counter to the status quo.

    4. The tiny house movement is not practical: Okay, I’ll admit, they’re cute. I’ve even sketched out a few of my own floor plans. I find it fun and challenging to make the most efficient use of space. But 100 to 200 square-foot homes are not practical for most people. They also aren’t practical to build in suburban areas. Not everybody who wants to live simply wants to park their house on wheels on a friend’s property out in the boonies. As we age, many of us would rather be closer to cultural activities, medical facilities and other conveniences of small towns or cities.

    5. The tiny house movement appeals to a small population: The idea of building a little house on wheels only appeals to a certain type of person. In fact, some of those people seem a little bit off: recluses, rebels, and drifters. Hey, I fit the bill too, but this may not give the movement the best possible public image.

  5. Joe says:

    Don’t forget, Jack, the idiots on the city council said they will get rid of fossil fuels in this city by 2030 or sooner. If so, we’ll all be poor.

  6. Joe says:

    Jack,

    This is what the idiots who run your city just declared:

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: the City of Chico commits to update its Climate Action Plan2020, to eliminate citywide greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible and no later than
    2030,and accelerate adaptation and resilience strategies in preparation for intensifying climate impacts;

    How are they going to do that? Outlaw the gas we put in our cars? Outlaw the natural gas we use to heat our homes and cook? Outlaw the diesel that the trucks use to bring essential goods to the city?

    Why don’t you do a post about this?

  7. J Soden says:

    WHAT??????? Has Cher had a wake-up call??????
    https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/04/14/cher-los-angeles-cant-take-care-of-its-own-how-can-it-take-care-of-more-immigrants/
    She must have found some Illegals camping on her lawn!

    • Peggy says:

      I saw that too and was pleasantly shocked at least one Liberal finally got it. Good for Cher to also have the guts to Tweet about it. The, “not in my backyard” crowd are being forced to realize that there is a problem and just how bad it is.

  8. Peggy says:

    This is why I don’t believe The Cato Institute’s study that fewer crimes are committed by Illegals per ratio than citizens. Most of the crimes by these animals go unreported.

    https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Teen-charged-with-sexually-assaulting-2-year-old-13759562.php

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *