San Fran doesn't have the money so guess where it will come from. If
this does go through, sneaker stores, bling bling stores, new car dealerships, etc., will be rolling in the dough. And the people who
receive the money will be broke within a year... kinda like lottery
winners. Well, just like lottery winners.
They are buying votes with the citizens of San Francisco and ultimately, American tax payers' tax dollars.
Just when you think liberals can't get any dumber...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-reparations-panel-decided-5m-per-black-person-wasnt-math-formula
--
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem," - Ronald Reagan
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:26:53 AM UTC-8, George.Anthony wrote:this. At most they might tweak a few ordinances and move a bit more of their spending into Black neighborhoods. Who knows? Maybe even build a new park they can put a Black name on? Like maybe Angela Davis for example. She gets an honorable mention here
San Fran doesn't have the money so guess where it will come from. If
this does go through, sneaker stores, bling bling stores, new car
dealerships, etc., will be rolling in the dough. And the people who
receive the money will be broke within a year... kinda like lottery
winners. Well, just like lottery winners.
They are buying votes with the citizens of San Francisco and ultimately,
American tax payers' tax dollars.
Just when you think liberals can't get any dumber...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-reparations-panel-decided-5m-per-black-person-wasnt-math-formula
--
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem.
Government is the problem," - Ronald Reagan
This is another humorous story that isn't going anywhere. San Francisco is looking for ideas that won't cost them much, because they don't have much money to spend on this. Instead of coming up with serious ideas their committee came up with
TBhas since become a predominantly white, high-end area.
"One of the historical events the city looked into was the displacement of the black community in the Fillmore District in the 1960s. Known as the 'Harlem of the West,' nearly 900 businesses and 20,000 people were forced out of the neighborhood, which
The purpose of the reparations, San Francisco said, is not to make up for slavery - which was never legal in the state - but for 'the public policies explicitly created to subjugate black people in San Francisco by upholding and expanding the intentand legacy of chattel slavery.'
San Francisco isn't the only city that is struggling to find the perfect number to pay its black citizens, as a dozen others - such as Los Angeles. Boston and St. Louis - are also still debating it.Washington Post. It also faces a $728 million deficit over the next two years."
The cities that are considering reparations have to balance satisfying reparation advocates, while also keeping in mind that the majority of Americans oppose financial restitution.
A University of Massachusetts Amherst January poll found that six in ten opposed payouts to the descendants of slaves, while four in ten said the federal government 'definitely should not pursue' such a policy.
San Francisco's proposal outweighs several other cities, and reparations critics are concerned it will crack under the financial strain. The city, which is still recovering from the pandemic, has an annual budget of $14 billion, according to the
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11801303/San-Franciscos-reparations-committee-reveal-calculated-5M-payout.html
TB
On 2/28/2023 12:22 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:26:53 AM UTC-8, George.Anthony
wrote:
San Fran doesn't have the money so guess where it will come from. If
this does go through, sneaker stores, bling bling stores, new car
dealerships, etc., will be rolling in the dough. And the people who
receive the money will be broke within a year... kinda like lottery
winners. Well, just like lottery winners.
They are buying votes with the citizens of San Francisco and
ultimately,
American tax payers' tax dollars.
Just when you think liberals can't get any dumber...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-reparations-panel-decided-5m-per-black-person-wasnt-math-formula
--
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our
problem.
Government is the problem," - Ronald Reagan
This is another humorous story that isn't going anywhere.
San Francisco is looking for ideas that won't cost them much,
because they don't have much money to spend on this. Instead of
coming up with serious ideas their committee came up with this. At
most they might tweak a few ordinances and move a bit more of their
spending into Black neighborhoods. Who knows? Maybe even build a new
park they can put a Black name on? Like maybe Angela Davis for
example. She gets an honorable mention here for her White
grandparents. Some people think she should pay reparations.
TB
"One of the historical events the city looked into was the
displacement of the black community in the Fillmore District in the
1960s. Known as the 'Harlem of the West,' nearly 900 businesses and
20,000 people were forced out of the neighborhood, which has since
become a predominantly white, high-end area.
The purpose of the reparations, San Francisco said, is not to make
up for slavery - which was never legal in the state - but for 'the
public policies explicitly created to subjugate black people in San
Francisco by upholding and expanding the intent and legacy of
chattel slavery.'
San Francisco isn't the only city that is struggling to find the
perfect number to pay its black citizens, as a dozen others - such
as Los Angeles. Boston and St. Louis - are also still debating it.
The cities that are considering reparations have to balance
satisfying reparation advocates, while also keeping in mind that the
majority of Americans oppose financial restitution.
A University of Massachusetts Amherst January poll found that six in
ten opposed payouts to the descendants of slaves, while four in ten
said the federal government 'definitely should not pursue' such a
policy.
San Francisco's proposal outweighs several other cities, and
reparations critics are concerned it will crack under the financial
strain. The city, which is still recovering from the pandemic, has
an annual budget of $14 billion, according to the Washington Post.
It also faces a $728 million deficit over the next two years."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11801303/San-Franciscos-reparations-committee-reveal-calculated-5M-payout.html
TB
I would put nothing past liberals, especially west coast loons who
can't even clean shit off the sidewalks.
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:26:53 AM UTC-8, George.Anthony wrote:most they might tweak a few ordinances and move a bit more of their spending into Black neighborhoods. Who knows? Maybe even build a new park they can put a Black name on? Like maybe Angela Davis for example. She gets an honorable mention here for her
San Fran doesn't have the money so guess where it will come from. If
this does go through, sneaker stores, bling bling stores, new car dealerships, etc., will be rolling in the dough. And the people who receive the money will be broke within a year... kinda like lottery winners. Well, just like lottery winners.
They are buying votes with the citizens of San Francisco and ultimately, American tax payers' tax dollars.
Just when you think liberals can't get any dumber...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-reparations-panel-decided-5m-per-black-person-wasnt-math-formulaThis is another humorous story that isn't going anywhere. San Francisco is looking for ideas that won't cost them much, because they don't have much money to spend on this. Instead of coming up with serious ideas their committee came up with this. At
--
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem," - Ronald Reagan
TBhas since become a predominantly white, high-end area.
"One of the historical events the city looked into was the displacement of the black community in the Fillmore District in the 1960s. Known as the 'Harlem of the West,' nearly 900 businesses and 20,000 people were forced out of the neighborhood, which
The purpose of the reparations, San Francisco said, is not to make up for slavery - which was never legal in the state - but for 'the public policies explicitly created to subjugate black people in San Francisco by upholding and expanding the intentand legacy of chattel slavery.'
San Francisco isn't the only city that is struggling to find the perfect number to pay its black citizens, as a dozen others - such as Los Angeles. Boston and St. Louis - are also still debating it.Washington Post. It also faces a $728 million deficit over the next two years."
The cities that are considering reparations have to balance satisfying reparation advocates, while also keeping in mind that the majority of Americans oppose financial restitution.
A University of Massachusetts Amherst January poll found that six in ten opposed payouts to the descendants of slaves, while four in ten said the federal government 'definitely should not pursue' such a policy.
San Francisco's proposal outweighs several other cities, and reparations critics are concerned it will crack under the financial strain. The city, which is still recovering from the pandemic, has an annual budget of $14 billion, according to the
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11801303/San-Franciscos-reparations-committee-reveal-calculated-5M-payout.html
TB
George.Anthony wrote:
On 2/28/2023 12:22 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:26:53 AM UTC-8, George.Anthony
wrote:
San Fran doesn't have the money so guess where it will come from. If
this does go through, sneaker stores, bling bling stores, new car
dealerships, etc., will be rolling in the dough. And the people who
receive the money will be broke within a year... kinda like lottery
winners. Well, just like lottery winners.
They are buying votes with the citizens of San Francisco and
ultimately,
American tax payers' tax dollars.
Just when you think liberals can't get any dumber...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-reparations-panel-decided-5m-per-black-person-wasnt-math-formula
--
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our
problem.
Government is the problem," - Ronald Reagan
This is another humorous story that isn't going anywhere.
San Francisco is looking for ideas that won't cost them much,
because they don't have much money to spend on this. Instead of
coming up with serious ideas their committee came up with this. At
most they might tweak a few ordinances and move a bit more of their
spending into Black neighborhoods. Who knows? Maybe even build a new
park they can put a Black name on? Like maybe Angela Davis for
example. She gets an honorable mention here for her White
grandparents. Some people think she should pay reparations.
TB
"One of the historical events the city looked into was the
displacement of the black community in the Fillmore District in the
1960s. Known as the 'Harlem of the West,' nearly 900 businesses and
20,000 people were forced out of the neighborhood, which has since
become a predominantly white, high-end area.
The purpose of the reparations, San Francisco said, is not to make
up for slavery - which was never legal in the state - but for 'the
public policies explicitly created to subjugate black people in San
Francisco by upholding and expanding the intent and legacy of
chattel slavery.'
San Francisco isn't the only city that is struggling to find the
perfect number to pay its black citizens, as a dozen others - such
as Los Angeles. Boston and St. Louis - are also still debating it.
The cities that are considering reparations have to balance
satisfying reparation advocates, while also keeping in mind that the
majority of Americans oppose financial restitution.
A University of Massachusetts Amherst January poll found that six in
ten opposed payouts to the descendants of slaves, while four in ten
said the federal government 'definitely should not pursue' such a
policy.
San Francisco's proposal outweighs several other cities, and
reparations critics are concerned it will crack under the financial
strain. The city, which is still recovering from the pandemic, has
an annual budget of $14 billion, according to the Washington Post.
It also faces a $728 million deficit over the next two years."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11801303/San-Franciscos-reparations-committee-reveal-calculated-5M-payout.html
TB
I would put nothing past liberals, especially west coast loons whoI'm waiting for the dumbasses to claim at the end of the day going
can't even clean shit off the sidewalks.
forward that cleaning shit off sidewalks is literally elitist, discriminatory toward the unhoused, damaging to the self-esteem of the shitters, and/or puts a damper on sidewalk art creativity. And since
so many people talk out of their asses these days, it's also an
unacceptable fascist suppression of non-violent free speech.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:29:29 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:--
George.Anthony wrote:
On 2/28/2023 12:22 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:26:53 AM UTC-8,
George.Anthony wrote:
San Fran doesn't have the money so guess where it will come
from. If this does go through, sneaker stores, bling bling
stores, new car dealerships, etc., will be rolling in the
dough. And the people who receive the money will be broke
within a year... kinda like lottery winners. Well, just
like lottery winners.
They are buying votes with the citizens of San Francisco
and ultimately, American tax payers' tax dollars.
Just when you think liberals can't get any dumber...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-reparations-panel-decided-5m-per-black-person-wasnt-math-formula
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to
our problem. Government is the problem," - Ronald Reagan
This is another humorous story that isn't going anywhere. San
Francisco is looking for ideas that won't cost them much,
because they don't have much money to spend on this. Instead
of coming up with serious ideas their committee came up with
this. At most they might tweak a few ordinances and move a
bit more of their spending into Black neighborhoods. Who
knows? Maybe even build a new park they can put a Black name
on? Like maybe Angela Davis for example. She gets an
honorable mention here for her White grandparents. Some
people think she should pay reparations.
TB
"One of the historical events the city looked into was the
displacement of the black community in the Fillmore District
in the 1960s. Known as the 'Harlem of the West,' nearly 900
businesses and 20,000 peo
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:29:29 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:--
George.Anthony wrote:
On 2/28/2023 12:22 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:26:53 AM UTC-8,
George.Anthony wrote:
San Fran doesn't have the money so guess where it will come
from. If this does go through, sneaker stores, bling bling
stores, new car dealerships, etc., will be rolling in the
dough. And the people who receive the money will be broke
within a year... kinda like lottery winners. Well, just
like lottery winners.
They are buying votes with the citizens of San Francisco
and ultimately, American tax payers' tax dollars.
Just when you think liberals can't get any dumber...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-reparations-panel-decided-5m-per-black-person-wasnt-math-formula
TB"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to
our problem. Government is the problem," - Ronald Reagan
This is another humorous story that isn't going anywhere. San
Francisco is looking for ideas that won't cost them much,
because they don't have much money to spend on this. Instead
of coming up with serious ideas their committee came up with
this. At most they might tweak a few ordinances and move a
bit more of their spending into Black neighborhoods. Who
knows? Maybe even build a new park they can put a Black name
on? Like maybe Angela Davis for example. She gets an
honorable mention here for her White grandparents. Some
people think she should pay reparations.
TB
"One of the historical events the city looked into was the
displacement of the black community in the Fillmore District
in the 1960s. Known as the 'Harlem of the West,' nearly 900
businesses and 20,000 people were forced out of the
neighborhood, which has since become a predominantly white,
high-end area.
The purpose of the reparations, San Francisco said, is not to
make up for slavery - which was never legal in the state -
but for 'the public policies explicitly created to subjugate
black people in San Francisco by upholding and expanding the
intent and legacy of chattel slavery.'
San Francisco isn't the only city that is struggling to find
the perfect number to pay its black citizens, as a dozen
others - such as Los Angeles. Boston and St. Louis - are also
still debating it.
The cities that are considering reparations have to balance
satisfying reparation advocates, while also keeping in mind
that the majority of Americans oppose financial restitution.
A University of Massachusetts Amherst January poll found that
six in ten opposed payouts to the descendants of slaves,
while four in ten said the federal government 'definitely
should not pursue' such a policy.
San Francisco's proposal outweighs several other cities, and
reparations critics are concerned it will crack under the
financial strain. The city, which is still recovering from
the pandemic, has an annual budget of $14 billion, according
to the Washington Post. It also faces a $728 million deficit
over the next two years."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11801303/San-Franciscos-reparations-committee-reveal-calculated-5M-payout.html
I'm waiting for the dumbasses to claim at the end of the day
I would put nothing past liberals, especially west coast loons
who can't even clean shit off the sidewalks.
going forward that cleaning shit off sidewalks is literally
elitist, discriminatory toward the unhoused, damaging to the
self-esteem of the shitters, and/or puts a damper on sidewalk art
creativity. And since so many people talk out of their asses
these days, it's also an unacceptable fascist suppression of
non-violent free speech.
-- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
lol I guess you don't understand how recycling works. "What goesLOL. No, I couldn't. Not sooner. Not later. Not ever.
around, comes around." Shit on the sidewalk and, sooner or later,
you could be paid to clean the shit up.
"The Downtown Portland Clean & Safe cleaning crew keeps downtownLOL. Employ the unhomed shitters, litterers, and graffiti artists to
clean seven days a week. In partnership with Central City
Concern’s Clean Start Program, the program trains, mentors and employs workers who are formerly homeless or have other barriers to employment.
clean up their shit, litter, and graffiti.Then when there's no more
shit, litter, and graffiti to clean up, they'll be unemployed and
unhomed again to make new shit, litter, and graffiti. Then retrain, rementor, and reemploy them again. Brilliant.
Cleaning crews sweep sidewalks, remove graffiti, pick up litter,
and pressure wash outdoor surfaces. In addition to their routine
routes, they also respond to immediate requests from downtown
businesses."
https://downtownportland.org/programs/
You see these guys downtown frequently. I don't know when they stop working, but this is not a 9 to 5 job.I hope they're getting paid overtime or there'll be non-violent
protests by the elitist dumbasses.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:47:19 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:--
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:29:29 AM UTC-8, bfh
wrote:
George.Anthony wrote:
On 2/28/2023 12:22 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:26:53 AM
UTC-8, George.Anthony wrote:
San Fran doesn't have the money so guess where it will
come from. If this does go through, sneaker stores,
bling bling stores, new car dealerships, etc., will be
rolling in the dough. And the people who receive the
money will be broke within a year... kinda like lottery
winners. Well, just like lottery winners.
They are buying votes with the citizens of San
Francisco and ultimately, American tax payers' tax
dollars.
Just when you think liberals can't get any dumber...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-reparations-panel-decided-5m-per-black-person-wasnt-math-formula
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution
to our problem. Government is the problem," - Ronald
Reagan
This is another humorous story that isn't going anywhere.
San Francisco is looking for ideas that won't cost them
much, because they don't have much money to spend on
this. Instead of coming up with serious ideas their
committee came up with this. At most they might tweak a
few ordinances and move a bit more of their spending into
Black neighborhoods. Who knows? Maybe even build a new
park they can put a Black name on? Like maybe Angela
Davis for example. She gets an honorable mention here for
her White grandparents. Some people think she should pay
reparations.
TB
"One of the historical events the city looked into was
the displacement of the black community in the Fillmore
District in the 1960s. Known as the 'Harlem of
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:47:19 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote: >>> Technobarbarian wrote:--
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:29:29 AM UTC-8, bfh
wrote:
George.Anthony wrote:
On 2/28/2023 12:22 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at
9:26:53 AM
UTC-8, George.Anthony wrote:
San Fran doesn't have the money so guess where it will
come from. If this does go through, sneaker stores,
bling bling stores, new car dealerships, etc., will be
rolling in the dough. And the people who receive the
money will be broke within a year... kinda like lottery
winners. Well, just like lottery winners.
They are buying votes with the citizens of San
Francisco and ultimately, American tax payers' tax
dollars.
Just when you think liberals can't get any dumber...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-reparations-panel-decided-5m-per-black-person-wasnt-math-formula
TB"In this present crisis, government is not the solution
to our problem. Government is the problem," - Ronald
Reagan
This is another humorous story that isn't going anywhere.
San Francisco is looking for ideas that won't cost them
much, because they don't have much money to spend on
this. Instead of coming up with serious ideas their
committee came up with this. At most they might tweak a
few ordinances and move a bit more of their spending into
Black neighborhoods. Who knows? Maybe even build a new
park they can put a Black name on? Like maybe Angela
Davis for example. She gets an honorable mention here for
her White grandparents. Some people think she should pay
reparations.
TB
"One of the historical events the city looked into was
the displacement of the black community in the Fillmore
District in the 1960s. Known as the 'Harlem of the West,'
nearly 900 businesses and 20,000 people were forced out
of the neighborhood, which has since become a
predominantly white, high-end area.
The purpose of the reparations, San Francisco said, is
not to make up for slavery - which was never legal in the
state - but for 'the public policies explicitly created
to subjugate black people in San Francisco by upholding
and expanding the intent and legacy of chattel slavery.'
San Francisco isn't the only city that is struggling to
find the perfect number to pay its black citizens, as a
dozen others - such as Los Angeles. Boston and St. Louis
- are also still debating it.
The cities that are considering reparations have to
balance satisfying reparation advocates, while also
keeping in mind that the majority of Americans oppose
financial restitution.
A University of Massachusetts Amherst January poll found
that six in ten opposed payouts to the descendants of
slaves, while four in ten said the federal government
'definitely should not pursue' such a policy.
San Francisco's proposal outweighs several other cities,
and reparations critics are concerned it will crack under
the financial strain. The city, which is still recovering
from the pandemic, has an annual budget of $14 billion,
according to the Washington Post. It also faces a $728
million deficit over the next two years."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11801303/San-Franciscos-reparations-committee-reveal-calculated-5M-payout.html
LOL. No, I couldn't. Not sooner. Not later. Not ever.I'm waiting for the dumbasses to claim at the end of the day
I would put nothing past liberals, especially west coast
loons who can't even clean shit off the sidewalks.
going forward that cleaning shit off sidewalks is literally
elitist, discriminatory toward the unhoused, damaging to the
self-esteem of the shitters, and/or puts a damper on sidewalk
art creativity. And since so many people talk out of their
asses these days, it's also an unacceptable fascist
suppression of non-violent free speech.
-- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
lol I guess you don't understand how recycling works. "What
goes around, comes around." Shit on the sidewalk and, sooner or
later, you could be paid to clean the shit up.
"The Downtown Portland Clean & Safe cleaning crew keepsLOL. Employ the unhomed shitters, litterers, and graffiti artists
downtown clean seven days a week. In partnership with Central
City Concern’s Clean Start Program, the program
trains,
mentors and employs workers who are formerly homeless or have
other barriers to employment.
to clean up their shit, litter, and graffiti.Then when there's no
more shit, litter, and graffiti to clean up, they'll be
unemployed and unhomed again to make new shit, litter, and
graffiti. Then retrain, rementor, and reemploy them again.
Brilliant.
Cleaning crews sweep sidewalks, remove graffiti, pick upI hope they're getting paid overtime or there'll be non-violent
litter, and pressure wash outdoor surfaces. In addition to
their routine routes, they also respond to immediate requests
from downtown businesses."
https://downtownportland.org/programs/
You see these guys downtown frequently. I don't know when they
stop working, but this is not a 9 to 5 job.
protests by the elitist dumbasses. -- bill Theory don't mean
squat if it don't work.
You're forgetting all that valuable training. That should make up
for the shitty wages.
Well, so, at the end of the day going forward, when you put that on
the table, I suppose there's some equity in the calculus of that metric.
bfh wrote:
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:47:19 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote: >>>> Technobarbarian wrote:--
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:29:29 AM UTC-8, bfh
wrote:
George.Anthony wrote:
On 2/28/2023 12:22 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at
9:26:53 AM
UTC-8, George.Anthony wrote:
San Fran doesn't have the money so guess where it will
come from. If this does go through, sneaker stores,
bling bling stores, new car dealerships, etc., will be
rolling in the dough. And the people who receive the
money will be broke within a year... kinda like lottery
winners. Well, just like lottery winners.
They are buying votes with the citizens of San
Francisco and ultimately, American tax payers' tax
dollars.
Just when you think liberals can't get any dumber...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-reparations-panel-decided-5m-per-black-person-wasnt-math-formula
TB"In this present crisis, government is not the solution
to our problem. Government is the problem," - Ronald
Reagan
This is another humorous story that isn't going anywhere.
San Francisco is looking for ideas that won't cost them
much, because they don't have much money to spend on
this. Instead of coming up with serious ideas their
committee came up with this. At most they might tweak a
few ordinances and move a bit more of their spending into
Black neighborhoods. Who knows? Maybe even build a new
park they can put a Black name on? Like maybe Angela
Davis for example. She gets an honorable mention here for
her White grandparents. Some people think she should pay
reparations.
TB
"One of the historical events the city looked into was
the displacement of the black community in the Fillmore
District in the 1960s. Known as the 'Harlem of the West,'
nearly 900 businesses and 20,000 people were forced out
of the neighborhood, which has since become a
predominantly white, high-end area.
The purpose of the reparations, San Francisco said, is
not to make up for slavery - which was never legal in the
state - but for 'the public policies explicitly created
to subjugate black people in San Francisco by upholding
and expanding the intent and legacy of chattel slavery.'
San Francisco isn't the only city that is struggling to
find the perfect number to pay its black citizens, as a
dozen others - such as Los Angeles. Boston and St. Louis
- are also still debating it.
The cities that are considering reparations have to
balance satisfying reparation advocates, while also
keeping in mind that the majority of Americans oppose
financial restitution.
A University of Massachusetts Amherst January poll found
that six in ten opposed payouts to the descendants of
slaves, while four in ten said the federal government
'definitely should not pursue' such a policy.
San Francisco's proposal outweighs several other cities,
and reparations critics are concerned it will crack under
the financial strain. The city, which is still recovering
from the pandemic, has an annual budget of $14 billion,
according to the Washington Post. It also faces a $728
million deficit over the next two years."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11801303/San-Franciscos-reparations-committee-reveal-calculated-5M-payout.html
LOL. No, I couldn't. Not sooner. Not later. Not ever.I'm waiting for the dumbasses to claim at the end of the day going >>>>>> forward that cleaning shit off sidewalks is literally elitist,
I would put nothing past liberals, especially west coast
loons who can't even clean shit off the sidewalks.
discriminatory toward the unhoused, damaging to the self-esteem of >>>>>> the shitters, and/or puts a damper on sidewalk
art creativity. And since so many people talk out of their
asses these days, it's also an unacceptable fascist
suppression of non-violent free speech.
-- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
lol I guess you don't understand how recycling works. "What
goes around, comes around." Shit on the sidewalk and, sooner or
later, you could be paid to clean the shit up.
"The Downtown Portland Clean & Safe cleaning crew keepsLOL. Employ the unhomed shitters, litterers, and graffiti artists
downtown clean seven days a week. In partnership with Central
City Concern’s Clean Start Program, the program
trains,
mentors and employs workers who are formerly homeless or have
other barriers to employment.
to clean up their shit, litter, and graffiti.Then when there's no
more shit, litter, and graffiti to clean up, they'll be
unemployed and unhomed again to make new shit, litter, and
graffiti. Then retrain, rementor, and reemploy them again.
Brilliant.
Cleaning crews sweep sidewalks, remove graffiti, pick upI hope they're getting paid overtime or there'll be non-violent
litter, and pressure wash outdoor surfaces. In addition to
their routine routes, they also respond to immediate requests
from downtown businesses."
https://downtownportland.org/programs/
You see these guys downtown frequently. I don't know when they
stop working, but this is not a 9 to 5 job.
protests by the elitist dumbasses. -- bill Theory don't mean
squat if it don't work.
You're forgetting all that valuable training. That should make up
for the shitty wages.
Well, so, at the end of the day going forward, when you put that on
the table, I suppose there's some equity in the calculus of that metric.
However comma this just in: ----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed Oregon bill would provide the deep blue state’s homeless population $1,000 per month that recipients could use at their own discretion.
The bill, introduced last month, would establish a People’s Housing Assistance Fund Demonstration Program to give 12 monthly thousand-dollar payments to those suffering from homelessness or who are on the brink of becoming homeless.
“Payments may be used for rent, emergency expenses, food, child care or other goods or services of the participant’s choosing,” the bill states.
People who spend more than 50 percent of their monthly household income
on rent, and those who earn 60% or less of the area median income would
also be eligible for the funding.
The legislation would also require the Portland State University
Homelessness Research and Action Collaborative to study how effective
the long-term cash assistance program would be across different
demographics and household populations, as well as consider other circumstantial elements, such as domestic violence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- https://nypost.com/2023/02/28/oregon-bill-would-pay-homeless-1000-per-month/
I tried to reconcile paying the shitters to clean up their shit and also paying the shitters to not clean up their shit to get shit off the
sidewalks. One of my hearing aids started smoking, and I immediately abandoned the effort.
At the end of the day going forward, don't believe it if someone tells
you that dumbasses can't get more dumbassed, or that there is literally
a limit to dumbassedness. Reality shows that they can, and there isn't.
I won't even, like, mention that the legislation also requires, like, a "study" to determine how efficacious these two dumbassed plans will be. HawHawHaw! Look, I mean, like, JHC, we're already, like, literally on
the road to a Dumbassovirus pandemic. Meanwhile, I'm hoping that the
not-woke will have natural immunity.
Put on your tinfoil mask and follow the science. I'm not joking, man.
bfh wrote:'
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:47:19 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:--
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:29:29 AM UTC-8, bfh
wrote:
George.Anthony wrote:
On 2/28/2023 12:22 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at
9:26:53 AM
UTC-8, George.Anthony wrote:
San Fran doesn't have the money so guess where it will
come from. If this does go through, sneaker stores,
bling bling stores, new car dealerships, etc., will be
rolling in the dough. And the people who receive the
money will be broke within a year... kinda like lottery
winners. Well, just like lottery winners.
They are buying votes with the citizens of San
Francisco and ultimately, American tax payers' tax
dollars.
Just when you think liberals can't get any dumber...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-reparations-panel-decided-5m-per-black-person-wasnt-math-formula
TB"In this present crisis, government is not the solution
to our problem. Government is the problem," - Ronald
Reagan
This is another humorous story that isn't going anywhere.
San Francisco is looking for ideas that won't cost them
much, because they don't have much money to spend on
this. Instead of coming up with serious ideas their
committee came up with this. At most they might tweak a
few ordinances and move a bit more of their spending into
Black neighborhoods. Who knows? Maybe even build a new
park they can put a Black name on? Like maybe Angela
Davis for example. She gets an honorable mention here for
her White grandparents. Some people think she should pay
reparations.
TB
"One of the historical events the city looked into was
the displacement of the black community in the Fillmore
District in the 1960s. Known as the 'Harlem of the West,'
nearly 900 businesses and 20,000 people were forced out
of the neighborhood, which has since become a
predominantly white, high-end area.
The purpose of the reparations, San Francisco said, is
not to make up for slavery - which was never legal in the
state - but for 'the public policies explicitly created
to subjugate black people in San Francisco by upholding
and expanding the intent and legacy of chattel slavery.'
San Francisco isn't the only city that is struggling to
find the perfect number to pay its black citizens, as a
dozen others - such as Los Angeles. Boston and St. Louis
- are also still debating it.
The cities that are considering reparations have to
balance satisfying reparation advocates, while also
keeping in mind that the majority of Americans oppose
financial restitution.
A University of Massachusetts Amherst January poll found
that six in ten opposed payouts to the descendants of
slaves, while four in ten said the federal government
'definitely should not pursue' such a policy.
San Francisco's proposal outweighs several other cities,
and reparations critics are concerned it will crack under
the financial strain. The city, which is still recovering
from the pandemic, has an annual budget of $14 billion,
according to the Washington Post. It also faces a $728
million deficit over the next two years."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11801303/San-Franciscos-reparations-committee-reveal-calculated-5M-payout.html
LOL. No, I couldn't. Not sooner. Not later. Not ever.I'm waiting for the dumbasses to claim at the end of the day
I would put nothing past liberals, especially west coast
loons who can't even clean shit off the sidewalks.
going forward that cleaning shit off sidewalks is literally
elitist, discriminatory toward the unhoused, damaging to the
self-esteem of the shitters, and/or puts a damper on sidewalk
art creativity. And since so many people talk out of their
asses these days, it's also an unacceptable fascist
suppression of non-violent free speech.
-- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
lol I guess you don't understand how recycling works. "What
goes around, comes around." Shit on the sidewalk and, sooner or
later, you could be paid to clean the shit up.
"The Downtown Portland Clean & Safe cleaning crew keepsLOL. Employ the unhomed shitters, litterers, and graffiti artists
downtown clean seven days a week. In partnership with Central
City Concern’s Clean Start Program, the program
trains,
mentors and employs workers who are formerly homeless or have
other barriers to employment.
to clean up their shit, litter, and graffiti.Then when there's no
more shit, litter, and graffiti to clean up, they'll be
unemployed and unhomed again to make new shit, litter, and
graffiti. Then retrain, rementor, and reemploy them again.
Brilliant.
Cleaning crews sweep sidewalks, remove graffiti, pick upI hope they're getting paid overtime or there'll be non-violent
litter, and pressure wash outdoor surfaces. In addition to
their routine routes, they also respond to immediate requests
from downtown businesses."
https://downtownportland.org/programs/
You see these guys downtown frequently. I don't know when they
stop working, but this is not a 9 to 5 job.
protests by the elitist dumbasses. -- bill Theory don't mean
squat if it don't work.
You're forgetting all that valuable training. That should make up
for the shitty wages.
Well, so, at the end of the day going forward, when you put that onHowever comma this just in: ----------------------------------------------------------------
the table, I suppose there's some equity in the calculus of that metric.
A proposed Oregon bill would provide the deep blue state’s homeless population $1,000 per month that recipients could use at their own discretion.
The bill, introduced last month, would establish a People’s Housing Assistance Fund Demonstration Program to give 12 monthly
thousand-dollar payments to those suffering from homelessness or who
are on the brink of becoming homeless.
“Payments may be used for rent, emergency expenses, food, child care
or other goods or services of the participant’s choosing,” the bill states.
People who spend more than 50 percent of their monthly household
income on rent, and those who earn 60% or less of the area median
income would also be eligible for the funding.
The legislation would also require the Portland State University Homelessness Research and Action Collaborative to study how effective
the long-term cash assistance program would be across different
demographics and household populations, as well as consider other circumstantial elements, such as domestic violence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- https://nypost.com/2023/02/28/oregon-bill-would-pay-homeless-1000-per-month/
I tried to reconcile paying the shitters to clean up their shit and
also paying the shitters to not clean up their shit to get shit off
the sidewalks. One of my hearing aids started smoking, and I
immediately abandoned the effort.
At the end of the day going forward, don't believe it if someone tells
you that dumbasses can't get more dumbassed, or that there is
literally a limit to dumbassedness. Reality shows that they can, and
there isn't.
I won't even, like, mention that the legislation also requires, like,
a "study" to determine how efficacious these two dumbassed plans will
be. HawHawHaw! Look, I mean, like, JHC, we're already, like, literally
on the road to a Dumbassovirus pandemic. Meanwhile, I'm hoping that
the not-woke will have natural immunity.
Put on your tinfoil mask and follow the science. I'm not joking, man.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 5:51:35 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:UTC-8, George.Anthony wrote:
bfh wrote:
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:47:19 PM >>>> UTC-8, bfh wrote:
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at
11:29:29 AM UTC-8, bfh
wrote:
George.Anthony wrote:
On 2/28/2023 12:22 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at
9:26:53 AM
--San Fran doesn't have the money so guess where it
will come from. If this does go through, sneaker
stores, bling bling stores, new car dealerships,
etc., will be rolling in the dough. And the
people who receive the money will be broke within
a year... kinda like lottery winners. Well, just
like lottery winners.
They are buying votes with the citizens of San
Francisco and ultimately, American tax payers'
tax dollars.
Just when you think liberals can't get any
dumber...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-reparations-panel-decided-5m-per-black-person-wasnt-math-formula
"In this present crisis, government is not the
solution to our problem. Government is the
problem," - Ronald Reagan
This is another humorous story that isn't going
anywhere. San Francisco is looking for ideas that
won't cost them much, because they don't have much
money to spend on this. Instead of coming up with
serious ideas their committee came up with this. At
most they might tweak a few ordinances and move a
bit more of their spending into Black
neighborhoods. Who knows? Maybe even build a new
park they can put a Black name on? Like maybe
Angela Davis for example. She gets an honorable
mention here for her White grandparents. Some
people think she should pay reparations.
TB
"One of the historical events the city looked into
was the displacement of the black community
I tried to reconcile paying the shitters to clean up their shit and
also paying the shitters to not clean up their shit to get shit off
the sidewalks. One of my hearing aids started smoking, and I
immediately abandoned the effort.
At the end of the day going forward, don't believe it if someone tells
you that dumbasses can't get more dumbassed, or that there is
literally a limit to dumbassedness. Reality shows that they can, and
there isn't.
I won't even, like, mention that the legislation also requires, like,
a "study" to determine how efficacious these two dumbassed plans will
be. HawHawHaw! Look, I mean, like, JHC, we're already, like, literally
on the road to a Dumbassovirus pandemic. Meanwhile, I'm hoping that
the not-woke will have natural immunity.
Put on your tinfoil mask and follow the science. I'm not joking, man.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 5:51:35 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
bfh wrote:'
Technobarbarian wrote:However comma this just in:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:47:19 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:--
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:29:29 AM UTC-8, bfh
wrote:
George.Anthony wrote:
On 2/28/2023 12:22 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at
9:26:53 AM
UTC-8, George.Anthony wrote:
San Fran doesn't have the money so guess where it will
come from. If this does go through, sneaker stores,
bling bling stores, new car dealerships, etc., will be
rolling in the dough. And the people who receive the
money will be broke within a year... kinda like lottery
winners. Well, just like lottery winners.
They are buying votes with the citizens of San
Francisco and ultimately, American tax payers' tax
dollars.
Just when you think liberals can't get any dumber...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-reparations-panel-decided-5m-per-black-person-wasnt-math-formula
TB"In this present crisis, government is not the solution
to our problem. Government is the problem," - Ronald
Reagan
This is another humorous story that isn't going anywhere.
San Francisco is looking for ideas that won't cost them
much, because they don't have much money to spend on
this. Instead of coming up with serious ideas their
committee came up with this. At most they might tweak a
few ordinances and move a bit more of their spending into
Black neighborhoods. Who knows? Maybe even build a new
park they can put a Black name on? Like maybe Angela
Davis for example. She gets an honorable mention here for
her White grandparents. Some people think she should pay
reparations.
TB
"One of the historical events the city looked into was
the displacement of the black community in the Fillmore
District in the 1960s. Known as the 'Harlem of the West,'
nearly 900 businesses and 20,000 people were forced out
of the neighborhood, which has since become a
predominantly white, high-end area.
The purpose of the reparations, San Francisco said, is
not to make up for slavery - which was never legal in the
state - but for 'the public policies explicitly created
to subjugate black people in San Francisco by upholding
and expanding the intent and legacy of chattel slavery.'
San Francisco isn't the only city that is struggling to
find the perfect number to pay its black citizens, as a
dozen others - such as Los Angeles. Boston and St. Louis
- are also still debating it.
The cities that are considering reparations have to
balance satisfying reparation advocates, while also
keeping in mind that the majority of Americans oppose
financial restitution.
A University of Massachusetts Amherst January poll found
that six in ten opposed payouts to the descendants of
slaves, while four in ten said the federal government
'definitely should not pursue' such a policy.
San Francisco's proposal outweighs several other cities,
and reparations critics are concerned it will crack under
the financial strain. The city, which is still recovering
from the pandemic, has an annual budget of $14 billion,
according to the Washington Post. It also faces a $728
million deficit over the next two years."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11801303/San-Franciscos-reparations-committee-reveal-calculated-5M-payout.html
LOL. No, I couldn't. Not sooner. Not later. Not ever.I'm waiting for the dumbasses to claim at the end of the day
I would put nothing past liberals, especially west coast
loons who can't even clean shit off the sidewalks.
going forward that cleaning shit off sidewalks is literally
elitist, discriminatory toward the unhoused, damaging to the
self-esteem of the shitters, and/or puts a damper on sidewalk
art creativity. And since so many people talk out of their
asses these days, it's also an unacceptable fascist
suppression of non-violent free speech.
-- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
lol I guess you don't understand how recycling works. "What
goes around, comes around." Shit on the sidewalk and, sooner or
later, you could be paid to clean the shit up.
"The Downtown Portland Clean & Safe cleaning crew keepsLOL. Employ the unhomed shitters, litterers, and graffiti artists
downtown clean seven days a week. In partnership with Central
City Concern’s Clean Start Program, the program
trains,
mentors and employs workers who are formerly homeless or have
other barriers to employment.
to clean up their shit, litter, and graffiti.Then when there's no
more shit, litter, and graffiti to clean up, they'll be
unemployed and unhomed again to make new shit, litter, and
graffiti. Then retrain, rementor, and reemploy them again.
Brilliant.
Cleaning crews sweep sidewalks, remove graffiti, pick upI hope they're getting paid overtime or there'll be non-violent
litter, and pressure wash outdoor surfaces. In addition to
their routine routes, they also respond to immediate requests
from downtown businesses."
https://downtownportland.org/programs/
You see these guys downtown frequently. I don't know when they
stop working, but this is not a 9 to 5 job.
protests by the elitist dumbasses. -- bill Theory don't mean
squat if it don't work.
You're forgetting all that valuable training. That should make up
for the shitty wages.
Well, so, at the end of the day going forward, when you put that on
the table, I suppose there's some equity in the calculus of that metric.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed Oregon bill would provide the deep blue state’s homeless
population $1,000 per month that recipients could use at their own
discretion.
The bill, introduced last month, would establish a People’s Housing
Assistance Fund Demonstration Program to give 12 monthly
thousand-dollar payments to those suffering from homelessness or who
are on the brink of becoming homeless.
“Payments may be used for rent, emergency expenses, food, child care
or other goods or services of the participant’s choosing,” the bill
states.
People who spend more than 50 percent of their monthly household
income on rent, and those who earn 60% or less of the area median
income would also be eligible for the funding.
The legislation would also require the Portland State University
Homelessness Research and Action Collaborative to study how effective
the long-term cash assistance program would be across different
demographics and household populations, as well as consider other
circumstantial elements, such as domestic violence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://nypost.com/2023/02/28/oregon-bill-would-pay-homeless-1000-per-month/ >>
I tried to reconcile paying the shitters to clean up their shit and
also paying the shitters to not clean up their shit to get shit off
the sidewalks. One of my hearing aids started smoking, and I
immediately abandoned the effort.
At the end of the day going forward, don't believe it if someone tells
you that dumbasses can't get more dumbassed, or that there is
literally a limit to dumbassedness. Reality shows that they can, and
there isn't.
I won't even, like, mention that the legislation also requires, like,
a "study" to determine how efficacious these two dumbassed plans will
be. HawHawHaw! Look, I mean, like, JHC, we're already, like, literally
on the road to a Dumbassovirus pandemic. Meanwhile, I'm hoping that
the not-woke will have natural immunity.
Put on your tinfoil mask and follow the science. I'm not joking, man.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Our new governor wants to spend a lot of money putting expensive bandaids on the problem. If they put some stipulations on the money, like
no shoplifting and no shiiting on the street, this might actually be the cheapest solution to the problem.
TB
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 5:51:35 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
I tried to reconcile paying the shitters to clean up their shit and
also paying the shitters to not clean up their shit to get shit off
the sidewalks. One of my hearing aids started smoking, and I
immediately abandoned the effort.
At the end of the day going forward, don't believe it if someone tells
you that dumbasses can't get more dumbassed, or that there is
literally a limit to dumbassedness. Reality shows that they can, and
there isn't.
I won't even, like, mention that the legislation also requires, like,
a "study" to determine how efficacious these two dumbassed plans will
be. HawHawHaw! Look, I mean, like, JHC, we're already, like, literally
on the road to a Dumbassovirus pandemic. Meanwhile, I'm hoping that
the not-woke will have natural immunity.
Put on your tinfoil mask and follow the science. I'm not joking, man.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
You're focusing on the wrong people. The shitters didn't create this situation. The voters did. The majority of the people who voted for the current situation have profited handsomely from the situation, so they're
not really ready to change much of anything. Development used to be a
nasty word here. People have been trying to limit growth while they were still creating more children. We have an urban growth boundary here and a shit ton of zoning regulations and building codes. The result is that the price of existing housing keeps going up and no one is building small affordable houses. If we make it possible to build a lot of affordable housing the price for existing houses will either stay the same or go
down. There are just a shit ton of people who don't want to see that
happen to their retirement plan. So, it doesn't happen and politicians
talk around the problem. Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter.
Anyone who tries to fix the problem with realistic solutions will soon
find themselves out of office.
TB
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 5:51:35 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
I tried to reconcile paying the shitters to clean up their shit
and also paying the shitters to not clean up their shit to get
shit off the sidewalks. One of my hearing aids started smoking,
and I immediately abandoned the effort.
At the end of the day going forward, don't believe it if someone
tells you that dumbasses can't get more dumbassed, or that there
is literally a limit to dumbassedness. Reality shows that they
can, and there isn't.
I won't even, like, mention that the legislation also requires,
like, a "study" to determine how efficacious these two dumbassed
plans will be. HawHawHaw! Look, I mean, like, JHC, we're already,
like, literally on the road to a Dumbassovirus pandemic.
Meanwhile, I'm hoping that the not-woke will have natural
immunity.
Put on your tinfoil mask and follow the science. I'm not joking,
man. -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
You're focusing on the wrong people.
The shitters didn't create
this situation. The voters did. The majority of the people who
voted for the current situation have profited handsomely from the
situation, so they're not really ready to change much of anything. Development used to be a nasty word here. People have been trying
to limit growth while they were still creating more children. We
have an urban growth boundary here and a shit ton of zoning
regulations and building codes. The result is that the price of
existing housing keeps going up and no one is building small
affordable houses. If we make it possible to build a lot of
affordable housing the price for existing houses will either stay
the same or go down. There are just a shit ton of people who don't
want to see that happen to their retirement plan. So, it doesn't
happen and politicians talk around the problem. Democrat or
Republican, it doesn't matter. Anyone who tries to fix the problem
with realistic solutions will soon find themselves out of office.
TB
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 5:51:35 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
I tried to reconcile paying the shitters to clean up their shit
and also paying the shitters to not clean up their shit to get
shit off the sidewalks. One of my hearing aids started smoking,
and I immediately abandoned the effort.
At the end of the day going forward, don't believe it if someone
tells you that dumbasses can't get more dumbassed, or that there
is literally a limit to dumbassedness. Reality shows that they
can, and there isn't.
I won't even, like, mention that the legislation also requires,
like, a "study" to determine how efficacious these two dumbassed
plans will be. HawHawHaw! Look, I mean, like, JHC, we're already,
like, literally on the road to a Dumbassovirus pandemic.
Meanwhile, I'm hoping that the not-woke will have natural
immunity.
Put on your tinfoil mask and follow the science. I'm not joking,
man. -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
You're focusing on the wrong people.I disagree with that. I allege that I'm focusing on exactly the right
people - the dumbasses running the Oregon shitshow. At no point did I
say - or imply - otherwise.
But I agree with most of the rest of what you say about your dumbasses
- except that at the end of the day going forward, I think the
Democrats are literally significantly more dumbassed than the
Republicans in most cases, and are much more efficacious in performing
their dumbassedness.
The shitters didn't create
this situation. The voters did. The majority of the people who
voted for the current situation have profited handsomely from the situation, so they're not really ready to change much of anything. Development used to be a nasty word here. People have been trying
to limit growth while they were still creating more children. We
have an urban growth boundary here and a shit ton of zoning
regulations and building codes. The result is that the price of
existing housing keeps going up and no one is building small
affordable houses. If we make it possible to build a lot of
affordable housing the price for existing houses will either stay
the same or go down. There are just a shit ton of people who don't
want to see that happen to their retirement plan. So, it doesn't
happen and politicians talk around the problem. Democrat or
Republican, it doesn't matter. Anyone who tries to fix the problem
with realistic solutions will soon find themselves out of office.
TB
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Got a problem? Just throw money at it. Of course that makes the doofuses “feel” good but it seldom solves the problem… that they created in the first place.
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:29:53 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 5:51:35 PM UTC-8, bfhI disagree with that. I allege that I'm focusing on exactly the
wrote:
I tried to reconcile paying the shitters to clean up their
shit and also paying the shitters to not clean up their shit
to get shit off the sidewalks. One of my hearing aids started
smoking, and I immediately abandoned the effort.
At the end of the day going forward, don't believe it if
someone tells you that dumbasses can't get more dumbassed, or
that there is literally a limit to dumbassedness. Reality
shows that they can, and there isn't.
I won't even, like, mention that the legislation also
requires, like, a "study" to determine how efficacious these
two dumbassed plans will be. HawHawHaw! Look, I mean, like,
JHC, we're already, like, literally on the road to a
Dumbassovirus pandemic. Meanwhile, I'm hoping that the
not-woke will have natural immunity.
Put on your tinfoil mask and follow the science. I'm not
joking, man. -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't
work.
You're focusing on the wrong people.
right people - the dumbasses running the Oregon shitshow. At no
point did I say - or imply - otherwise.
But I agree with most of the rest of what you say about your
dumbasses - except that at the end of the day going forward, I
think the Democrats are literally significantly more dumbassed
than the Republicans in most cases, and are much more efficacious
in performing their dumbassedness.
The shitters didn't create this situation. The voters did. The-- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
majority of the people who voted for the current situation have
profited handsomely from the situation, so they're not really
ready to change much of anything. Development used to be a
nasty word here. People have been trying to limit growth while
they were still creating more children. We have an urban growth
boundary here and a shit ton of zoning regulations and building
codes. The result is that the price of existing housing keeps
going up and no one is building small affordable houses. If we
make it possible to build a lot of affordable housing the price
for existing houses will either stay the same or go down. There
are just a shit ton of people who don't want to see that happen
to their retirement plan. So, it doesn't happen and politicians
talk around the problem. Democrat or Republican, it doesn't
matter. Anyone who tries to fix the problem with realistic
solutions will soon find themselves out of office.
TB
Yeah, The Republicans were a real joy during this last election.
The Republican's solution to the problem is that we keep doing what
we're already doing, because that's working so damn well that we
just need to do more of it. Both policies are cruel. The Democrats
might be slightly less cruel.
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:29:53 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 5:51:35 PM UTC-8, bfhI disagree with that. I allege that I'm focusing on exactly the
wrote:
I tried to reconcile paying the shitters to clean up their
shit and also paying the shitters to not clean up their shit
to get shit off the sidewalks. One of my hearing aids started
smoking, and I immediately abandoned the effort.
At the end of the day going forward, don't believe it if
someone tells you that dumbasses can't get more dumbassed, or
that there is literally a limit to dumbassedness. Reality
shows that they can, and there isn't.
I won't even, like, mention that the legislation also
requires, like, a "study" to determine how efficacious these
two dumbassed plans will be. HawHawHaw! Look, I mean, like,
JHC, we're already, like, literally on the road to a
Dumbassovirus pandemic. Meanwhile, I'm hoping that the
not-woke will have natural immunity.
Put on your tinfoil mask and follow the science. I'm not
joking, man. -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't
work.
You're focusing on the wrong people.
right people - the dumbasses running the Oregon shitshow. At no
point did I say - or imply - otherwise.
But I agree with most of the rest of what you say about your
dumbasses - except that at the end of the day going forward, I
think the Democrats are literally significantly more dumbassed
than the Republicans in most cases, and are much more efficacious
in performing their dumbassedness.
The shitters didn't create this situation. The voters did. The-- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
majority of the people who voted for the current situation have
profited handsomely from the situation, so they're not really
ready to change much of anything. Development used to be a
nasty word here. People have been trying to limit growth while
they were still creating more children. We have an urban growth
boundary here and a shit ton of zoning regulations and building
codes. The result is that the price of existing housing keeps
going up and no one is building small affordable houses. If we
make it possible to build a lot of affordable housing the price
for existing houses will either stay the same or go down. There
are just a shit ton of people who don't want to see that happen
to their retirement plan. So, it doesn't happen and politicians
talk around the problem. Democrat or Republican, it doesn't
matter. Anyone who tries to fix the problem with realistic
solutions will soon find themselves out of office.
TB
Yeah, The Republicans were a real joy during this last election.What, specifically, were we "already doing"?
The Republican's solution to the problem is that we keep doing what
we're already doing, because that's working so damn well that we
just need to do more of it. Both policies are cruel. The Democrats
might be slightly less cruel.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 4:53:40 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:29:53 AM UTC-8, bfhWhat, specifically, were we "already doing"? -- bill Theory don't
wrote:
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 5:51:35 PM >>>>> UTC-8, bfh wrote:I disagree with that. I allege that I'm focusing on exactly
I tried to reconcile paying the shitters to clean up
their shit and also paying the shitters to not clean up
their shit to get shit off the sidewalks. One of my
hearing aids started smoking, and I immediately abandoned
the effort.
At the end of the day going forward, don't believe it if
someone tells you that dumbasses can't get more
dumbassed, or that there is literally a limit to
dumbassedness. Reality shows that they can, and there
isn't.
I won't even, like, mention that the legislation also
requires, like, a "study" to determine how efficacious
these two dumbassed plans will be. HawHawHaw! Look, I
mean, like, JHC, we're already, like, literally on the
road to a Dumbassovirus pandemic. Meanwhile, I'm hoping
that the not-woke will have natural immunity.
Put on your tinfoil mask and follow the science. I'm not
joking, man. -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't
work.
You're focusing on the wrong people.
the right people - the dumbasses running the Oregon shitshow.
At no point did I say - or imply - otherwise.
But I agree with most of the rest of what you say about your
dumbasses - except that at the end of the day going forward,
I think the Democrats are literally significantly more
dumbassed than the Republicans in most cases, and are much
more efficacious in performing their dumbassedness.
The shitters didn't create this situation. The voters did.-- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
The majority of the people who voted for the current
situation have profited handsomely from the situation, so
they're not really ready to change much of anything.
Development used to be a nasty word here. People have been
trying to limit growth while they were still creating more
children. We have an urban growth boundary here and a shit
ton of zoning regulations and building codes. The result is
that the price of existing housing keeps going up and no
one is building small affordable houses. If we make it
possible to build a lot of affordable housing the price for
existing houses will either stay the same or go down.
There are just a shit ton of people who don't want to see
that happen to their retirement plan. So, it doesn't happen
and politicians talk around the problem. Democrat or
Republican, it doesn't matter. Anyone who tries to fix the
problem with realistic solutions will soon find themselves
out of office.
TB
Yeah, The Republicans were a real joy during this last
election. The Republican's solution to the problem is that we
keep doing what we're already doing, because that's working so
damn well that we just need to do more of it. Both policies are
cruel. The Democrats might be slightly less cruel.
mean squat if it don't work.
Build more dormitory type shelters, even though we know most people
will avoid those places as much as possible, with good reason. Try
to force people into treatment. Everyone thinks they're going to
wave a magic wand over the situation and ultimately end all our
problems with "treatment". Despite the fact that we can't "fix"
everyone and it would be very expensive to try To that end the
Republicans want to re-criminalize all the drugs we recently
decriminalized. The politicians ignore silly details like that fact
that this is expensive and doesn't work. If anything it's counter
productive. The dumbasses want simple solution that are easy for
them to understand. As usual, it's all very police state.
I was not joking when I said a $1K monthly allowance might be the
cheapest solution to the problem, if it would get people off the
street. All the numbers I've seen say that the motels that they're
renting and the campgrounds they're building will be more
expensive to run.
What do you envision them doing with that $1K?
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 7:12:38 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
What do you envision them doing with that $1K?
This reminds of the story of the old boy who and won the lottery
and spent it all in a year. When reporters asked him what he had
done with the money he said he has spent half of it on wine, women
and song. The rest of it he wasted.
Keep in mind that the actual proposal is $1K per month, for 12
months. I haven't looked closely at this thing at all because I
don't think it's likely to happen. It's just the silly season here.
Our legislature is in session and they have to put on a good show.
I'm assuming that the guy who made this proposal is trying to get
people off the street and buy time while the government builds
their campgrounds. It would give us both a carrot and a stick to
push people off the street.
It used to be said of the forms of therapy that relied on human
speech that, "One third get better, one third get worse, and one
third stays the same. I had a psychology professor who claimed this assessment was no longer true decades ago. I didn't believe him
then and I don't believe it now. I think that's likely to be a
pretty good rule of thumb for humans in general. Under the
circumstances I would expect the performance of our homeless
population to be below average. I don't think most of Portland
would care how the money was spent, as long as we didn't have to
see the problem on the streets.
This all reminds me of the nicest heroin addicts I ever met. They
were a happily married couple with a nearly adult son when I knew
them in Bend. She had spent 7 years in county jails in CA, one year
at a time, for possession by consumption. They could have sent her
to college cheaper. He had spent time in prison for credit card
fraud and bad checks. Both of them had been through all sorts of
therapy. That just made them better addicts. They were never
"cured". They were both serious alcoholics and had problems with
other drugs. They finally stopped taking heroin because the
withdrawal was so awful that they didn't want to go through that
again. They found Bend by riding around on the bus. Everywhere they
went people were offering to sell them heroin at the bus terminal.
When they got to Bend no one was offering to sell them heroin and
they knew they had found the right place for them.
They both had lots of therapy. They said the best place they had
found for finding drugs was the Narcotics Anonymous meetings they
were required to attend. By his families standards he was an old
guy. The men in his family tended to die young from alcoholism. I
expect that both him and his son are dead by now. He was
professional line cook who could have worked in just about any
kitchen, if he could stay sober. He worked at a restaurant with a
bar. His employer knew the game. They gave him just enough free
drinks to keep him working.
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 7:12:38 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
What do you envision them doing with that $1K?
This reminds of the story of the old boy who and won the lottery
and spent it all in a year. When reporters asked him what he had
done with the money he said he has spent half of it on wine, women
and song. The rest of it he wasted.
Keep in mind that the actual proposal is $1K per month, for 12
months. I haven't looked closely at this thing at all because I
don't think it's likely to happen. It's just the silly season here.
Our legislature is in session and they have to put on a good show.
I'm assuming that the guy who made this proposal is trying to get
people off the street and buy time while the government builds
their campgrounds. It would give us both a carrot and a stick to
push people off the street.
It used to be said of the forms of therapy that relied on human
speech that, "One third get better, one third get worse, and one
third stays the same. I had a psychology professor who claimed this assessment was no longer true decades ago. I didn't believe him
then and I don't believe it now. I think that's likely to be a
pretty good rule of thumb for humans in general. Under the
circumstances I would expect the performance of our homeless
population to be below average. I don't think most of Portland
would care how the money was spent, as long as we didn't have to
see the problem on the streets.
This all reminds me of the nicest heroin addicts I ever met. They
were a happily married couple with a nearly adult son when I knew
them in Bend. She had spent 7 years in county jails in CA, one year
at a time, for possession by consumption. They could have sent her
to college cheaper. He had spent time in prison for credit card
fraud and bad checks. Both of them had been through all sorts of
therapy. That just made them better addicts. They were never
"cured". They were both serious alcoholics and had problems with
other drugs. They finally stopped taking heroin because the
withdrawal was so awful that they didn't want to go through that
again. They found Bend by riding around on the bus. Everywhere they
went people were offering to sell them heroin at the bus terminal.
When they got to Bend no one was offering to sell them heroin and
they knew they had found the right place for them.
They both had lots of therapy. They said the best place they hadwow. Nice reminiscing there. However comma "You" said: ------------------------------------------------
found for finding drugs was the Narcotics Anonymous meetings they
were required to attend. By his families standards he was an old
guy. The men in his family tended to die young from alcoholism. I
expect that both him and his son are dead by now. He was
professional line cook who could have worked in just about any
kitchen, if he could stay sober. He worked at a restaurant with a
bar. His employer knew the game. They gave him just enough free
drinks to keep him working.
I was not joking when I said a $1K monthly allowance might be the
cheapest solution to the problem, if it would get people off the street. -------------------------------------------------------
So again, what do "you" envision them doing with that $1K that would
get them off the street?
Or to put it another way, how would that solution that you're "not
joking about" get them off the street?
Or to put it yet another way, how do you think they are likely to
spend that money that will result in them getting themselves off the
street?
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 9:22:45 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:shelters if we paid them to do it. If I was giving away the money it would come with the condition that they get off the street. If they're caught doing things like camping in areas that aren't approved or shoplifting all of a sudden the money would end.
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 7:12:38 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:wow. Nice reminiscing there. However comma "You" said:
What do you envision them doing with that $1K?
This reminds of the story of the old boy who and won the lottery
and spent it all in a year. When reporters asked him what he had
done with the money he said he has spent half of it on wine, women
and song. The rest of it he wasted.
Keep in mind that the actual proposal is $1K per month, for 12
months. I haven't looked closely at this thing at all because I
don't think it's likely to happen. It's just the silly season here.
Our legislature is in session and they have to put on a good show.
I'm assuming that the guy who made this proposal is trying to get
people off the street and buy time while the government builds
their campgrounds. It would give us both a carrot and a stick to
push people off the street.
It used to be said of the forms of therapy that relied on human
speech that, "One third get better, one third get worse, and one
third stays the same. I had a psychology professor who claimed this
assessment was no longer true decades ago. I didn't believe him
then and I don't believe it now. I think that's likely to be a
pretty good rule of thumb for humans in general. Under the
circumstances I would expect the performance of our homeless
population to be below average. I don't think most of Portland
would care how the money was spent, as long as we didn't have to
see the problem on the streets.
This all reminds me of the nicest heroin addicts I ever met. They
were a happily married couple with a nearly adult son when I knew
them in Bend. She had spent 7 years in county jails in CA, one year
at a time, for possession by consumption. They could have sent her
to college cheaper. He had spent time in prison for credit card
fraud and bad checks. Both of them had been through all sorts of
therapy. That just made them better addicts. They were never
"cured". They were both serious alcoholics and had problems with
other drugs. They finally stopped taking heroin because the
withdrawal was so awful that they didn't want to go through that
again. They found Bend by riding around on the bus. Everywhere they
went people were offering to sell them heroin at the bus terminal.
When they got to Bend no one was offering to sell them heroin and
they knew they had found the right place for them.
They both had lots of therapy. They said the best place they had
found for finding drugs was the Narcotics Anonymous meetings they
were required to attend. By his families standards he was an old
guy. The men in his family tended to die young from alcoholism. I
expect that both him and his son are dead by now. He was
professional line cook who could have worked in just about any
kitchen, if he could stay sober. He worked at a restaurant with a
bar. His employer knew the game. They gave him just enough free
drinks to keep him working.
------------------------------------------------
I was not joking when I said a $1K monthly allowance might be the
cheapest solution to the problem, if it would get people off the street.
-------------------------------------------------------
So again, what do "you" envision them doing with that $1K that would
get them off the street?
Or to put it another way, how would that solution that you're "not
joking about" get them off the street?
Or to put it yet another way, how do you think they are likely to
spend that money that will result in them getting themselves off the
street?
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
With that kind of money some of them could get off the streets. Maybe even permanently. Two people could rent an apartment, with money to spare. A small group could afford a hotel room. Some of them would probably be more likely to stay in the
No one really give a flying fuck what they do with the money, least of all me. If it cut down on the amount of shit on the streets it might be worth it.wait a minute here. Everyone isn't responsible for all that growth. It's all the newcomers' fault. They should pay for the new sewage treatment plants and water treatment plants, etc, etc. It was a brilliant idea. A tax that someone else pays. So now, if
That's sort of how this started--with shit. One of the problems with population growth is what do you do with all that shit? All of the solutions cost money. Traditionally, if you needed a new sewage treatment plant everyone paid for it. But,
The odds are that we would increase the number of deaths due to overdoses by some small amount too.She's living in a tent near where she works. I'll bet an extra thousand would get her in an apartment for at least a year.
Things have gotten so bad here that we have ordinary working people living on the streets. The TV had an example of this recently. It was a middle aged woman who works at a pharmacy downtown. She ended up becoming homeless because of her divorce.
TB
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 9:22:45 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 7:12:38 PM UTC-8, bfhwow. Nice reminiscing there. However comma "You" said:
wrote:
What do you envision them doing with that $1K?
This reminds of the story of the old boy who and won the
lottery and spent it all in a year. When reporters asked him
what he had done with the money he said he has spent half of it
on wine, women and song. The rest of it he wasted.
Keep in mind that the actual proposal is $1K per month, for 12
months. I haven't looked closely at this thing at all because
I don't think it's likely to happen. It's just the silly season
here. Our legislature is in session and they have to put on a
good show. I'm assuming that the guy who made this proposal is
trying to get people off the street and buy time while the
government builds their campgrounds. It would give us both a
carrot and a stick to push people off the street.
It used to be said of the forms of therapy that relied on
human speech that, "One third get better, one third get worse,
and one third stays the same. I had a psychology professor who
claimed this assessment was no longer true decades ago. I
didn't believe him then and I don't believe it now. I think
that's likely to be a pretty good rule of thumb for humans in
general. Under the circumstances I would expect the performance
of our homeless population to be below average. I don't think
most of Portland would care how the money was spent, as long as
we didn't have to see the problem on the streets.
This all reminds me of the nicest heroin addicts I ever met.
They were a happily married couple with a nearly adult son when
I knew them in Bend. She had spent 7 years in county jails in
CA, one year at a time, for possession by consumption. They
could have sent her to college cheaper. He had spent time in
prison for credit card fraud and bad checks. Both of them had
been through all sorts of therapy. That just made them better
addicts. They were never "cured". They were both serious
alcoholics and had problems with other drugs. They finally
stopped taking heroin because the withdrawal was so awful that
they didn't want to go through that again. They found Bend by
riding around on the bus. Everywhere they went people were
offering to sell them heroin at the bus terminal. When they got
to Bend no one was offering to sell them heroin and they knew
they had found the right place for them.
They both had lots of therapy. They said the best place they
had found for finding drugs was the Narcotics Anonymous
meetings they were required to attend. By his families
standards he was an old guy. The men in his family tended to
die young from alcoholism. I expect that both him and his son
are dead by now. He was professional line cook who could have
worked in just about any kitchen, if he could stay sober. He
worked at a restaurant with a bar. His employer knew the game.
They gave him just enough free drinks to keep him working.
------------------------------------------------ I was not joking
when I said a $1K monthly allowance might be the cheapest
solution to the problem, if it would get people off the street.
-------------------------------------------------------
So again, what do "you" envision them doing with that $1K that
would get them off the street? Or to put it another way, how
would that solution that you're "not joking about" get them off
the street? Or to put it yet another way, how do you think they
are likely to spend that money that will result in them getting
themselves off the street? -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it
don't work.
With that kind of money some of them could get off the streets.
Maybe even permanently. Two people could rent an apartment, with
money to spare. A small group could afford a hotel room. Some of
them would probably be more likely to stay in the shelters if we
paid them to do it. If I was giving away the money it would come
with the condition that they get off the street. If they're caught
doing things like camping in areas that aren't approved or
shoplifting all of a sudden the money would end.
The people who do
get indoors would be more likely to find a job than they are now.
No one really give a flying fuck what they do with the money, least
of all me. If it cut down on the amount of shit on the streets it
might be worth it.
With that kind of money some of them could get off the streets.Will woke Portlanders allow enforcement of that?
Maybe even permanently. Two people could rent an apartment, with
money to spare. A small group could afford a hotel room. Some of
them would probably be more likely to stay in the shelters if we
paid them to do it. If I was giving away the money it would come
with the condition that they get off the street. If they're caught
doing things like camping in areas that aren't approved or
shoplifting all of a sudden the money would end.
The people who do
get indoors would be more likely to find a job than they are now.
No one really give a flying fuck what they do with the money, leastDo you personally think it work and be worth it?
of all me. If it cut down on the amount of shit on the streets it
might be worth it.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:55:20 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
With that kind of money some of them could get off theWill woke Portlanders allow enforcement of that?
streets. Maybe even permanently. Two people could rent an
apartment, with money to spare. A small group could afford a
hotel room. Some of them would probably be more likely to stay
in the shelters if we paid them to do it. If I was giving away
the money it would come with the condition that they get off
the street. If they're caught doing things like camping in
areas that aren't approved or shoplifting all of a sudden the
money would end.
The people who do get indoors would be more likely to find aDo you personally think it work and be worth it? -- bill Theory
job than they are now.
No one really give a flying fuck what they do with the money,
least of all me. If it cut down on the amount of shit on the
streets it might be worth it.
don't mean squat if it don't work.
It isn't just Portland. This is a statewide bill. I got curious and
checked. We really don't give a flying fuck how they spend the
money. There are a lot of criteria for who gets the money, but no
conditions on what they do after they get it. They want someone to
study this because it's an experiment and they want to see what
happens. Right now it's capped at $25 million and one year. That's
enough for 2083 people. For a sense of proportion, in Portland: "On
one particular night, 3,800 people slept on the streets, in
shelter, and in temporary housing, and an estimated 12,000 people
were doubled up, many in overcrowded and often unsafe conditions."
A bit less than 2,000 of those people were "unsheltered". Statewide
the Feds figure we have almost 18,000 people who are homeless at
any given point in time, but only about 12,000 are unsheltered.
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB603/Introduced
Considering the amount of money they're throwing around on
campgrounds and other shelters this experiment is probably worth
the cost. It might save us money in the long run. I'll bet this is
a lot like atom smashing and the fish studies we do here. Tag them
and release them and see what happens. I'll bet that the people who
talked them into this experiment are pretty much the same people
who will be studying it. It's all those nasty scientists fault.
When you consider that the most vulnerable people are given a
priority I think there's a good chance that most of those people
will use the money to find shelter. Many of those people have some
income, but not enough to pay for shelter every day.
Here's a small fact I think our resident dumbass will enjoy:
"• More than half of all people experiencing homelessness in the country were in four states: California (30% or 171,521 people);
New York (13% or 74,178 people); Florida (5% or 25,959 people); and Washington (4% or 25,211)."
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2022-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:55:20 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:They want someone to study this because it's an experiment and they want to see what happens. Right now it's capped at $25 million and one year. That's enough for 2083 people. For a sense of proportion, in Portland: "On one particular night, 3,800 people
With that kind of money some of them could get off the streets.Will woke Portlanders allow enforcement of that?
Maybe even permanently. Two people could rent an apartment, with
money to spare. A small group could afford a hotel room. Some of
them would probably be more likely to stay in the shelters if we
paid them to do it. If I was giving away the money it would come
with the condition that they get off the street. If they're caught
doing things like camping in areas that aren't approved or
shoplifting all of a sudden the money would end.
The people who doDo you personally think it work and be worth it?
get indoors would be more likely to find a job than they are now.
No one really give a flying fuck what they do with the money, least
of all me. If it cut down on the amount of shit on the streets it
might be worth it.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
It isn't just Portland. This is a statewide bill. I got curious and checked. We really don't give a flying fuck how they spend the money. There are a lot of criteria for who gets the money, but no conditions on what they do after they get it.
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB603/Introducedhere. Tag them and release them and see what happens. I'll bet that the people who talked them into this experiment are pretty much the same people who will be studying it. It's all those nasty scientists fault. When you consider that the most vulnerable
Considering the amount of money they're throwing around on campgrounds and other shelters this experiment is probably worth the cost. It might save us money in the long run. I'll bet this is a lot like atom smashing and the fish studies we do
Here's a small fact I think our resident dumbass will enjoy:
"• More than half of all people experiencing homelessness in the country were in four states: California (30% or 171,521 people); New York (13% or 74,178 people); Florida (5% or 25,959 people); and Washington (4% or 25,211)."
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2022-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
TB
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:55:20 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
With that kind of money some of them could get off theWill woke Portlanders allow enforcement of that?
streets. Maybe even permanently. Two people could rent an
apartment, with money to spare. A small group could afford a
hotel room. Some of them would probably be more likely to stay
in the shelters if we paid them to do it. If I was giving away
the money it would come with the condition that they get off
the street. If they're caught doing things like camping in
areas that aren't approved or shoplifting all of a sudden the
money would end.
The people who do get indoors would be more likely to find aDo you personally think it work and be worth it? -- bill Theory
job than they are now.
No one really give a flying fuck what they do with the money,
least of all me. If it cut down on the amount of shit on the
streets it might be worth it.
don't mean squat if it don't work.
It isn't just Portland. This is a statewide bill. I got curious and checked. We really don't give a flying fuck how they spend the
money. There are a lot of criteria for who gets the money, but no conditions on what they do after they get it. They want someone to
study this because it's an experiment and they want to see what
happens. Right now it's capped at $25 million and one year. That's
enough for 2083 people. For a sense of proportion, in Portland: "On
one particular night, 3,800 people slept on the streets, in
shelter, and in temporary housing, and an estimated 12,000 people
were doubled up, many in overcrowded and often unsafe conditions."
A bit less than 2,000 of those people were "unsheltered". Statewide
the Feds figure we have almost 18,000 people who are homeless at
any given point in time, but only about 12,000 are unsheltered.
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB603/Introduced
Considering the amount of money they're throwing around on
campgrounds and other shelters this experiment is probably worth
the cost. It might save us money in the long run. I'll bet this is
a lot like atom smashing and the fish studies we do here. Tag them
and release them and see what happens. I'll bet that the people who
talked them into this experiment are pretty much the same people
who will be studying it. It's all those nasty scientists fault.
When you consider that the most vulnerable people are given a
priority I think there's a good chance that most of those people
will use the money to find shelter. Many of those people have some
income, but not enough to pay for shelter every day.
Here's a small fact I think our resident dumbass will enjoy:
"• More than half of all people experiencing homelessness in the country were in four states: California (30% or 171,521 people);
New York (13% or 74,178 people); Florida (5% or 25,959 people); and Washington (4% or 25,211)."
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2022-AHAR-Part-1.pdfCan I boil all that down to "you think it'll work and be worth it"?
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
On 3/3/2023 2:41 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:want someone to study this because it's an experiment and they want to see what happens. Right now it's capped at $25 million and one year. That's enough for 2083 people. For a sense of proportion, in Portland: "On one particular night, 3,800 people
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:55:20 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:
With that kind of money some of them could get off the streets.Will woke Portlanders allow enforcement of that?
Maybe even permanently. Two people could rent an apartment, with
money to spare. A small group could afford a hotel room. Some of
them would probably be more likely to stay in the shelters if we
paid them to do it. If I was giving away the money it would come
with the condition that they get off the street. If they're caught
doing things like camping in areas that aren't approved or
shoplifting all of a sudden the money would end.
The people who doDo you personally think it work and be worth it?
get indoors would be more likely to find a job than they are now.
No one really give a flying fuck what they do with the money, least
of all me. If it cut down on the amount of shit on the streets it
might be worth it.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
It isn't just Portland. This is a statewide bill. I got curious and checked. We really don't give a flying fuck how they spend the money. There are a lot of criteria for who gets the money, but no conditions on what they do after they get it. They
Tag them and release them and see what happens. I'll bet that the people who talked them into this experiment are pretty much the same people who will be studying it. It's all those nasty scientists fault. When you consider that the most vulnerablehttps://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB603/Introduced
Considering the amount of money they're throwing around on campgrounds and other shelters this experiment is probably worth the cost. It might save us money in the long run. I'll bet this is a lot like atom smashing and the fish studies we do here.
Here's a small fact I think our resident dumbass will enjoy:
"• More than half of all people experiencing homelessness in the country were in four states: California (30% or 171,521 people); New York (13% or 74,178 people); Florida (5% or 25,959 people); and Washington (4% or 25,211)."
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2022-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
TBAnother of CC&P's infamous non-answers.
--
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem," - Ronald Reagan
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 1:27:57 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:Considering the amount of money they're throwing around on
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:55:20 AM UTC-8, bfh
wrote:
With that kind of money some of them could get off theWill woke Portlanders allow enforcement of that?
streets. Maybe even permanently. Two people could rent an
apartment, with money to spare. A small group could afford
a hotel room. Some of them would probably be more likely to
stay in the shelters if we paid them to do it. If I was
giving away the money it would come with the condition that
they get off the street. If they're caught doing things
like camping in areas that aren't approved or shoplifting
all of a sudden the money would end.
The people who do get indoors would be more likely to findDo you personally think it work and be worth it? -- bill
a job than they are now.
No one really give a flying fuck what they do with the
money, least of all me. If it cut down on the amount of
shit on the streets it might be worth it.
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
It isn't just Portland. This is a statewide bill. I got curious
and checked. We really don't give a flying fuck how they spend
the money. There are a lot of criteria for who gets the money,
but no conditions on what they do after they get it. They want
someone to study this because it's an experiment and they want
to see what happens. Right now it's capped at $25 million and
one year. That's enough for 2083 people. For a sense of
proportion, in Portland: "On one particular night, 3,800 people
slept on the streets, in shelter, and in temporary housing, and
an estimated 12,000 people were doubled up, many in overcrowded
and often unsafe conditions." A bit less than 2,000 of those
people were "unsheltered". Statewide the Feds figure we have
almost 18,000 people who are homeless at any given point in
time, but only about 12,000 are unsheltered.
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB603/Introduced
campgrounds and other shelters this experiment is probably
worth the cost. It might save us money in the long run. I'll
bet this is a lot like atom smashing and the fish studies we do
here. Tag them and release them and see what happens. I'll bet
that the people who talked them into this experiment are pretty
much the same people who will be studying it. It's all those
nasty scientists fault. When you consider that the most
vulnerable people are given a priority I think there's a good
chance that most of those people will use the money to find
shelter. Many of those people have some income, but not enough
to pay for shelter every day.
Here's a small fact I think our resident dumbass will enjoy:
"• More than half of all people experiencing homelessness
in the country were in four states: California (30% or 171,521
people); New York (13% or 74,178 people); Florida (5% or 25,959
people); and Washington (4% or 25,211)."
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2022-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
Can I boil all that down to "you think it'll work and be worth it"?
-- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Absolutely not. That is not what I said. It might "work" and it
might be worth it. The is an experiment. Some experiments don't
work as expected. I don't know what they expect to come out of this
one. If you learn enough in the process the experiment might have
been worth the time and expense, even if it was a complete failure
otherwise.
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 1:27:57 PM UTC-8, bfh wrote:Considering the amount of money they're throwing around on
Technobarbarian wrote:
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:55:20 AM UTC-8, bfh
wrote:
With that kind of money some of them could get off theWill woke Portlanders allow enforcement of that?
streets. Maybe even permanently. Two people could rent an
apartment, with money to spare. A small group could afford
a hotel room. Some of them would probably be more likely to
stay in the shelters if we paid them to do it. If I was
giving away the money it would come with the condition that
they get off the street. If they're caught doing things
like camping in areas that aren't approved or shoplifting
all of a sudden the money would end.
The people who do get indoors would be more likely to findDo you personally think it work and be worth it? -- bill
a job than they are now.
No one really give a flying fuck what they do with the
money, least of all me. If it cut down on the amount of
shit on the streets it might be worth it.
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
It isn't just Portland. This is a statewide bill. I got curious
and checked. We really don't give a flying fuck how they spend
the money. There are a lot of criteria for who gets the money,
but no conditions on what they do after they get it. They want
someone to study this because it's an experiment and they want
to see what happens. Right now it's capped at $25 million and
one year. That's enough for 2083 people. For a sense of
proportion, in Portland: "On one particular night, 3,800 people
slept on the streets, in shelter, and in temporary housing, and
an estimated 12,000 people were doubled up, many in overcrowded
and often unsafe conditions." A bit less than 2,000 of those
people were "unsheltered". Statewide the Feds figure we have
almost 18,000 people who are homeless at any given point in
time, but only about 12,000 are unsheltered.
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB603/Introduced
campgrounds and other shelters this experiment is probably
worth the cost. It might save us money in the long run. I'll
bet this is a lot like atom smashing and the fish studies we do
here. Tag them and release them and see what happens. I'll bet
that the people who talked them into this experiment are pretty
much the same people who will be studying it. It's all those
nasty scientists fault. When you consider that the most
vulnerable people are given a priority I think there's a good
chance that most of those people will use the money to find
shelter. Many of those people have some income, but not enough
to pay for shelter every day.
Here's a small fact I think our resident dumbass will enjoy:
"• More than half of all people experiencing homelessness >>> in the country were in four states: California (30% or 171,521
people); New York (13% or 74,178 people); Florida (5% or 25,959
people); and Washington (4% or 25,211)."
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2022-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
Can I boil all that down to "you think it'll work and be worth it"?
-- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Absolutely not. That is not what I said. It might "work" and itI allege that it'll probably be worth it to the people getting paid to conduct the experiment and study the results.
might be worth it. The is an experiment. Some experiments don't
work as expected. I don't know what they expect to come out of this
one. If you learn enough in the process the experiment might have
been worth the time and expense, even if it was a complete failure otherwise.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 1:56:30 PM UTC-8, George.Anthony wrote:
On 3/3/2023 2:41 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:55:20 AM UTC-8, bfh wrote:Another of CC&P's infamous non-answers.
With that kind of money some of them could get off the streets.Will woke Portlanders allow enforcement of that?
Maybe even permanently. Two people could rent an apartment, with
money to spare. A small group could afford a hotel room. Some of
them would probably be more likely to stay in the shelters if we
paid them to do it. If I was giving away the money it would come
with the condition that they get off the street. If they're caught
doing things like camping in areas that aren't approved or
shoplifting all of a sudden the money would end.
The people who doDo you personally think it work and be worth it?
get indoors would be more likely to find a job than they are now.
No one really give a flying fuck what they do with the money, least
of all me. If it cut down on the amount of shit on the streets it
might be worth it.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
It isn't just Portland. This is a statewide bill. I got curious and
checked. We really don't give a flying fuck how they spend the money.
There are a lot of criteria for who gets the money, but no conditions
on what they do after they get it. They want someone to study this
because it's an experiment and they want to see what happens. Right now
it's capped at $25 million and one year. That's enough for 2083 people.
For a sense of proportion, in Portland: "On one particular night, 3,800
people slept on the streets, in shelter, and in temporary housing, and
an estimated 12,000 people were doubled up, many in overcrowded and
often unsafe conditions." A bit less than 2,000 of those people were
"unsheltered". Statewide the Feds figure we have almost 18,000 people
who are homeless at any given point in time, but only about 12,000 are unsheltered.
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB603/Introduced
Considering the amount of money they're throwing around on campgrounds
and other shelters this experiment is probably worth the cost. It might
save us money in the long run. I'll bet this is a lot like atom
smashing and the fish studies we do here. Tag them and release them and
see what happens. I'll bet that the people who talked them into this
experiment are pretty much the same people who will be studying it.
It's all those nasty scientists fault. When you consider that the most
vulnerable people are given a priority I think there's a good chance
that most of those people will use the money to find shelter. Many of
those people have some income, but not enough to pay for shelter every day. >>>
Here's a small fact I think our resident dumbass will enjoy:
"• More than half of all people experiencing homelessness in the
country were in four states: California (30% or 171,521 people); New
York (13% or 74,178 people); Florida (5% or 25,959 people); and
Washington (4% or 25,211)."
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2022-AHAR-Part-1.pdf >>>
TB
--
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem.
Government is the problem," - Ronald Reagan
If you are looking for answers on RORT I think you've come to the
wrong place. It should be obvious that I don't know much and don't have many answers.
TB
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 94:17:15 |
| Calls: | 6,658 |
| Files: | 12,206 |
| Messages: | 5,334,349 |