reason10

Another LIE.

That is a LIE. And you are a LIAR.

It's a LIE. JImmy Carter empowered Islamofascism with his cowardly decision not to rescue the hostages. Those ragheads would have shit themselves if they saw attack helicopters moving in a day after they were taken.

Get a life, creep.

The stupid ones do. They still sling their lies and bullshit whenever I post. They're just childish immature brats who have shelves full of participation trophies. They're not used to losing arguments. There is good news. You goose steppers can fill out a form and send it to the chaplain.

Unelected Joe IS a traitor. LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT REAGAN was the greatest president in history.

The REAL Reagan Record. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/reaganomics-did-it-work-would-it-today-3305569 What was Reaganomics? Reaganomics was based on the Laffer Curve. Economist Arthur Laffer developed it in 1974. The curve showed how tax cuts could stimulate the economy to the point where the tax base expanded. Tax cuts reduce the level of federal taxation immediately. These same cuts have a multiplier effect on economic growth. Tax cuts put money in consumers' pockets, which they spend. That stimulates business growth and more hiring. The result? A larger tax base. Reaganomics was consistent with the theory of supply-side economics. It states that corporate tax cuts are the best way to grow the economy. When companies get more cash, they should hire new workers and expand their businesses. It also says that income tax cuts give workers more incentive to work, increasing the supply of labor. That's why it's sometimes called trickle-down economics. Tax Cuts Reagan cut tax rates enough to stimulate consumer demand. By Reagan's last year in office, the top income tax rate was 28% for single people making $18,550 or more. Anyone making less paid no taxes at all. That was much less than the 1980 top tax rate of 70% for individuals earning $108,300 or more. Reagan indexed the tax brackets for inflation.3 Reagan offset these tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere. He raised Social Security payroll taxes and some excise taxes. He also cut several deductions.45 Reagan cut the corporate tax rate from 46% to 40% in 1987.6 But the effect of this break was unclear. Reagan changed the tax treatment of many new investments. The complexity meant that the overall results of his corporate tax changes couldn't be measured. Slow Spending Growth Government spending still grew, just not as fast as under President Jimmy Carter. Reagan increased spending by 9% a year, from $678 billion at Carter's final budget in Fiscal Year 1981 to $1.1 trillion at Reagan's last budget for FY 1989. Carter increased spending by 16% a year, from $409 billion in FY 1977 to $678 billion in FY 1981. Reduce Regulations In 1981, Reagan eliminated the Nixon-era price controls on domestic oil and gas.8 They constrained the free-market equilibrium that would have prevented inflation. Reagan also deregulated cable TV, long-distance telephone service, interstate bus service, and ocean shipping. He eased bank regulations, but that helped create the Savings and Loan Crisis in 1989. Reagan increased, not decreased, import barriers. He doubled the number of items that were subject to trade restraint from 12% in 1980 to 23% in 1988.1 He did little to reduce other regulations affecting health, safety, and the environment. Carter had reduced regulations at a faster pace. Tame Inflation Reagan had campaigned on ending galloping inflation. That's when inflation rates reach 10% or more. In 1980 the inflation rate was 12.5%. These rates hurt the economy because money loses value too fast. Business and employee income can't keep up with rising costs and prices. Galloping inflation was already being addressed by Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. He used contractionary monetary policy, despite the potential for a recession. In 1979, Volcker began raising the fed funds rate. By December 1980, it had reached 20%.9 These high rates choked off economic growth. Volcker's policy triggered the recession of 1981-1982. Unemployment rose to 10.1% and stayed above 10% for 10 months.10 This painful solution was necessary to stop galloping inflation. Had inflation not been tackled in this way, the economy would have fared far worse. Volcker's policies knocked inflation down to 3.8% by 1983.11

The failing left wing goose stepping New York Times? The sleazy rag that compaigned AGAINST Reagan. Bottom line, Reagan was the greatest president in history. Gave American the greatest economy, SLASHED gasoline prices, ENDED inflation and defeated America's deadliest enemy (Soviet Union) without firing a shot. History remembers Reagan as the best. https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-real-reagan-economic-record-responsible-and-successful-fiscal-policy HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY? Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990: Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3 As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4 Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase. HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING? Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s: Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6 As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7 Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8 Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.) HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH? Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth: This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10 The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11 From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12 HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN? Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation: In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd. The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14 Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15 These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16 Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects. Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups: For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989; For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989. On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups: For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989; For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989; For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17

https://www.foxnews.com/media/anti-capitalist-teacher-promotes-anarchy-loves-students-no-respect-authority Anti-capitalist teacher promotes anarchy, 'loves' when students have 'no respect for authority' A Minneapolis science teacher, who recommends teachers include anti-capitalist materials in their classrooms, praised the idea of having no respect for authority. The teacher at Highland Park Middle School, Mandi Jung, frequently posts videos on TikTok espousing anti-capitalist and anarchist philosophies. Anarchism is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish systems like capitalism, which it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy. Jung also said that she identifies with the Industrial Workers of the World, an ideological union with ties to socialism and anarchism. "My students this year have no respect for authority," the Saint Paul district teacher said. "And I love that in a person because I have no respect for authority whatsoever. But it has been a frustrating year because I am the authority. So I'm like, ‘Damn the man,’ but I am the man." Gee! Florida public schools teach Math, English, Art, Music, History, Geography, Civics, Science. Stuff people actually NEED to survive in society. And a Minneapolis teacher goes the opposite way? This being in the same Minneapolis that gave America this? Yup. Seems to show that "no respect for authority" thing. Gee! What are they teaching those brats in Minneapolis? Uh, fellas. DON'T MOVE TO FLORIDA. Our teachers are superior. They don't put up with this crap. And if you riot, you'll go to jail and likely have a felony on your record. Just stay in your shithole blue state, pay higher taxes and burn all the private businesses you want.

Oh, by the way, the Florida legislature passed a similar bill in 2021, signed by our brilliant Governor DeSantis. If you want to protest legally, you are welcome to protest in at least North Carolina and Florida. If you want to be goons, destroy property, engage in acts of terrorism, you WILL be arrested and charged with a crime. Think it over, goons.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/north-carolina-bill-increasing-punishments-rioters-become-law-governor-veto North Carolina bill increasing punishments for rioters will become law after no governor veto North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper announced Friday he would not use his veto stamp on a piece of legislation increasing penalties for rioters after he blocked a similar bill in 2021. The GOP-controlled legislature sent the bill to the governor's desk last Thursday after it passed with a bipartisan vote in the House and Senate. The Democratic governor had until Monday to sign or veto the bill, which was proposed following the nationwide riots in 2020 following the death of George Floyd. Though Cooper said he would not veto the bill, he announced he would allow the legislation to become law without his signature, according to The Associated Press. The decision means Cooper will potentially delay an override from state lawmakers as the legislature has become more Republican since his 2021 veto. Cooper's choice not to veto the bill irritated social justice advocates who claim the measure restricts the right to protest and free speech, despite only increasing penalties for violent rioters and not peaceful protesters. This caused me to chuckle. Typical RACIST Democrat bullshit. "Property damage and violence are already illegal and my continuing concerns about the erosion of the First Amendment and the disparate impacts on communities of color will prevent me from signing this legislation," he said. Gee, DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR. Are you suggesting only COLORED people engage in RIOTS, and that COLORED neighborhoods are NOT impacted by riots? I read the bill. Here it is: The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1. G.S. 14-288.2 reads as rewritten: "§ 14-288.2. Riot; inciting to riot; punishments. (a) A riot is a public disturbance involving an assemblage of three or more persons which by disorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property. (b) Any person who willfully engages in a riot is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (c) Any person who willfully engages in a riot is guilty of a Class H felony, if: (1) In the course and as a result of the riot there is property damage in excess of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) or serious bodily injury; or (2) Such participant in the riot has in his possession felony if in the course of the riot the person brandishes any dangerous weapon or uses a dangerous substance. (c1) Any person who willfully engages in a riot is guilty of a Class F felony if in the course of the riot the person causes property damage in excess of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) or serious bodily injury. (c2) Any person who willfully engages in a riot is guilty of a Class E felony if in the course of the riot the person causes a death. (d) Any person who willfully incites or urges another to engage in a riot, so that as a result of such inciting or urging a riot occurs or a clear and present danger of a riot is created, is guilty of a Class 1 Class A1 misdemeanor. (e) Any person who willfully incites or urges another to engage in a riot, and such inciting or urging is a contributing cause of a riot in which there is property damage in excess of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) or serious bodily injury, shall be punished as a Class F felon.shall be guilty of a Class E felony. (e1) Any person who willfully incites or urges another to engage in a riot, and such inciting or urging causes a death, shall be guilty of a Class D felony. (f) Any person whose person or property is injured by reason of a violation of this section may sue for and recover from the violator three times the actual damages sustained, as well as court costs and attorneys' fees. (g) Mere presence alone without an overt act is not sufficient to sustain a conviction pursuant to this section." Page 2 House Bill 805-Ratified SECTION 2. G.S. 14-288.6 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: "(c) Any person whose person or property is injured by reason of a violation of this section may sue for and recover from the violator three times the actual damages sustained, as well as court costs and attorneys' fees." SECTION 3. G.S. 14-288.9 reads as rewritten: "§ 14-288.9. Assault on emergency personnel; punishments. (a) An assault upon emergency personnel is an assault upon any person coming within the definition of "emergency personnel" which is committed in an area: (1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or (2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring or is imminent. (b) The term "emergency personnel" includes law-enforcement officers, firemen, ambulance attendants, utility workers, doctors, nurses, members of the North Carolina National Guard, and other persons lawfully engaged in providing essential services or otherwise discharging or attempting to discharge his or her official duties during the emergency. (c) Any person who commits an assault causing physical injury upon emergency personnel is guilty of a Class I felony. Class H felony. Any person who commits an assault upon emergency personnel with or through the use of any dangerous weapon or substance shall be punished as a Class F felon." SECTION 4. Article 26 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: "§ 15A-534.8. Rioting or looting; bail and pretrial release. (a) In all cases in which the defendant is charged with a violation of G.S. 14-288.2 or G.S. 14-288.6, the judicial official who determines the conditions of pretrial release shall be a judge. The judge shall direct a law enforcement officer or a district attorney to provide a criminal history report for the defendant and shall consider the criminal history when setting conditions of release. After setting conditions of release, the judge shall return the report to the providing agency or department. No judge shall unreasonably delay the determination of conditions of pretrial release for the purpose of reviewing the defendant's criminal history report. The following provisions shall apply in addition to the provisions of G.S. 15A-534: (1) Upon a determination by the judge that the immediate release of the defendant will pose a danger of injury to persons and upon a determination that the execution of an appearance bond as required by G.S. 15A-534 will not reasonably assure that such injury will not occur, a judge may retain the defendant in custody for a reasonable period of time while determining the conditions of pretrial release. (2) A judge may order the defendant to stay away from specific locations or property where the offense occurred. This condition may be imposed in addition to requiring that the defendant execute a secured appearance bond. (3) Should the defendant be mentally ill and dangerous to himself or herself or others, or a substance abuser and dangerous to himself or herself or others, the provisions of Article 5 of Chapter 122C of the General Statutes shall apply. (b) A defendant may be retained in custody not more than 48 hours from the time of arrest without a determination being made under this section by a judge. If a judge has not acted pursuant to this section within 48 hours of arrest, the magistrate shall act under the provisions of this section." House Bill 805-Ratified Page 3 SECTION 5. This act becomes effective December 1, 2021, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 1st day of September, Find even ONE item in this bill that is in any way discriminatory.

Boys and girls, I'm amazed this thread actually got more than one or two comments. To bring you children up to speed, I'M NOT A SUBJECT OF THE NEWS. In terms of appearance, I'm the SAME as everyone else here. There are no niggas, honkies, spics, kikes, gooks, etc. We are ALL the same. We are TEXT. And we're barely newsworthy in our local hometown newspapers, much less in the arena of national news. We are only judged by our ideas, but OUR IDEAS BY THEMSELVES DO NOT DESERVE A THREAD. Still, It's always fun to put an uneducated goose stepper in his/her place. (Gee! I only used TWO pronouns.)

You need to get a life. It's obvious you were socially promoted in a blue state public school system because you clearly do not know jack shit about the real world. Politicians PAYING someone to come to dipshit political message boards? Earth to knucklehead, a TROLL is not someone who posts items you disagree with. A troll exists ONLY to cause trouble and posts no actual facts. It's ironic since I post more fact in one day than ALL the woke goose steppers here have done in their entire lives. I just argue in the marketplace of ideas, same as everyone else. Is it surprising that I'm smarter than all the liberals here combined? Is that what bothers you so much, losing arguments to me? You REALLY need to get a life. Dean Wormer said it best in the last century.

No he didn't. Obama had the WORST job numbers in history, regardless of what your THE VIEW sources try to lie about.

Go back to school, snowflake. Learn what inflation is and what the cause is. Right now, you sound like a little third grader in a college macroeconomics class.

The current problems were caused by Unelected Joe and the ;Democrats. Find someone with an education to explain the word INFLATION to your dumb @ss. Unelected Joe gave us the WORST inflation in history, and THAT is what tanked that dumba$$ bank.

That's a lie.

You think people who follow the law are homosexual. And you wonder why everybody thinks you're an !diot.

It’s not a debunked claim, trump signed the bill that deregulated banks like this. Deregulation didn't cause SVB to kill itself. The BIDEN INFLATION did that. https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2023/03/svb-bank-collapse-bidens-mad-inflation-was-a-big-factor/ So what caused the rapid rate hikes? The worst inflation in 40 years. And what caused that? Profligate spending and money printing coming out of Washington — all while Joe Biden, Janet Yellen, and Jerome Powell assured us inflation was “transitory.” I warned two years ago that pumping trillions of dollars of stimulus into an already hot economy was an unprecedented and likely dangerous experiment. But this was Bidenomics.

Bush DID inherit a recession. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-bush-inherited-and-what-he-left-left-behind-victor-davis-hanson/ George W. Bush inherited a recession. He also inherited the Iraq no-fly zones, a Middle East boiling after the failed last-minute Clintonian rush for an imposed peace, an intelligence community wedded to the notion of Saddam’s WMD proliferation, a Congress on record supporting “regime change” in Iraq, a WMD program in Libya, a Syrian occupation of Lebanon, Osama bin Laden enjoying free rein in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, a renegade Pakistan that had gone nuclear on Clinton’s watch with Dr. Khan in full export mode, and a pattern of appeasing radical Islam after its serial attacks (on the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies, and the U.S.S. Cole). https://www.dailysignal.com/2012/09/07/two-huge-flaws-in-the-legend-of-the-clinton-economy/ The second flaw marring the Clinton economic story is recession. President Clinton did not leave his successor a booming economy. He left President George W. Bush a recession. The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office. Even the most rabid leftist cannot blame George Bush for the 2001 recession. It was the Clinton recession. https://reason.com/2012/10/14/clintons-legacy-the-financial-and-housin/ Clinton, however, sowed the seeds of the Great Recession by helping to inflate the housing bubble, a key part of the financial debacle of 2007. But this wasn't because he (not George W. Bush) signed two financial deregulation bills. Although Clinton legalized interstate banking in 1994 and commercial/investment banking combinations in 1999, that had nothing to do with the meltdown. And a big part of that was due to lawsuits from ACORN, which Barak Saddam Hussein worked for as a lawyer. So HIS fingerprints are one what happened. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/fingerprints-of-obama-on-subprime-foreclosure-crisis/ First some background: Obama focused on "housing rights" when he worked as a lawyer-activist and community organizer in South Side Chicago. His mentor — the man who placed him in his first job there — was the father of the anti-redlining movement: John McKnight. He coined the term "redlining" to describe the mapping off of minority neighborhoods from home loans. McKnight wrote a letter for Obama that helped him get into Harvard. After he graduated, he worked for a Chicago civil-rights law firm that worked closely with McKnight's radical Gamaliel Foundation and National People's Action, as well as Acorn, to solicit lending-discrimination cases. At the time, NPA and Acorn were lobbying the Clinton administration to tighten enforcement of anti-redlining laws. They also dispatched bus loads of goons trained by Obama to the doorsteps of bankers to demand more home loans for minorities. Acorn even crashed the lobby of Citibank's headquarters in New York and accused it of discriminating against blacks. The pressure worked. In 1994, Clinton's top bank regulators signed a landmark anti-redlining policy that declared traditional mortgage underwriting standards racist and mandated banks apply easier lending rules for minorities. Also that year, Attorney General Janet Reno and her aide Eric Holder filed a mortgage discrimination case against a Washington-area bank that forced it to target minority neighborhoods for subprime loans. Reno and Holder also encouraged civil-rights lawyers like Obama to file local lending-bias cases against banks. The next year, Obama led a class-action suit against Citibank on behalf of several Chicago minorities who claimed they were rejected for home loans because of the color of their skin. It was one of 11 such suits filed against the financial giant in Chicago and New York in the 1990s. As first reported in Paul Sperry's "The Great American Bank Robbery," the plaintiffs' claim lacked merit. Factors other than race figured in the bank's decision to turn them down for loans. One of Obama's clients had "inadequate collateral" and "an incomplete application," while another had "delinquent credit obligations and other adverse credit history." Obama argued such facts miss the point: that Citibank's neutral underwriting criteria may have adversely impacted his clients as a class of people. He demanded it turn over loan files from the entire Chicago metro area to prove it regularly engaged in a pattern of discrimination. The court didn't award him the files. But Citibank eventually settled, despite the weak case. Under the 1998 settlement, Citibank vowed to pay the alleged victims $1.4 million and launch a program to boost home lending to poor blacks in the metro area. In the run-up to the crisis, Citibank underwrote thousands of shaky subprime mortgages to satisfy the court in Obama's case. Defaults were common. When home prices collapsed, most of the loans went bust. His lead African-American client, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who was denied a loan due to bad credit and low income, got her mortgage only to default on it years later. She got a foreclosure notice in 2008, according to The Daily Caller website, along with many of her Chicago neighbors. By putting them on the hook for loans they couldn't pay, Obama did them no favors. Blacks have been hit hardest by foreclosures. But what does Obama care? The Caller reports he pocketed at least $23,000 from the Citibank case. Today, he blames the devastating wealth drain in black communities on subprime mortgages. He says "greedy," "predatory" lenders tricked poor minorities into paying higher fees and interest rates. But Obama was for subprime loans before he was against them. "Subprime loans started off as a good idea," he said as those loans began to sour in 2007. Get someone with an education to actually the articles to you. They are Investors Business Daily, which is the most credible source in the universe when it comes to the economy. You apparently didn't read any of it. Or you're just too fcking STUPID. Substitute teachers? Florida THIRD GRADERS are smarter than your dumb a$$.

As a matter of fact, it was President Kennedy who signed the bill deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill, causing the asylums to kick them to the street. The loonies do not belong on the street. They belong in an institution. Thank Democrats for that. I don't think EITHER party gives a shit about the homeless, as far as improving their situation. It would take tough love like the idea I suggested. And Democrats would pounce on it as supporting abuse and slavery. it was around the mid-90s when I drove for a non-emergency transportation service. (Wheelchair vans, mostly.) I transported many homeless from doctors to the huge homeless shelter in downtown Orlando. I found out the United Way was picking up the tab for that. Today I work in public schools in two Florida counties, so I know that there is a certain number of students who live in the woods. The schools (even during the summer) have a free meal program and for some of these homeless kids, it's the only food they'll get. It'll take tough action, and it would have to be bipartisan, with both sides agreeing on what has to be done. And it would have to be without the politics. That's how I know it'll never happen Try THIS idea on for size: Suppose in a medium sized city there is a sizable homeless population. And businesses who are affected the most all get together and decide to pool their money and create a massive homeless farm like I mentioned, on some land not too far away They pay for it and the homeless are removed from their store fronts. Homeless then have a roof over their heads and plenty of food, but they have to work for it. And they aren't given a choice. The farm opens up, and they are loaded into the trucks and taken to the farm. That wouldn't cost the taxpayers a penny. And probably both political parties would find a way to get that farm shut down and maybe fine the businesses for the gesture. The homeless get votes for politicians.

I remember hearing those ideas from the Libertarian Party as early as the late 80s. (That was probably when I first started paying attention to them.) They are so good that NOBODY from the two main parties will give them the time of day. Rent subsidies jack up the cost of rent more than anything else.

You were competing with the government. Kinda hard to achieve a market share when the country's taxpayers are subsidizing your competition.