header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Topic: The decline and fall of San Francisco

 (Read 314 times)


  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 24375
  • Liked:
Re: The decline and fall of San Francisco
« Reply #42 on: August 07, 2020, 09:52:01 PM »
That's true they're more likely to be poor after they've become drug addicted and homeless, but they are also more likely to be poor BEFORE they become drug addicted and homeless.  

Evidence? Studies?  I can see that to some degree because the state doesn't afford the necessary services while rich people can pay out of pocket to seek treatment for their relatives.  But since the state refuses to admit people for mental health issues, then who exactly is exacerbating the problem?


  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3968
  • Liked:
Re: The decline and fall of San Francisco
« Reply #43 on: August 07, 2020, 10:57:13 PM »
You get more of what you subsidize


If you work, you should be better off than if you don't work. That is just common sense, and it is how the overwhelming majority of Americans feel.  When it comes to the drug testing of recipients of welfare benefits, the vast majority of citizens in my district want to know that their hard-earned tax dollars are not going to subsidize a drug habit. 

After all, many are working two and three jobs to make ends meet — and, in many cases are required to pass a drug test as a condition of employment.  They have no interest in subsidizing the drug habit of those receiving government assistance; nor should they.


  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Liked:
Re: The decline and fall of San Francisco
« Reply #44 on: August 08, 2020, 08:58:04 PM »
This was the most recent exchange in the conversation as it advanced:

Most homeless drug addicts live below the poverty threshold. Still curious how you connect the wealth gap/disparity to becoming a homeless drug addict.

If you don't see how homeless drug addicts who live below the poverty threshold are connected to wealth gap/disparity, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

You brought up and first used the word "connected," not me.  Most tend to move forward during conversations, and rely on the most recent contributions while doing so. 

I've explained why they are connected, and stand by the opinion that wealth disparity is far more to blame than liberal city policy for the homeless population.  If the vast majority of the wealth created in the US since 1980 wasn't concentrated in less than 1% of the populations' hands in a macro sense, then we wouldn't be seeing what we're seeing in San Francisco in a micro sense. 

If the growth in wealth had been dispersed equitably, along with universal government funded healthcare, the national debt would be $0 and you could vacation in the Tenderloin District. 

I used "connect" first? True and that proves what??? That it's ridiculous when a grown man using middle school logic. Moving forward, according to you, the basic primary problem that causes homeless drug addicts is poor people have less money than other less-poor people. Oscar Mike.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2020, 09:03:54 PM by KingKongGodzilla »


Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.