Dear Libby,
You challenged me on several points regarding this homeless problem we’re having in Chico and because your opinion mirrors that of at least five of our seven council people and many thousands of their constituents who support them, I thought it might be worthwhile to air our differences on page one and let everybody in on it. I will let you have the last word because you were not prepared to have this out in public in our posts. I just want to be fair.
This quote taken from something I said started it; “Libby, the total number of beds available in Butte County often exceed the number of people looking.”
Libby: l want to see a source for that statement. Torres’s website will confirm the number of beds. I got the 1200 from the census the county took. It too is online.
So, what do you got?
Denial … that’s all you got.
It stands to reason that a person who exhausts all other resources and winds up on the street is gonna be a hard case. You just won’t exert yerselves (pony up, really, is all you have to do).
And if you won’t, and you know you won’t, and you absolutely won’t … then, why not just step over the beggars? What’s it to you?
Jack: Libby, we can debate whether or not we have enough beds in the shelters, but it would not be doing justice to the bigger issue you and others who agree with you want to impose on us. You believe the answer to everything is taking more money out of the pockets of taxpayers. This time you want to build more homeless shelters and provide a host of other things such as good healthcare, rehab counseling, etc., for anyone who needs it, without regard to their life choices, without accountability, or even if they are legal citizens or not. And you believe if we (the working society) will only “pony up” enough money we can solve this problem of the poor by shifting the wealth until it goes away. If we will only spend more money to fix it we won’t have people sleeping under bridges, hitting people up on the street for their spare change, or getting falling down drunk in some back alley and worse.
However, even if we had the money spend for such a massive project, it won’t be coming from you – you want to be generous with our money. We could take your entire salary and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference, so you want us to take it from deeper pockets, i.e., people who consistently earn good money. They are anybody making $40k a year or more also the big companies and corporations that provide jobs and pay good wages. You want government to take their money (as much as needed) and give it to those people who choose not to work. You want us to give to them with equal generosity as we would for the truly needy, those who are indigent through no fault of their own….and I say no way!
The number of people who choose not to work and live off the hard work of others are really growing. It’slike an epidemic and it’s become a populist movement, where people can vote themselves all sorts expensive things just because they have the numbers. These are typically the low and no income people, but by virtue of their sheer numbers they can rob the wealth. If they can’t do it through direct democracy, then they can elect your representatives to do i, and they do! We’ve seen plenty of that right here in California. It’s why we support over 25% of the nation’s total welfare cases.
I strongly believe that people reach an age of accountability, where we must all take responsibility for our life choices. If we try to remove the consequences for bad life choices we become enablers and codependents and we also remove a good learning opportunity that might help them can correct their path.
This is why I say a populist movement is a very dangerous thing. When the masses realize they can vote themselves whatever they wat, it always leads to greed and taking too much.
Thanks to populism/liberalism there always comes a time when there are simply too many takers and not enough workers. When that happens the financial burden becomes too great for the few supporting the many. This leads us to the next phase, a guaranteed economic ruin! It will be a total destruction of the core values that built this great society. All the incentives, all the motivation, all the opportunities associated with our free society will be gone. And at the same time, we will suddenly lose our market share to a competitive world that has always been nipping at our heels. They’re eager to dominate us and if they have their way, we won’t be making a come back. So, once the damage is done, it’s unlikely we will ever recover.
This is the big picture Libby, but you are in denial… despite all the evidence that keeps piling up. The populist movement is gaining traction and that’s going to bring more people down, more mouths to feed and less workers. There’s no winning for anyone when that happens . This is why I say this is not about bed counting or even about homeless in Chico, this is about a cancer that is pervasive in our society and our very survival is in doubt. If we continue to shift the wealth and chip away at our strengths as we grow socialism… we’re going to destroy our future. Okay, your turn Libby.
Libby:
“Libby, we can debate whether or not we have enough beds in the shelters, but it would not be doing justice to the bigger issue.”
But alas, you do not go on to define the bigger issue, as such. Still, I was able to figure it out:
“… taking more money out of the pockets of taxpayers.”
“… without regard to life choices, without accountability, ….”
“… taking more away from the productive side of society than can be safely tolerated.”
First and foremost, you cannot deny that present services are inadequate, but you do not want to, and will not, pay for adequate services.
Because … you blame these people for their joblessness, their poverty, their addictions and so on. You blame them, you disapprove of them, and you will not help them.
Finally, your insistence that providing adequate services will sap the moral fiber of the country is just baloney … a truly feeble justification for selfish, small-minded, meanness.
I think you’re hoping you can get the cops to strong-arm them out of the county, but I don’t think you will be able to convince them to attempt it. I’ll bet there is at least one “hell-fer-leather” civil rights attorney in this town, and the city don’t need no more legal bills.
So, you will not be allowed to jail them for any length of time (current law will not allow it, and you won’t pay for it), intern them in some gulag (at least, I hope not), or euthanize them.
We seem to have a stand-off. And I can’t see that it would be productive to go any further with this, unless you do have some other concrete option.
Jack the number of people receiving benefits in this country now exceeds the number who work and pay taxes. This trend is not about to change with the liberal progressive agenda to always demand higher taxes and more services. Not one of them has ever answered the question: How will we pay for it when there are not enough working people to foot the bill?
They don’t seem to realize they have painted us into a corner.
the right has been trying for decades to reform entitlements. To encourage personal responsibility through laws that offer incentive to save and invest for emergencies, healthcare and retirement. The left absolutely refuses.
This fundamental difference translates to this argument. When will we begin to see these people not just as victims and unfortunate but as human beings capable of much more than they are doing and capable of being producers rather than takers?
“Libby, we can debate whether or not we have enough beds in the shelters, but it would not be doing justice to the bigger issue.”
But alas, you do not go on to define the bigger issue, as such. Still, I was able to figure it out:
“… taking more money out of the pockets of taxpayers.”
“… without regard to life choices, without accountability, ….”
“… taking more away from the productive side of society than can be safely tolerated.”
First and foremost, you cannot deny that present services are inadequate, but you do not want to, and will not, pay for adequate services.
Because … you blame these people for their joblessness, their poverty, their addictions and so on. You blame them, you disapprove of them, and you will not help them.
Finally, your insistence that providing adequate services will sap the moral fiber of the country is just baloney … a truly feeble justification for selfish, small-minded, meanness.
I think you’re hoping you can get the cops to strong-arm them out of the county, but I don’t think you will be able to convince them to attempt it. I’ll bet there is at least one “hell-fer-leather” civil rights attorney in this town, and the city don’t need no more legal bills.
So, you will not be allowed to jail them for any length of time (current law will not allow it, and you won’t pay for it), intern them in some gulag (at least, I hope not), or euthanize them.
We seem to have a stand-off. And I can’t see that it would be productive to go any further with this, unless you do have some other concrete option.
“Jack the number of people receiving benefits in this country now exceeds the number who work and pay taxes.”
Only because way too many people who work and pay taxes are not able to feed the kids without food stamps.
I’d love to see the WPA brought back for every able bodied person put to work, after taking a drug test, before picking up their check. Just think of the parks that would be kept clean, road potholes fixed, and even graffiti painted over. Heck, how about putting a bunch of office workers to deal with the mess with VA. Haven’t they gotten billions over the past couple of years and it’s still not fixed.
Lots of work needs to be done and plenty of able bodies sitting around to do it.
Those receiving government “benefits” also includes those working for the government not just those receiving assistance. It’s still a comparison against those in the private sector who are not receiving any type of government check.
More than 47.5 million US households are now in the SNAP program and the government spent $55.6 billion on the program in 2012.The program has increased every year that Obama has been in office.
California’s poverty rate is around 23%…highest in the nation. One reason we are number one is the cost of living is also high.
Chico’s unemployment rate hovers around 10%
California has billions in unfunded pension liabilities and a governor who wants to build tunnels to send water south and a bullet train to nowhere.
Vallego, Stockton, San Bernardino, and Atwater have filed bankruptcy in California. Azusa, Compton, Fresno, Oakland, and San Jose are close to being bankrupt. A number of smaller towns and cities are in financial trouble…including Chico.
Except for big corporations, businesses are still under pressure with more pressure being added by both the state and federal governments.
The middle class is shrinking, mostly into poverty.
The housing market has improved but most of the buyers are investors.
There’s more but for heavens sake Libby…what does it take for you to get the people are tapped out and owing!
Your socialist dream is turning into a nightmare and it is screwing the futures of even college graduates who find they can’t find work, can’t afford gas or a car, and are living back home with Mom and Dad.
To even have a prayer at offering greater services for the worthy poor your party, since you have all of the power in California, had better figure out how to grow a strong middle class instead of shrinking it into poverty!
To Jack: Well said!
Libby writes: First and foremost, you cannot deny that present services are inadequate, but you do not want to, and will not, pay for adequate services.
Actually Libby it is not the services that are inadequate, it is the people running them. Most seem to have extensive training in working Government grants.
If you recall the charitable portion of our society is always cautioned to question the percentage of our money contributions actually reach the intended. I have felt for a long time that the same needs to be applied to ANY non profit agency that prepossesses to help people in need. As an example I’ll use the business model of welfare agencies, they will try and sign people up for every little scrape of tax payer money they can, and the bottom line is it for their own job security, and expansion and not so much the actual help the people need.
I will venture that most of the grant funded non profits in Chico follow the same business model, and like government agencies spend ALL their unused funds toward enlarging their funding possibilities., whether needed or not
The more you can service the more you can ask for. So the end game is nothing but a numbers game and attracting out of area recipients appears to be the answer in Chico.
The amount of funding (grants) that come into as well as those given by Chico residents should be more than adequate to help locals, but to get even more funding these groups farm for people to be brought into Chico from out the area.
That is not helping solve the problem, Chico has only so much it can offer by itself, it can not successful serve all of Butte County, but I would safely venture, because of Chico’s Liberal “Build it and they will come” thinking, many other communities point their problems in Chico’s direction.
Chico should not be elected to be sole responsibility to help reintroduce people back into being self reliant, however this is overshadowed by the non profits desire to constantly expand because of the blessing and whim of a ideological bias Liberal City Counsel making knee jerk decisions without due process of thought.
Recently our Mayor retired, it is in my opinion she was in over her head and knew it, so she did all the damage she could and ran away under guise of medical issues.
Now, because of her stepping down, and as well as an complete financial mismanagements of city funds, and the hard work of Mark Sorensen we are looking at the cause of Chico leaders inadequate management with more cost effective thinking verse just feel good Liberal ideology.
Actually when Chico gets back Budget basics first, and the protection of our citizenry adequately and then addressing the needs of homelessness,, and our staying within the financial and effective possible solutions, everyone will all be better off.
Libby also writes: Finally, your insistence that providing adequate services will sap the moral fiber of the country is just baloney … a truly feeble justification for selfish, small-minded, meanness. The only small mindedness might be that of your insistence that Chico is any where near mean spirited, instead the truth of the matter is people of Chico have been lied to about their need to care more, once more if real numbers and truth be known than we would not have this problem!
Libby, I don’t blame anyone, but I do witness what they do and if choose to not be part of it, that does not make me mean. I do plenty of charity, but I try to direct it where I think it will do the most good.
People who deliberately go out of their way to avoid work, avoid school and depend on the charity of others don’t deserve my help. That’s a choice I want to make – just like they made a choice to do it their way.
I agree with Peggy, there should be a WPA kind of program to re-introduce the bums to working for a living. Teach them a trade and how to be responsible, but if they have no incentive to do it chances are they won’t. I believe in incentives… tough love is far better than being a codependent.
Tina :
“More than 47.5 million US households are now in the SNAP program and the government spent $55.6 billion on the program in 2012.The program has increased every year that Obama has been in office.”
Do you realize that 30% of the families who collect SNAP are working? Unfortunately many jobs don’t pay enough to stay out of the poverty income levels.
Also 16% who collect food stamps are seniors.
Tina: “Jack the number of people receiving benefits in this country now exceeds the number who work and pay taxes.”
You are a XXXdamn liar. You have made this claim on this blog before and I proved then that it was a lie. Why do you do this? Why do you think this kind of dishonesty is morally acceptable?
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/11/chain-email/chain-email-says-11-states-have-more-people-welfar/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/deathspiral.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/death-spiral-states/
Libby has no cause to call others mean, small minded, or selfish. this is a woman who is in favor of other people paying for her healthcare…she will do the more equitable for her thing and pay the fine. She even bragged about it as if she would be taking someone to the cleaners. Just another phony liberal (commie) she would rather that other people pay for the services she demands…and then has the nerve to disparage them when they look for better solutions that actually might work.
I would love to see Mr Doug la Malfa cleaning the local parks in exchange for the millions his family has received in farm subsidies. I mean lets see welfare? Corporate welfare is the problem
Where can one get a job where you vote in your own pay raise work about 120 days a year and get single payer healthcare? Congress!
1 in 4 corporations pay no taxes. Wells fargo pays no taxes.
The GOP allowed the markets to crash by deregulation, was outsourcing American jobs, want Americans to work for pennies then people complain about the results.
I can not believe how loony some are. Food stamps? Well if we go with the house bill they can cut snap and put the money in their own pockets!
http://georgemiller.house.gov/sites/georgemiller.house.gov/files/Pork%20Barrel%20Politics.pdf
http://farm.ewg.org/addrsearch.php?search_input_text=la+malfa&search_input_image.x=0&search_input_image.y=0
Corporate welfare supersedes any welfare. Why do we subsidize the Koch bros?
Dewey: “1 in 4 corporations pay no taxes.”
That’s not entirely true. They pay the taxes that are owed according to the law as written.
Change and simplify the law.
“Why do we subsidize the Koch bros?”
Because it was decided that those subsidies would benefit all Americans.
Change the laws.
“The GOP allowed the markets to crash by deregulation”
You are welcome to make the charge but it is meaningless unless you tell us how.
I know how the Community Reinvestment Act (crushing regulation on banks) created toxic loans and I know how lower interest rates and easy money caused what they called “irrational exuberance” for investors in the housing market. Why not tell us how “GOP deregulation” (which is actually just changed regulations…regulations were not eliminated as the word “deregulation” suggests) caused the crash.
Chris has called me a liar using a word I found it necessary to edit.
I found the following information that lends credence to my assertion:
Huffington Post:
Wikipedia
Census.gov:
The Kaiser Family Foundation places the percentage of the population under age 15 at 20% of the population.
census.gov lists percentage of population over aged 65 at 13.7%.
Disabled-World:
The source for the chart at GOPUSA is “The US Census Survey of Income and Program Participation” (follow Link to view the chart):
The Mercatus Center:
The Weekly Standard found this information credible and featured a short article based on the above stats.
The American Spectator takes this information to the next level:
I found a balanced article on this issue in The Economist; it’s worth a read for those interested in the dire economic situation.
Tina, nothing you just posted lends credence to your false assertion that “the number of people receiving benefits in this country now exceeds the number who work and pay taxes.” You did provide evidence that the number of people receiving benefits has increased (which we all know), but you did not provide any evidence that this outweighs the number of people who work and pay taxes.
Furthermore, you ignored the links I posted which provided evidence that your statement was wrong. As Politifact reported, even Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has called your claim “extreme:”
‘Nationally in 2011, Rector said, the average number of recipients was approximately 100 million — nearly a third of the U.S. population, he noted. According to the bureau’s employment data, 140 million people had a job that year.
Upshot: There were three employed people for every two “welfare” recipients, including children, as defined by the Heritage Foundation.
Because Schott had pointed out to us that the percentage of TANF recipients varied a lot from state to state, we asked Rector if he thought any of the states individually would have more welfare recipients (by Heritage’s standard) than employed residents.
“No, I don’t think that would be true,” Rector said. “That’s a pretty extreme statement. … That would be very, very large levels of dependency.” ‘
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/11/chain-email/chain-email-says-11-states-have-more-people-welfar/
Your claim is also inaccurate because all people pay sales tax and other taxes. You may have meant to say “income taxes,” or you may have meant to leave it out in order to tilt the discussion your way. (The frequency with which conservatives who know better falsely claim that welfare recipients “pay no taxes” makes me lean toward the latter.) Either way, you’re being misleading.
Your claim also ignores the fact that the majority of adults who live in households that receive entitlements also work and pay taxes; the two categories are not mutually exclusive. But it’s sure convenient for the GOP to frame them that way in order to create resentment toward people on welfare.
I know you say you have no obligation to play by the rules of a formal debate, but you do have an obligation to a basic standard of honesty. And that’s a standard you constantly fall short of. You make claims with absolutely zero evidence to support them, and then when someone points that out to you, you try and distract with evidence for an entirely different claim.
I wouldn’t care so much if the type of false statements you made didn’t directly affect my family and millions of other families like mine.
Dewey said: “1 in 4 corporations pay no taxes.”
To which Tina replied:
“That’s not entirely true. They pay the taxes that are owed according to the law as written.”
It’s simply amazing that you would call Dewey’s claim about corporations “not entirely true” after you just made a far more inaccurate claim about welfare recipients not paying taxes. Dewey’s claim may not be entirely true, but yours was entirely false. Corporations don’t have to pay sales tax; people do.
The 1 in 4 number does seem flawed, Dewey. This Politifact piece shows that the number may be quite smaller than that, but still indicates a pressing problem:
‘Of the 280 consistently profitable corporations that remained, the study found that 22 paid no taxes in 2008, 49 paid none in 2009, and 37 paid none in 2010. Across all three years, there were 30 corporations that had a tax rate of zero or even a negative rate. The negative rate meant they might get a rebate check from Washington or have a tax credit they could apply to future earnings.
Many familiar names show up in this list, such as Wells Fargo, Boeing, Verizon and General Electric. In the study’s three-year span, those 30 companies had pre-tax profits of about $160 billion, but their direct contribution to the federal treasury was zero.’
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/26/bernie-s/sanders-one-out-four-corporations-pay-no-taxes/
“Change and simplify the law.”
WTF does this mean? Who are you talking to? Are you talking to Ted Cruz and the Republicans in Congress? They have no interest in getting rid of the corporate loopholes. Hell, neither do most of the Democrats for that matter.
But what’s interesting here is how easily you shrug this off. You say “Change and simplify the law,” as if it were that easy, and you offer no suggestions on how that should be done. When it comes to cutting welfare programs that serve the poor, you’re just full of ideas. Yet when it comes to cutting corporate welfare, it’s “Meh. Someone else’s problem.”
Read the quote from Politifact above, Tina. “…those 30 companies had pre-tax profits of about $160 billion, but their direct contribution to the federal treasury was zero.” Why are you so much more concerned about poor people not paying income taxes than multi-billion dollar corporations not paying income taxes? Why are you more concerned about welfare programs that help people get the basic necessities than you are about billion dollar subsidies to already profitable corporations? That’s not rational. Your priorities are totally out of whack.
“Because it was decided that those subsidies would benefit all Americans.
Change the laws.”
That ridiculous decision was made by the people you elect! Democrats have tried to change the law; the Koch brothers, who have argued against “crony capitalism” when it comes to wind and solar, have spent millions lobbying to keep their own subsidies in place:
‘Exhibit A appeared in Monday’s Wall Street Journal op-ed page, in which Charles Koch of Koch Brothers fame took out after crony capitalism and industrial policy.
“We are on dangerous terrain when government picks winners and losers in the economy by subsidizing favored products and industries,” Koch wrote. He further complained that government is currently “subsidizing and mandating politically favored products in the energy sector,” singling out “solar, wind and biofuels” for examples of sectors currently being helped out.
But not a word about oil and gas can be found in Koch’s litany of complaints. Could this be because Koch Industries, of which Koch is chairman and CEO, was originally and is still primarily an oil-refining and pipeline company, though it has also diversified into such fields as paper, asphalt, chemicals, cattle ranches, commodity trading, and buying elections? A study by the Environmental Law Institute has tallied the amount of U.S. subsidies to the fossil fuel industry between 2002 and 2008 at roughly $72 billion. Earlier this year, President Obama called for ending the subsidies to oil companies, but a bill by Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) to do just that failed to muster the 60 votes required to surmount the cloture barrier this summer (it got 51 votes). Though Koch Industries spent more than $50 million on its lobbying efforts in Washington from 2006 and 2011, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, there’ s been no report of it lobbying for Menendez’s bill to end the government’s subsidy to the oil industry.’
http://prospect.org/article/koch-its-only-crony-capitalism-when-i-dont-benefit
Dewey said: “The GOP allowed the markets to crash by deregulation”
Tina replied: “You are welcome to make the charge but it is meaningless unless you tell us how.”
It would be meaningless even if he did tell you how. I have told you how numerous times, and it never sinks in, no matter how much evidence is provided.
“I know how the Community Reinvestment Act (crushing regulation on banks) created toxic loans”
No, you don’t. You believe this because it’s yet another way to foster resentment toward government, especially the parts of government that address the needs of the poor, but you don’t “know” anything, because you don’t make your beliefs based on evidence. I have shown you countless times how CRA loans were less likely to fail than others and that the banks primarily responsible for the crash were not in any way beholden to the so-called “crushing regulations” of the CRA. You have never ONCE been able to explain away this fact. It makes no sense to blame the CRA when the majority of sub-prime loans were made by banks that were not required to follow the CRA, and when banks that actually did have to follow the CRA had far lower rates of default.
You’ve never been able to explain this, and in your mind, you don’t need to; it doesn’t support your narrative, therefore, it’s wrong. You don’t engage with evidence that contradicts your point of view. Then you accuse me of simply dismissing evidence based on my beliefs, even though I actually make an effort to engage with the evidence you present and show the flaws in it.
“Why not tell us how “GOP deregulation” (which is actually just changed regulations…regulations were not eliminated as the word “deregulation” suggests)”
The word “deregulation” does not suggest that regulations were completely eliminated. Please buy a dictionary.
If you’re actually interested in finding out how deregulation caused this crisis, a long list of evidence has been compiled here.
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201110140001#dereg
Isn’t it amazing how liberals will try to tie all conservative thought to some kind of conspiracy involving the Koch brothers and their billions but they bow down to the alter of Media Matters and accept their propaganda as fact even though Media Matters is controlled by another billionaire, George Soros. If you follow the link provided by Chris, scroll to the top of the page and look at the header. The site is “Political Correction, A Project of Media Matters Action Network”. Well (tongue in cheek), that is obviously an unbiased site. Not!
More Common Sense, the Media Matters piece cites evidence from many different sources–TIME, the Washington Post, The New York Times–to make its case. It would be nice if you could explain to me exactly what they got wrong, instead of just dismissing the source out of hand. I understand the source is biased, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
I too have criticized commenters on this blog for linking to biased and disreputable sources, but I also usually try to engage with the actual argument and explain why it is wrong on its own terms. I never see conservatives do the same when it comes to Media Matters. I never see anyone actually engage with their arguments and demonstrate with evidence that they are wrong on the facts.
Would you like to be the first?
Jim @ #9 I’m sorry I missed your comment. If it means anything my concern lies with the future and the current economy and what both mean for our kids in the future and the seniors who have not been prudent to save for their retirement years. (Apparently a great number of the boomers have no savings…sad)
I have no animosity for people receiving benefits generally, especially if they work and are attempting to improve their circumstances. I also realize that there are people who cannot provide for themselves.
I do have problems with people who scam the system. And I think it is horrible that our system encourages some citizens to give up on any dreams they might have had to accept a life lived in poverty.
I also have a problem with an administration that after five years of failed policies will not even consider altering course and refuses to be responsible for the state of the economy under his watch.
“That’s a choice I want to make ….”
Like I said. You don’t want to, you won’t, you don’t … so why on earth are you complaining about the folk sprawled across the sidewalk? You, by your unwillingness to finance ANY sort of solution, put them there.
I don’t want to hear any more about it.
Chris I read the first section after following the link. It didn’t encourage me to go much further. The word “deregulation” has been used by leftists to imply that regulators were told to look the other way or that regulations were simply dropped. Neither of these accusations comes close to describing the changes that were made.
A change in regulation is not “deregulation”.
This page includes criticisms and defense of the changes in regulation.
As Bush said following the crash there was plenty of blame to go around.
The defense, written by the people at CATO, includes quotes from Phill Gramm and Bill Clinton. They and others make compelling points that refute the claims that this change caused the crash:
It is also interesting to note that many of those who benefited personally when this change took place were Clinton era cronies who were placed at the helm of Fannie Mae. Jamie Gorrelic made a public appeal to banks that Fannie Mae was greatly interested in buying up as many securities as the banks could bundle together. She made millions in bonuses. Another former head of FM made even more money and was eventually prosecuted for cooking the books.
Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, in fact the entire nation, were warned of the potential crisis forming and Frank repeatedly refused to do anything to address President Bush’s concerns.
I believe I have posted at least some of these points in defense of the regulatory changes before.
More Common Sense: “The site is “Political Correction, A Project of Media Matters Action Network”.”
Good eye! Your point too is well taken.
Libby the feeling is mutual.
I really don’t care about SNAP. Foodstamps helps kids eat. Of all the welfare out there, I’m least concerned about that one.
The homeless situation is out of control in this town. This weekend we drove to Oroville and one of my kids was making fun of Oroville’s bad reputation. I said to him “have you looked around Chico lately?” Why don’t we count the homeless people we see in Oroville. Guess how many we saw? Zero.
When we got back to Chico we decided to count the homeless we saw. We did not drive downtown. We saw people with signs all over 20th street. We saw shopping carts being pushed down East Ave near Cohassett. There was a panhandler at McDonalds on East. A homeless person was sitting with their trash at the Starbucks on East and Cohassett.
This is not just a downtown problem. It is creeping into every corner of our town. We have got to do something.