Jump to content
Tweety Tweety (New Member) New Member

Presidential Election 2020

Politics   (17,226 Views 960 Comments)
6 Followers; 49,783 Visitors; 27,975 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 69 of Presidential Election 2020. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

23 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

I did that just a few days ago.   It’s pretty simple.  A rolling economy and low unemployment is the best way to decrease wealth disparity.  Bring the poor up, not the rich down.

 

 

A rolling economy and low unemployment by themselves don't decrease wealth disparity, if the increased wealth that rolling economy brings is going solely to the already wealthy and all those jobs are part of a ongoing transition to lower paying or stagnate wage growth then it can actually worsen wealth disparity.

I don't disagree that Trump doesn't have plans to decrease wealth disparity, he announced in a just released Telemundo interview that he now supports raising the federal minimum wage well above $15 an hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

Let’s see.  Well, we have been discussing income equality/housing and homeless crisis in LA.

How about reforming some of the bad land use and development regulations in LA?  One bad liberal policy that needs fixing is the one that prevents anything but single detached homes being built in much of LA county.

That’s a pretty common-sense start, but the supermajority Democrat LA city council and the current mayor have opposed it.

I'm not sure where you're getting that the historical conditions that initially favored single family home zoning, and that have resisted drastic changes to that zoning for more than 50 years in LA are somehow "bad liberal policy".  

Single family zoning in residential areas of LA initially came about like it does in every metro area, the area outside of downtown was cheap and plentiful.  In the mid 1900's the federal government pushed to maintain single family zone where it had existed because a large number of these homes were under federal loans, and changing zoning to multi-unit decreases the value of the single family homes, which then puts taxpayers at risk of losing large amounts of money on these loans.  The issue of losing home value has persisted ever since, homeowners don't want to lose money, which I'm not sure how that's necessarily a "liberal policy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

Let’s see.  Well, we have been discussing income equality/housing and homeless crisis in LA.

How about reforming some of the bad land use and development regulations in LA?  One bad liberal policy that needs fixing is the one that prevents anything but single detached homes being built in much of LA county.

That’s a pretty common-sense start, but the supermajority Democrat LA city council and the current mayor have opposed it.

Quote

Through its Joint Development Program, Los Angeles Metro has worked with affordable housing developers and local jurisdictions to create transit–oriented affordable housing at or near a number of Metro Stations. To date, Metro’s Joint Development Program has created over 2,000 units of housing, of which, 31% are affordable. Metro’s current Joint Development pipeline includes 396 additional affordable housing units...

https://www.metro.net/projects/joint_dev_pgm/affordable-housing/

 

Quote

L.A. County Supervisors Approve $63 Million to Fund Affordable Housing Developments

The money will go toward 10 projects in different corners of Los Angeles County.

The first five projects, all of which have been previously funded, are:...

https://urbanize.la/post/la-county-supervisors-approve-63-million-fund-affordable-housing-developments 

Here is a photo of a recently finished 85 unit apartment building near me. Most of the residents have experienced homelessness due to illness, which includes substance abuse. 127th-Street%20apartments.-jp-1200x800_z       http://www.metahousing.com/location/127th-street-apartments/

Here are more of the 26,000 + affordable apartments built or renovated in Los Angeles in the recent three years:    http://www.metahousing.com/projects/ 

Quote

I'm not an expert. Here is an article from last year about the vote to oppose the state bill.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-housing-bill-council-20180326-story.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

I’ve shared my thoughts on all those items before.  Twice this week I’ve shared the conservative ideas I agree with and that Trump is implementing regarding homelessness and wealth disparity.

It’s not that conservatives don’t have any ideas.  You just don't agree with them.  

We've all shared our thoughts before.  You asked for liberal ideas so I answered and asked for conservative ideas. Your answer isn't very specific. 

It's not that you don't know what the liberal ideas are, and that's why you keep asking - it's just that you don't agree with them.

Edited by toomuchbaloney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

map_prob_p1_k5.png.6c79b1d091fa54f062ad9503ed8a3160.pngThere's a study that compares specific metro areas, but it's behind a paywall, this map captures the gist of it though:

 

map_prob_p1_k5.png

Not as much of that graphic came through as I thought it would.  

The dark red areas have a potential of going from the lowest income quintile to the highest, about 5%, whereas the lighter orange to pale have a potential of 10% or more of having significant upward economic mobility.

Edited by MunoRN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MunoRN said:

I'm not sure where you're getting that the historical conditions that initially favored single family home zoning, and that have resisted drastic changes to that zoning for more than 50 years in LA are somehow "bad liberal policy".  

Single family zoning in residential areas of LA initially came about like it does in every metro area, the area outside of downtown was cheap and plentiful.  In the mid 1900's the federal government pushed to maintain single family zone where it had existed because a large number of these homes were under federal loans, and changing zoning to multi-unit decreases the value of the single family homes, which then puts taxpayers at risk of losing large amounts of money on these loans.  The issue of losing home value has persisted ever since, homeowners don't want to lose money, which I'm not sure how that's necessarily a "liberal policy".

You obviously did some research on this subject, but then conveniently left out “downzoning”.

In 1960, LA had a capacity based on zoning of 10,000,000 people.  In the years since, of which Democrats have been in charge for most of that time, it’s gone down to just over 4,000,000.   

One poster mentioned supply and demand as effecting home prices and homelessness.  What do you think downzoning has done?

Just one of the many liberal policies, sanctuary cities and a bad welfare system being others, that has led to California’s problems.

Your assertion that multi family homes causes the single family homes value to decrease has not been proven. And, my own personal experience and what I observe in the metro area I live would indicate your assertion is false.

Edited by SC_RNDude
I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
4 hours ago, MunoRN said:

Not as much of that graphic came through as I thought it would.  

The dark red areas have a potential of going from the lowest income quintile to the highest, about 5%, whereas the lighter orange to pale have a potential of 10% or more of having significant upward economic mobility.

I guess I’ll have to take your word for it that’s what it says.  It looks more like the weather temperature map for the day.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I don’t see how that shows homeless people flock to California for the reason you said.

I have another theory that may be just as far-fetched.  Homeless flock there because they can poop outside without getting a ticket.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwibm9brmfziAhWDXc0KHXVfCiEQzPwBegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-6924787%2FInteractive-map-reveals-staggering-number-human-waste-San-Franciscos-streets.html&psig=AOvVaw0lUaxT0q0hRKscDyML2S8U&ust=1561262409191665

Edited by SC_RNDude
U

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can look to some liberal policies as not helping and going down the wrong track.

As I've said before, I live in Republican territory and we have a booming economy.  Yet, we also have a persist and high rate of homelessness. Our country (the most densely populated in Florida with nearly a million) ranks only behind the Miami area in homelessness.   I'm a bit skeptical that the idea of a booming economy and low unemployment fixing the problem is the solution.  Part of the solution perhaps.

Conservative policies around here focused on making us an unfriendly city to the homeless.  The Quakers used to bring the homeless pizza one day a week and now that's illegal.  They still do so, but within the confines of a local UU Church that I used to belong to.  It's illegal to pan handle on street corners, they've cut up vegetation and shaded areas downtown.  

Again, they point to the high cost of housing and the fact so many people live paycheck to paycheck and are one disaster away from being put out on the street.  I'm not talking skid row bums, I'm talking working families.

The good news is that I've read some stats that homelessness is on a bit of the downswing.  We've had a progressive Democrat Mayor for five years.  He's currently getting a lot of criticism from locals for his approval of yet another luxury high rise.  I live away from downtown and a new condo development is selling "starting in the low $400,000's" in my neighborhood.  They tore down a low-income housing project to built this (a decision made during our former Republican mayor's tenure) but put on hold during the recession and now it's back on track during better times.   His focus is on growth and keeping downtown thriving like it is.  Homeless people have no place in such a vision.

Sadly, I think homelessness will always be among us.  Always have and always will.  I do think having a home is basic.  Working families living paycheck to paycheck that have a disaster like a car accident and get thrown into homelessness need a home.  

I'm liberal enough to want to help people in need.  I'm conservative enough with how I want my tax dollars spent that we should be mindful that we help people get back on their feet rather than permanently dependent.   Problem is that when people lose where they live, getting an affordable place is nearly impossible with the high costs lately.  

Since we're talking about Presidential candidates, and I'm not confident that a strong economy alone is the answer as evidenced by current conditions, I'm looking at liberal candidates.  Doesn't matter anyway because I am a "Never Trump" voter no matter what he does that's good.  I've decided that much.

https://www.cltampa.com/news-views/local-news/article/21011256/even-with-funds-many-in-pinellas-remain-homeless-due-to-lack-of-affordable-housing

Edited by Tweety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can look to some liberal policies as not helping and going down the wrong track.  In other urban areas (usually smaller places that huge metro areas) that are Republican lead, one can look at those policies as not helping as well.  The proof is in the stats.  It's complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

We've all shared our thoughts before.  You asked for liberal ideas so I answered and asked for conservative ideas.

Actually, I asked a specific poster what ideas they thought would work and how.  For a constructive discussion, it would be wonderful if it could be articulated how certain liberal ideas translate to the desired outcomes.  

For example, how does free tuition equate to less income disparity?  

Its possible I’ve missed it, but I don’t think I’ve even heard the candidates explain this.

15 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Your answer isn't very specific. 

That’s because I’ve provided the same answer, with more specifics, in the past.

Edited by SC_RNDude
I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 3:54 PM, MunoRN said:

Isn't requiring that businesses pay their employees a 'redistribution of wealth'? 

Of course not.  Businesses aren’t required to have employees.

They can have employees, and provide compensation that they choose.  Even pay for employees’ college expenses if they want.

Not the same as one group of society being forced to pay for college for another group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

Actually, I asked a specific poster what ideas they thought would work and how.  For a constructive discussion, it would be wonderful if it could be articulated how certain liberal ideas translate to the desired outcomes.  

For example, how does free tuition equate to less income disparity?  

Its possible I’ve missed it, but I don’t think I’ve even heard the candidates explain this.

That’s because I’ve provided the same answer, with more specifics, in the past.

Sure. I guess we should all just answer that way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×