moonbattery.gif


« The Real Che Guevara | Main | Putin Warns Us Not to Sink Any Deeper Into Socialism »


February 18, 2009

SF Budgets to Be Cut, But Not for Bums or Illegals

California's profligate spending has pushed government to the edge of bankruptcy, finally forcing some cuts in unnecessary services. In accordance with liberal "values," cuts will target those politically incorrect enough to provide their own shelter or speak English. From San Fransicko:

Mayor Newsom has asked the Department of Public Health to come up with $100 million in cuts to help the city bridge its $576 million budget deficit. And the Health Commission wants its say.
Today the group is expected to approve a three-page, single-spaced list of "Principles to Guide Budget Reductions" and is asking staff to explain how each cut jibes with the guidelines.
One section is a little controversial. The commission wants to prioritize services for "the homeless over the housed" and "those whose first language is not English."
Jim Illig, president of the commission, said it is essential that health programs for non-English speakers remain intact — even if it means services for English speakers are cut.

All animals are equal, but derelicts and the hordes of illegal aliens overwhelming California are more equal.

On a tip from V the K.

Posted by Van Helsing at February 18, 2009 7:49 AM

Comments

This is pretty funny. Is it racist?

http://www.tmz.com/2009/02/18/al-sharpton-monkey-cartoon-obama/1#c17179731

Posted by: Al Sharptongue at February 18, 2009 8:00 AM

Hey Van Helsing,
did you not just go from homeless and finish discussing derelicts? Are those equal in your mind?
how about
non english speaking = illegal alien
once again is there a distinction here?

You also say it is profligate spending that has landed California in financial trouble. Considering we are in a serious financial crisis, I'm wondering if there where is the data backing up these statements you are making.

Thanks

Posted by: fine ahht at February 18, 2009 8:05 AM

Fine Ahht, San Fran has a very aggressive homeless population, because that city's policies encourage it. They get free money, no questions asked. The homeless have been flocking there for a very long time. In my mind, yes, these are derelicts, because they're chasing free handouts when they could be living honestly. As for illegal aliens, San Fran is also a sanctuary city. This is where illegals flock to. I don't think that painting with a broad brush here is too off the reasonableness mark.

As for your second paragraph, why don't YOU take the time to go datamining to refute the arguement, much of which is common knowledge. Simple civil servants getting $80K pensions is going to dig a deep hole. Cities all over California going broke. Businesses leaving in droves.

Posted by: Karin at February 18, 2009 8:35 AM

There are innumerous examples all over this country that proves Liberalism fails miserably. But, now CA is showing the ugly side of Liberalism that their policies inadvertently or intentionally (depending on your point of view) discriminates against the producers and wealthy of the economy and society. Liberalism rewards the non-producers and poor of society, which creates more of it. CA proves that Liberalism in a common sense world turned upside down. Hopefully, this wakes up more people to realize these policies are regressive, not progressive.

http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Franklin's Locke at February 18, 2009 8:48 AM

We can only hope this open sewer of a city falls into absolute poverty so that the rest of country will be able to see what happens when Moonbattery takes precedent over common sense.

Posted by: Chuck at February 18, 2009 9:15 AM

It was outside this city where the microprocessor revolution was launched.

Karin, I'm saying this is outside the realm of reasonableness.
I guess I would love to know what sources you got the whole "flocking" behavior from.

Karin, I'm saying VH is being unreasonable. I think you are being unreasonable as well. Just my opinion. Why should I perform the work of proving your statements wrong? Is there no reason for you and VH to offer up SOME backing to what you say?

Lets use myself as an example.
Say I was once homeless.
Say that I once could not speak english.
Would you somehow automatically know WHY those two statements are true?
Here is a hint, not derelict, not illegal alien. I'm not saying those don't exist, even in large numbers, what I am saying is how would you know about MY situation? I think its pretty clear that if you DID know my situation, you could just share how you know, and not ask the world to prove I was not a derelict or an illegal alien.

You and Vh are being unreasonable I think. I understand its for humorous purposes, or other reasons, but it is NOT exactly an embrace of the unvarnished truth. OK?

Posted by: fine ahht at February 18, 2009 9:43 AM

And to add,
the mention was profligate spending of CALIFORNIA, not San Francisco. Is your point that San Francisco's spending has brought California to its present predicament?

Could the financial crisis have something to do with it? Do you realize that we have lost more jobs in the last 3 months than anytime since the great depression? Here is some datamining supporting that assertion.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://iowaunderground.com/2009/02/09/graph-of-the-day-job-loss/

Posted by: fine ahht at February 18, 2009 9:59 AM

the mention was profligate spending of CALIFORNIA, not San Francisco. Is your point that San Francisco's spending has brought California to its present predicament?

Please don't be wilfully obtuse. SF's spending did not cause CA's problem, but is of a piece with it: namely, profligate spending on social services out of proportion to income from taxes.

Then liberals raise taxes to cover the shortfall, but suddenly realize that they have more money for...social services. And so goes the cycle.

Cities adopting such policies fail faster than states fail faster than national governments (because of the furniture available to each to burn to keep warm), but the end result is the same in each case.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 18, 2009 10:21 AM

Fine ahht, here’s a Google search link for you to articles in SF’s paper (the Chronicle) regarding SF’s problems.

To get the flavor of the situation, check the first hit: SQUALOR IN THE STREETS - S.F. spends more than $200 million a year on homelessness, but why does the problem persist?, and note that the article is from 2001 - long before the financial crisis hit.

Read the whole article.

The problem of bums crapping in the streets has been a burning issue in SF for (at least) a decade. The funny part is that liberals don't get it - the homelessness problem persists because they're spending $200 million a year on it. Nightsticks are cheap.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 18, 2009 10:33 AM

It was outside this city where the microprocessor revolution was launched.

Thanks for this. I collect non sequiturs.

For the record, it was inside this city that the AIDS revolution was launched. Your point?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 18, 2009 10:39 AM

Fine ahnt,

All the proof you need are in the words of Jim Illig:

"it is essential that health programs for non-English speakers remain intact — even if it means services for English speakers are cut."

The fact that this man is in a postion of making decesions with tax payer money is all the "proof" you should need that SF and California as a whole is run by incompetent ingrates. Putting non-taxpayers and non-producers in the front of the line is not a sustainable avenue for the future. It is quite clear that SF is being goverened by false liberal compassion.

Posted by: Travis at February 18, 2009 11:18 AM

Bums smell like pee.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 18, 2009 11:26 AM

SF and CA, in general, are the template for what liberals want every other state in the Union to be like.

Posted by: SK at February 18, 2009 12:48 PM

We need a complete boycott of HANOI ON THE BAY i mean have absolutly nothing to do with this wretched stink hole as VERONOCA CARTWRIGHT in the movie THE BIRDS said about the place A ANTHILL AT THE FOOT OF A BRIDGE i will never ever again set foot in the filthy place

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at February 18, 2009 1:35 PM

That's an easy boycott to join, Spurwing. I, too will never set foot there in my lifetime.

Posted by: Karin at February 18, 2009 1:49 PM

Sorry, afterthought.

Please note that SF has a $576 million budget deficit, while eight years ago it was spending $200 million a year on homelessness - God knows what they're spending now.

But even $200 million would put a pretty big dent in the $576 million budget deficit, yes?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 18, 2009 3:37 PM

I did make that post above, but I'm posting as modrn ahht at the moment.

Thanks for the link Jay Guevara.

I'm not trying to be willfully obtuse. I'm asking for some backing for statements made. In this case Jay has helped to support the statements of another but in the end that is fine, i'll go read them in a minute.

If what you say is true JayG, yes 200 million would make a pretty large dent. But a deficit is something that is more complex than just blaming it on social services.

As far as the non sequitur. Fair play I guess, perhaps it is a non sequitur. My point is that California has produced some impressive stuff. Perhaps its not entirely related.

I'm saying that there is good and there is bad. There may be an agressive homeless population in san fran, there may be flocking of illegal aliens to there, but I don't yet connect this with the current budget deficit.

If only because many states right now are suffering from a budget deficit. It almost seems willfully obtuse to just say liberalism caused all this, but I am willing to go over some substantial evidence/research that makes those conclusions. But little if any evidence is produced with the exception in this case of Jay Guevara, so thanks again jay, I'm gonna go read now based on your recommendations.

Beware trolls posting as fine ahht.
At this point I think you all can see that I tend to write a lot. Beware of the trolls in your midst who are simply trying to discredit the name of "fine ahht" which by the way I am not married to.

If you want some clarity consider a simple registration system. It might be worth it in the long run if you actually want to avoid the echo chamber.

Posted by: modrn ahht at February 19, 2009 3:46 AM

Travis, thanks for making your case as well. I'll admit that the statement seems strange. But I'll look up the context from which it was taken, thank you very much.

If you think that is all the proof I would need to align myself with the assertions you make, you are seriously mistaken, sorry.

Look I'm not saying there are not idiot legislators in California, I'm not saying anything like that. Go back and read the critique I put up of VanHelsing's statements. I want THOSE statemets to be supported, I'm gonna go read now.

Posted by: modrn ahht at February 19, 2009 3:51 AM

So I just read that article about SQUALOR in the streets. Unfortunately it does not trace any causes of the current Ca. budget crisis. Karin and Vh's statements still remain to be supported by anything but tautology.

I am looking for support of Van Helsing's statement that derelicts and or homelessness, and non english speakers and/or illegal aliens are to blame for California's current budget crisis.

It was a simple request, a chance to add some meat to the pork of VH's statement. If you cannot back it up it does not mean that it is not true. Jay you failed utterly to address what I was talking about.

Nobody is going to argue against San Fran having a role in the aids epidemic.
Is that another non sequitur for your collection?

non sequitur:
1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

Blaming Ca. budget crisis on SanFran street deficators does not make sense to me. Sorry

You would have been much better off digging up facts about Guiliani's apparent successes. But it still does not support Karin's or Vh's statements.

Posted by: modrn ahht at February 19, 2009 4:19 AM

Here is my own google search link

Notice this which attempts to depict 20 years of government failure to deal with the mentally ill, from the SF chronicle of February 18, 2001.

Also this which notes a cut of funding for the mentally ill.

Program for mentally ill eliminated

By Evan Halper and Scott Gold, Lee Romney
August 25, 2007 in print edition B-1

SACRAMENTO – Making good on a promise to trim the state budget, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger eliminated a $55-million program Friday that advocates say has helped thousands of mentally ill homeless people break the costly cycle of hospitalization, jails and street life.

The program was one of many high-profile initiatives left in the ashes of the Legislature’s bitter budget dispute, which stalled Sacramento for much of the last two months.

end cite. from la times Aug 25 2007

But don't get me wrong, democrats in Sacramento are hardly without blame.

When are we going to start looking hard at policy and abandon some of the partisan tautology that seems almost designed to pit one against another ending in unworkable stalemate dressed up as compromise?

Posted by: modrn ahht at February 19, 2009 4:54 AM

If what you say is true JayG, yes 200 million would make a pretty large dent. But a deficit is something that is more complex than just blaming it on social services.

Modrn ahht, thanks for your reasoned (and reasonable) comments. The quote above sharpens my point. I wasn’t blaming the deficit on social services, but rather comparing the size of the deficit (as reported) with the amount spent on homelessness (as reported in 2001). The figures are not mine. (Note also that the $200 million referred to the money spent on homelessness alone, not all social services.)

I am looking for support of Van Helsing's statement that derelicts and or homelessness, and non english speakers and/or illegal aliens are to blame for California's current budget crisis.

I’d make a similar comment with regard to this quote. Van Helsing’s point (if I might speak for him) is not that non English speakers and/or illegal aliens are to blame for the budget crisis, but rather that they are a factor in it.

Another point: California has had a budget crisis for years. It’s why Schwarzenegger is in office; his predecessor, Gray Davis (D) was recalled by the voters because of his feckless policies (e.g., excessively generous pay to public service unions), in conjunction with a Democratically-controlled legislature, that caused the deficit to explode. We can’t do much about the legislature, because it has gerrymandered itself into a set of safe seats. Schwarzenegger’s attempts to roll back this egregious gerrymandering (two ballot initiatives, since obviously the legislature isn’t going to remove its own job protection) both failed. Ah well.

Nobody is going to argue against San Fran having a role in the aids epidemic. Is that another non sequitur for your collection?

Absolutely. That was my point – giving SF props for the microprocessor revolution was as illogical as giving them brickbats for AIDS.

Notice this which attempts to depict 20 years of government failure to deal with the mentally ill, from the SF chronicle of February 18, 2001.

Twenty years ago...twenty years ago...hmm...what happened back when that led to the mentally ill being turned out on the streets?

Ah, I remember. From Wikipedia:

In 1975, the United States Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rights. This ruling forced individual states to change their statutes. For example, the individual must be exhibiting behavior that is a danger to himself or others in order to be held, the hold must be for evaluation only and a court order must be received for more than very short term treatment or hospitalization (typically no longer than 72 hours). This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the United States.

It is difficult indeed to commit someone involuntarily, and many of the homeless/mentally ill don’t want to be committed. So ...they end up on the street. It is part of liberal theology to blame this on heartless conservatives, but in fact the problem is a legal one, and arose from the liberal campaign for “care in the community.” (Remember that one? Those of us of a certain age do. Just as we remember campaigns for “affordable housing” and against “redlining.”)

That campaign for “care in the community” led to the passage – again in California, and again by a Democratically-controlled legislature - of legislation effectively banning involuntary commitment, a position subsequently adopted in the US Supreme Court’s decision above.

From the SF Chronicle, July 31, 2002 :

WANDER THROUGH the streets of San Francisco and you'll inevitably encounter homeless people who are severely mentally ill. Many are harmless, but are unable to care for themselves. Some are suicidal or homicidal, but they, too, cannot be compelled to accept treatment.

This is because California passed legislation nearly 30 years ago that, with the best of intentions, had the unintended consequence of making it almost impossible for a judge, family member or physician to order a mentally ill person to accept treatment and medication, even on an outpatient basis. In short, it veered way too far on the side of protecting the rights of the individual.

The problem is not the money spent, but rather allowing the mentally ill to wander around on their own. And of course “advocates” say the cut program helped thousands of mentally ill homeless people. What do you want to bet that the “advocates” are employees of that program?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 19, 2009 11:15 AM

The Jews were involved with the CIA in the 9/11 attacks. Yes, this is me. A simple link will suffice.

http://www.loosechange911.com/

Posted by: modrn ahht at February 19, 2009 11:35 AM

Once again, fine ahht/modern ahht proves he's not worth listeing to. Your link to Loose Change is all I ever needed to see to know your word means nothing.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 19, 2009 11:42 AM

Obviously an imposter, anon.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 19, 2009 11:58 AM

well... he hasn't really gone to great lengths to prove that he makes more sense than the imposter.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 19, 2009 2:05 PM

Glenn Beck also pointed out in this video (http://www.newsy.com/videos/california_feeling_the_red) that illegal immigrants are one of the major reasons that perpetuated the budget shortfall. While we focus on local politics, the national news networks are watching us through different sets of glasses too.

Posted by: TDoc at February 19, 2009 4:15 PM

Hey all.

Thanks Jay Guevara you make an excellent argument and back it up with copious links.

I have my work cut out for me on some topics so I'm gonna let this be my last post to Moonbattery for a bit. Lets say 1 week. I'll have new username probably but my same old sunny attitude and wordy posting style.

I think also your comment to Anon about an obvious imposter is a good thing. But it seems to me that the impostor might post in pairs. Once as me, and then an anonymous one trying to discredit the first fake post. Like I said Van Hels could check the IP logs on this and I see no reason why capable conservatives like yourself (no sarcasm or joke included here) should be dicked around or appear to have been.

Everyone give some thanks to Jay Guevara. He didn't convince me the first time, and he has not yet convinced me, (I got some reading to do) but he obviously realizes I'm not just a troll. And that is significant I think. For that I grant you all 1 week free from my input.


Posted by: Cave ahht at February 20, 2009 6:08 AM

Ahht meister, thanks, both for your kind comments and your constructive approach. I look forward to your future posts.

Re imposters, we're pretty accustomed to them here, as well as to trolls and such, so probably everyone checks to see whether the style of a post comports well with previous ones from the same handle.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 20, 2009 9:58 AM