Prop 1 - Yea or Nay? (Los Angeles, San Francisco: public schools, university, taxes)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CALGUY

In reality what you are promoting is, using your credit card to get a cash advance to pay another one of your bills.
A moron would know that kind of thinking will only drown you in debt.
You apparently want the state to use money they don't have, to pay for things it just can't afford.

In 2014 (I believe that was the year) the voters were asked to approve a measure costing billions to help the homeless and mentally ill.
Here we are 10 years later, and what has been accomplished with that money?
Very little.

I agree it’s rather an insane system, but new money, to pay old debts, is created by new debt.
Perhaps the architects of our modern banking / monetary supply were / are “morons”, as you say.
More likely they were / are brilliant - and brilliantly rich - manipulators of society.

Here, read this, and if you want to learn more you can simply google “debt creates money”:

“ Every new loan that a bank makes creates new money. While this is often hard to believe at first, it’s common knowledge to the people that manage the banking system. In March 2014, the Bank of England release a report called “Money Creation in the Modern Economy”, where they stated that:

“Commercial [i.e. high-street] banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created.” (Original paper here)”

Now, as to whether the state can “afford” to pay for mental healthcare as it does and proposes, you need to factor in the costs of what happens if they don’t.

As to “what has been accomplished by past fundings of mental health services and homelessness services”, the reality that all the money “thrown at the problems” hasn’t “solved” the problems, doesn’t mean the money didn’t well serve the mentally ill and homeless. It did. Thing is: these problems aren’t *solvable* by any amount of money. These problems are a collateral function of the cultural norms, psychologies, and pressures we have evolved to have. And thus new mental illness and homelessness will grow faster than old can be served.

You want to *solve* mental illness and homelessness? Hahahaha. You’ll have to completely change everything modern humanity believes successful.

[Igor Blevin]

Sounds like another costly boondoggle that corrupt California state and local governments will use as a slush fund.

Just throwing money at the problem is not going to help, if it is mismanaged as usual. If the new asylums are compulsary and force drug addicts into long-term treatment and off the streets, then maybe it is a start.

I just don't trust Calfornia.

This might be yet another prop that appears sensible on the surface but doesn't really do what it says, or will have serious unintended consequences.

[Igor Blevin]

Originally Posted by JGC97

This won't be a popular opinion and I imagine I'll catch hell for saying it but here goes. Anyone who is stupid enough to take drugs in the first place should just let nature take its course. We shouldn't step in with any kind of help. Let 'em have at it. Eventually, they'll die. It would reduce the world's population somewhat and that's not a bad thing.

Yeah, I don't agree. A lot of normal, innocent people get hooked on dangerous recreational drugs. We need far better education up front to the horrific dangers of drug abuse - scare kids straight in high school maybe, but we also need much better drug treatment practices.

I think it is worth a solid 10 year experiment to see if most junkies can be cleaned up with the right approach. If it fails, only then would I just cut them lose to sink or swim. I would like to see a really solid 10 year effort to treat junkies and get them off drugs and back to being functioning human beings. The huge potential benefit is worth the cost of a 10 year experiment.

We also need to close the border and cut down the flow of illegal drugs. Ultimately though, drug abuse is more about demand than about supply. Junkies will always get their fix, and criminals will always be happy to risk supplying them, as long as the reward exceeds the risk.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Igor Blevin

A lot of normal, innocent people get hooked on dangerous recreational drugs. We need far better education up front to the horrific dangers of drug abuse - scare kids straight in high school maybe, but we also need much better drug treatment practices.

I agree. And anyone who's not aware of or discounts the genetic component of substance abuse doesn't fully understand the drug problem.

Originally Posted by Igor Blevin

I would like to see a really solid 10 year effort to treat junkies and get them off drugs and back to being functioning human beings.

That was one of Prop 1's purposes.

Originally Posted by Igor Blevin

We also need to close the border and cut down the flow of illegal drugs.

Not to derail the thread, but the majority of narcotics enters the U.S. through legal ports of entry.

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/11916...o-border-drugs

[V8 Vega]

It passed so now the goverment has millions of your money to squander, I'd get the hell out if I wasn't so old.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

It passed so now the goverment has millions of your money to squander, I'd get the hell out if I wasn't so old.

Or now that it passed, let's see how well they use it. It'll take time to get things rolling but I'm intrigued to see if their plan works.

[Igor Blevin]

We'll see how California homelessness is in 2030. I'm not optimistic that California politicians have the political will to do the "tough love" required to clean up the homeless problem since this doesn't force treatment on addicts, but just offers it. I don't see that working, frankly.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Igor Blevin

We'll see how California homelessness is in 2030. I'm not optimistic that California politicians have the political will to do the "tough love" required to clean up the homeless problem since this doesn't force treatment on addicts, but just offers it. I don't see that working, frankly.

I'm skeptical too. That's why I didn't want it to pass. I don't want the state handling this problem. It should be done on the local level because each community knows exactly what's happening, not the suits at the Capitol. The state in charge of the purse strings is only going to cause more red tape. But they like to control everything and (only my opinion here), that's their goal. To control everything that happens in this state. Cities and counties will have wait on the state to decide. I don't like it. But, it is what it is. /shrug

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Igor Blevin

We'll see how California homelessness is in 2030. I'm not optimistic that California politicians have the political will to do the "tough love" required to clean up the homeless problem since this doesn't force treatment on addicts, but just offers it. I don't see that working, frankly.

For crying out loud Igor. Neither homelessness nor addiction are about “tough love.”
And you won’t ever see homelessness “cleaned up” in our capitalist culture … unless massive amounts of socialist housing is financed.

See the conundrum there? Diametric opposition of forces.

And, for the last time: “tough love” and forced treatment has NEVER solved drug addiction. You keep repeating that while obviously never educating yourself on the subject.

[stablegenius]

Originally Posted by JGC97

I'm intrigued to see if their plan works.

Spoiler alert, it won't. Their plans never do. But for some reason people keep say yes to this crap.