California Spent $24 Billion On Homelessness Since 2019 - Guess What Happened

a reply to: xuenchen

I think it is an utter travesty that so little of those billions were spent on Veteran homeless. There should be an order of operations: Homeless parents with children, Homeless veterans, Homeless citizens, and .... others who don't fit into those parameters.

I was once one of those categories in California. I don't recall any help whatsoever, except for soup kitchens. Not to besmirch places who feed the homeless -- it made a difference for me. This was more than 40 years ago. At that time it was all up to me, and so that's what I did. I made it happen for myself, and carried along with me a few people who seemed deserving of something better. Eight of us lived together for almost two years.

I don't think services for homeless citizens or veterans have improved since that time. I believe there are diverse services for people who aren't in the state legally.

originally posted by: hangedman13
No one wants to touch on the real problem. The so-called nonprofits that eat up that government money. Any accountability for them? Nah, they tend to be run by friends and/or former politicians! Party loyalty and a few kickbacks is all it takes to be ignored.

That's not the real problem.

The real problem was mentioned by the Hoover Institution in the article that was cited in the OP:

"A ... key problem with California homelessness policy, one that is rarely, if ever, discussed, is that there are too many California households who simply do not earn enough to live sensibly in California, given the state’s very high cost of living. For example, nearly half of California households rent, and of this group, about 30 percent—about 1.9 million households—pay 50 percent or more of their pretax income as rent. This is far too high based on the standard recommendation that a household pay a maximum of 30 percent of pretax income as rent."

Those 24 Billion dollars were spent on maintenance programs--things like subsidizing rent, keeping homeless shelters open, needle exchanges, etc. All that does is to maintain the homeless population at a somewhat more humane level of dysfunction than if there was no government program. If you subsidize the rent of an agriculture worker who picks strawberries in the Salinas Valley for 20 dollars an hour, that subsidy might be the difference between living in a cheap apartment and living under a culvert somewhere. But as soon as the subsidy goes away, that man or woman would be out on the street again. There's nothing in the program that would make the people they help suddenly be able to earn a high enough salary to let them be self-sufficient. I don't think there was ever any expectation that a program like this would solve the root cause of homelessness.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: JadedGhost
How much of those 180,000 were born and raised in California?

I bet quite a few are from different states originally and came to Cali for the warm winters and multiple other reasons.

WTF does that have to do with the money being squandered and looted? lol lol lol 🤣🤣🤣

I guess the point is that a lot of those 180,000 people have most likely originated from red states… California is literally carrying the failed policies of the right.

Good gawd you have no idea how hard you make me laugh. That’s literally one of the most idiotic things I’ve read in awhile.

Got any links to back that doozy up?😂

Homelessness in CA is mostly from unaffordable housing, lack of property to build affordable housing and drugs. You really think people that are homeless are going to move to a state that has no housing for them and the cost of everything is astronomical?

Homeless in red states have more options for affordable housing and accommodations and more available land to build affordable housing on that’s much cheaper than land in most blue states, plus everything else is cheaper. This is why homelessness is much less prevalent in red states. Do the research, I have and what you’re saying, as usual, is absolute nonsense. You need to stop drinking the koolaid.

a reply to: xuenchen

Apparently crony NGOs got all of it, and commenced to donate big to Democrat campaigns.

OP is on target.
It goes further than that.

When Biden left the vice presidency he created a jobs program funded in large part by the CCP for newly unemployed Democrat appointees. As a result he was able to funnel millions to himself and his Democrat political allies. As soon as one administration ends they get one or more NGO gigs like those provided by the Penn Biden Center and they can earn millions until another Democrat takes office.

Here are the roles each employee to the Biden Penn Center had BEFORE being hired and what they are doing now.
These are no-show jobs…

Michael Carpenter
- Foreign Policy Advisor to Vice President (Obama)
- Managing Director Penn Biden Center
- U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE (Biden)

Antony Blinken
- Deputy Secretary of State (Obama)
- Managing Director Penn Biden Center
- Secretary of State (Biden)

Juan Gonzalez
- Deputy Secretary of State (Obama)
- Director Penn Biden Center
- Deputy Secretary of State (Biden)

Colin Kahl
- National Security Advisor (Obama)
- Director Penn Biden Center
- Under Secretary of Defense (Biden)

Steve Ricchetti
- Chief of Staff to Vice President (Obama)
- Director Penn Biden Center
- Counselor to the President (Biden)

Spencer Boyer
- Senior Advisor at the Center for American Progress
- Director Penn Biden Center
- Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Biden)

Jeffrey Prescott
- Senior Director National Security Council (Obama)
- Director Penn Biden Center
- Deputy to the U.S. Rep to UN (Biden)

Ariana Berengaut
- Senior Adviser Vice President (Obama)
- Director Penn Biden Center
- Senior Adviser to National Security Adviser (Biden)

Brian P. McKeon
- Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Obama)
- Director Penn Biden Center
- Deputy Secretary of State (Biden)

Carlyn Reichel
- Foreign Policy Speechwriter (Obama)
- Director Penn Biden Center
- Special Assistant to the President (Biden)

Amy Gutman
- UPenn President
- Ambassador to Germany (Biden)

David L. Cohen
- UPenn Trustee
- Ambassador to Canada (Biden)

This is how Democrats are able to ensure loyalty - their livelihood depends on protecting their paymaster.
Guess who funded the whole thing?
China.

China donated $61 million to the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) between 2017 and 2020, which coincided with the establishment of the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in early 2018. The center was founded after Joe Biden left the vice presidency, and it served as a platform for his work on foreign policy and national security before he ran for president in 2020.

It’s all here…

capitalresearch.org...

a reply to: Vermilion

That Biden Penn Center is also one place Biden had lots of illegally obtained classified material insecurely stored! ☠️

We know lots of Chinese agents frequented that office. 😃

It is because Democrats and progressives are really bad at problem solving as they are often blinded by emotion.

There are two types of homeless populations. The problem is progressives conflate the two groups and thus never really actually get to an effective solution.

The first group of homeless are temporary. An example would be a girl who gets kicked out of boyfriends house so she needs to sleep in a shelter for a night or two. Her situation is largely temporary. There are tons of services for this group and they are reasonably effective.

The second group of homeless are the permanent homeless. This is the group that most people think about when you say homeless. They are in tent encampments, begging at intersections, etc. In actuality, this group is actually the smaller of the two but they are the most visible. However, their problem is that the root cause of their homelessness is not high housing costs but they are most often severe drug addicts and/or their elevator doesn't stop at all floors. Straight up crazies.

No amount of affordable housing is going to get that second group off the streets. They need to be forcibly removed and institutionalized as they cannot function in society due to their addiction and mental issues. A portion of that $24 billion would be better spent funding mental hospitals.

The big problem we have as society is are we willing to trample on an individual's rights to get them off the streets? I think we should. If you are living on the streets then you've shown you aren't capable of taking care of yourself and need to be institutionalized.

What the f. Thats $133000.- per homeless person. How the hell do you manage to piss that away...

originally posted by: ElitePlebeian2
What the f. Thats $133000.- per homeless person. How the hell do you manage to piss that away...

They call it planned managed treasury looting. 😊

a reply to: ElitePlebeian2

The same way those "charities" who have 90%+ of the funds collected go to the people who solicit donations. It's a scam even if it's the government doing it. We used to have news organizations interested in investigating that level of corruption. Today, they ride shotgun. At least for one party.

Almost all, but not every homeless person usually has a problem with drugs or alcohol. I have known a couple of people personally that have become homeless at some point in their lives. And the few that I have known never got "clean" until they had a religious experience that allowed them to see past their personal issues and how to care for themselves and others.
I am sure that since nearly every hardcore democrat that I have known is staunch atheist or worse, that part of a healing process is largely ignored.
Not saying that I KNOW that will solve any of this, but it seems to help and I do not think in our current love of all things "satanic" that anyone is really interested in helping anyone unless it gives them an opportunity to act as if they are doing something so that they can brag to their social peers.

Sure they do!

You get to too and we let you stay.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof

You still deflected away from the MONEY you ding bat

This poster has no call to be calling names here. NONE. Actually this poster has no call whatsoever to be calling names. It is a total breach of manners.

The headline stated a statistic and proceeded to ask readers to ''guess what''

OP then began to offer a personal opinion on that original question. This is evidenced by the word used to describe those expenditures as ''squandered''. Several replies have questioned that opinion and provided perspectives to counter the opinion of the original poster. All, on topic.

Yet it seems that the OP is under the impression that their opinion owns the thread. It does not. I think the OP here owes us all an apology

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: Boomer1947

From personal experience of actually being homeless in Australia, I always used to drive up North in the winter than back home down south during the summer months.

Just thinking, if I lived in some random state in the US that got cold during winter, then I would have definitely headed straight to California. Doubt Im the only one who has the same mind set.

Personally, I would try to do that also, because it's the reasonable thing to do. But it sounds like you had a car. Almost none of the homeless around where I live (near Santa Cruz, California) own anything other than the dirty clothes they are wearing and whatever possessions they can scrounge and load into a stolen supermarket shopping cart. A lot of them also seem to be mentally disabled (probably contributed to them being homeless in the first place) and can't really hold a thought for more than an hour or two at a time.

We have abandoned the mentally ill since about the 90's. It hasn't helped anyone doing that. The people we do help are those with gender dysphoria that is a real disease, but we mostly offer them mutilation instead of proper counseling.

your post bypasses the "nanny state" communims fails us again and again to lay the blame somewhere else.

This problem with wages is caused by letting our jobs go over seas because of the EPA who can't do # in China who do NOT put the tech on to stop pollution like the western world is forced to do. SO they do more damage than we could ever to the environment these idiots claim to want to save.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: hangedman13
No one wants to touch on the real problem. The so-called nonprofits that eat up that government money. Any accountability for them? Nah, they tend to be run by friends and/or former politicians! Party loyalty and a few kickbacks is all it takes to be ignored.

That's not the real problem.

The real problem was mentioned by the Hoover Institution in the article that was cited in the OP:

"A ... key problem with California homelessness policy, one that is rarely, if ever, discussed, is that there are too many California households who simply do not earn enough to live sensibly in California, given the state’s very high cost of living. For example, nearly half of California households rent, and of this group, about 30 percent—about 1.9 million households—pay 50 percent or more of their pretax income as rent. This is far too high based on the standard recommendation that a household pay a maximum of 30 percent of pretax income as rent."

Those 24 Billion dollars were spent on maintenance programs--things like subsidizing rent, keeping homeless shelters open, needle exchanges, etc. All that does is to maintain the homeless population at a somewhat more humane level of dysfunction than if there was no government program. If you subsidize the rent of an agriculture worker who picks strawberries in the Salinas Valley for 20 dollars an hour, that subsidy might be the difference between living in a cheap apartment and living under a culvert somewhere. But as soon as the subsidy goes away, that man or woman would be out on the street again. There's nothing in the program that would make the people they help suddenly be able to earn a high enough salary to let them be self-sufficient. I don't think there was ever any expectation that a program like this would solve the root cause of homelessness.

originally posted by: Justoneman
your post bypasses the "nanny state" communims fails us again and again to lay the blame somewhere else.

This problem with wages is caused by letting our jobs go over seas because of the EPA who can't do # in China who do NOT put the tech on to stop pollution like the western world is forced to do. SO they do more damage than we could ever to the environment these idiots claim to want to save.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: hangedman13
No one wants to touch on the real problem. The so-called nonprofits that eat up that government money. Any accountability for them? Nah, they tend to be run by friends and/or former politicians! Party loyalty and a few kickbacks is all it takes to be ignored.

That's not the real problem.

The real problem was mentioned by the Hoover Institution in the article that was cited in the OP:

"A ... key problem with California homelessness policy, one that is rarely, if ever, discussed, is that there are too many California households who simply do not earn enough to live sensibly in California, given the state’s very high cost of living. For example, nearly half of California households rent, and of this group, about 30 percent—about 1.9 million households—pay 50 percent or more of their pretax income as rent. This is far too high based on the standard recommendation that a household pay a maximum of 30 percent of pretax income as rent."

Those 24 Billion dollars were spent on maintenance programs--things like subsidizing rent, keeping homeless shelters open, needle exchanges, etc. All that does is to maintain the homeless population at a somewhat more humane level of dysfunction than if there was no government program. If you subsidize the rent of an agriculture worker who picks strawberries in the Salinas Valley for 20 dollars an hour, that subsidy might be the difference between living in a cheap apartment and living under a culvert somewhere. But as soon as the subsidy goes away, that man or woman would be out on the street again. There's nothing in the program that would make the people they help suddenly be able to earn a high enough salary to let them be self-sufficient. I don't think there was ever any expectation that a program like this would solve the root cause of homelessness.

Yea, but the damage is over there, not on our globe. Our globe has great progress in fighting "global warming". China's globe, not so much.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Justoneman
your post bypasses the "nanny state" communims fails us again and again to lay the blame somewhere else.

This problem with wages is caused by letting our jobs go over seas because of the EPA who can't do # in China who do NOT put the tech on to stop pollution like the western world is forced to do. SO they do more damage than we could ever to the environment these idiots claim to want to save.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: hangedman13
No one wants to touch on the real problem. The so-called nonprofits that eat up that government money. Any accountability for them? Nah, they tend to be run by friends and/or former politicians! Party loyalty and a few kickbacks is all it takes to be ignored.

That's not the real problem.

The real problem was mentioned by the Hoover Institution in the article that was cited in the OP:

"A ... key problem with California homelessness policy, one that is rarely, if ever, discussed, is that there are too many California households who simply do not earn enough to live sensibly in California, given the state’s very high cost of living. For example, nearly half of California households rent, and of this group, about 30 percent—about 1.9 million households—pay 50 percent or more of their pretax income as rent. This is far too high based on the standard recommendation that a household pay a maximum of 30 percent of pretax income as rent."

Those 24 Billion dollars were spent on maintenance programs--things like subsidizing rent, keeping homeless shelters open, needle exchanges, etc. All that does is to maintain the homeless population at a somewhat more humane level of dysfunction than if there was no government program. If you subsidize the rent of an agriculture worker who picks strawberries in the Salinas Valley for 20 dollars an hour, that subsidy might be the difference between living in a cheap apartment and living under a culvert somewhere. But as soon as the subsidy goes away, that man or woman would be out on the street again. There's nothing in the program that would make the people they help suddenly be able to earn a high enough salary to let them be self-sufficient. I don't think there was ever any expectation that a program like this would solve the root cause of homelessness.

Yea, but the damage is over there, not on our globe. Our globe has great progress in fighting "global warming". China's globe, not so much.

So, far it is minimal here.

That damage is coming to us all if we don't get some divine intervention. The woke sheep are bringing in Rambo's since they don't have any of their own. Not thinking what it means when the dust settles and those goons are running their towns.

a reply to: xuenchen

Liberal governors and mayors are angry at Congress for not sending them $20 billion this past Summer. It was disguised as a "border bill" and correctly rejected by the Republican House majority.

As a result, big deficits in BLUE cities and states are triggering panic amongst corrupted officials.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Justoneman
your post bypasses the "nanny state" communims fails us again and again to lay the blame somewhere else.

This problem with wages is caused by letting our jobs go over seas because of the EPA who can't do # in China who do NOT put the tech on to stop pollution like the western world is forced to do. SO they do more damage than we could ever to the environment these idiots claim to want to save.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: hangedman13
No one wants to touch on the real problem. The so-called nonprofits that eat up that government money. Any accountability for them? Nah, they tend to be run by friends and/or former politicians! Party loyalty and a few kickbacks is all it takes to be ignored.

That's not the real problem.

The real problem was mentioned by the Hoover Institution in the article that was cited in the OP:

"A ... key problem with California homelessness policy, one that is rarely, if ever, discussed, is that there are too many California households who simply do not earn enough to live sensibly in California, given the state’s very high cost of living. For example, nearly half of California households rent, and of this group, about 30 percent—about 1.9 million households—pay 50 percent or more of their pretax income as rent. This is far too high based on the standard recommendation that a household pay a maximum of 30 percent of pretax income as rent."

Those 24 Billion dollars were spent on maintenance programs--things like subsidizing rent, keeping homeless shelters open, needle exchanges, etc. All that does is to maintain the homeless population at a somewhat more humane level of dysfunction than if there was no government program. If you subsidize the rent of an agriculture worker who picks strawberries in the Salinas Valley for 20 dollars an hour, that subsidy might be the difference between living in a cheap apartment and living under a culvert somewhere. But as soon as the subsidy goes away, that man or woman would be out on the street again. There's nothing in the program that would make the people they help suddenly be able to earn a high enough salary to let them be self-sufficient. I don't think there was ever any expectation that a program like this would solve the root cause of homelessness.

Yea, but the damage is over there, not on our globe. Our globe has great progress in fighting "global warming". China's globe, not so much.

So, far it is minimal here.

That damage is coming to us all if we don't get some divine intervention.

Big Asteroid coming close. Earth's gravity may bring it here for a collision. Climate change fanatics should pool their resources to stop it, if they really...REALLY care about reducing climate change.

a reply to: Justoneman

Hi Just. I would like to ask you who are the ''we'' in ''we let you stay''? I'm pretty sure you were being gracious here, thinking maybe you could help assuage some of that angst I might be feeling that you thought might be oozing out of that post and for that I thank you though it really was gone by the time I hit the reply button.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: Justoneman

Hi Just. I would like to ask you who are the ''we'' in ''we let you stay''? I'm pretty sure you were being gracious here, thinking maybe you could help assuage some of that angst I might be feeling that you thought might be oozing out of that post and for that I thank you though it really was gone by the time I hit the reply button.

It means whatever you want it to mean!


I am not a moderator but we are a part of ATS.