Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, November 26, 2017

A church in upmarket Malibu has decided to stop providing free meals for those in need after claiming they were told by officials they were attracting too many homeless people. The United Methodist Church, one of many churches that provides food and help, has been offering free meals twice a week. But it said it was going to stop after being told the meal service was luring too many homeless people. Dawn Randall, a member of the church, said it recently received an email from city officials. "Very succinctly, they claimed we are increasing homelessness," she told CBS.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Reports suggest that the California city of Malibu, famed for its gorgeous beaches and multi-million dollar homes, has a growing problem with homelessness, an issue that was met with both charity and taxpayer money.

The Los Angeles Times said the city, which has a population of 13,000, has roughly 180 homeless residents, but no shelter or housing for poor people.

The United Methodist Church and Standing on Stone, a Christian group, had been hosting twice-weekly homeless dinners on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

But the newspaper said once the metro line to Santa Monica opened last year, a number of residents complained that mentally-ill and other homeless people were camping at the beach and entering schools.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It's true irony that 67% of Malibu voters voted for Hillary yet don't want the icky homeless anywhere near their homes and beaches...limousine liberalism at its finest.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-25 08:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"don't want the icky homeless anywhere near their homes and beaches"

Nobody wants that.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-25 08:52 PM | Reply

- a number of residents complained that mentally-ill

Thanks to that fine "limousine liberal" Ronnie Ray-Gun Zap!.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-25 08:53 PM | Reply

limousine liberalism at its finest.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at

As if you right wingers trump suckers give one flying FHK about the homeless

#4 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-11-25 08:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

They seem pretty intent on convincing each other that Trump and Republicans care about the poor far more than Democrats do.

I couldn't really tell ya why. Perhaps because they themselves are poor and Republican, but that only explains a handful of them.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-25 08:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--.limousine liberalism at its finest.

i1.wp.com

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-11-25 09:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#6

Trump Sycophants at their worst.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-25 09:11 PM | Reply

"They seem pretty intent on convincing each other that Trump and Republicans care about the poor far more than Democrats do."

True its a lie many ignorant conservatives like to tell themselves with even while at the same time they vote in one policy after another to hurt the poor while handing more and more money over to the rich.

Some right wingers I have noticed of late have come out of the closet and proudly have stated there hate for the poor and want to come down upon them
with the full force of the law and gleefully cut services for the poor knowing what harm it will cause and gloat about it, saying it is the poors fault for them being poor and they deserve no help.

#8 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-11-25 09:14 PM | Reply

It's true irony that 67% of Malibu voters voted for Hillary yet don't want the icky homeless anywhere near their homes and beaches...limousine liberalism at its finest.

#1 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

You could always have them crash at your place. You know, something that Jesus loving conservatives always want to do, because, you know, that's what Jesus would do ...

LMAO

#9 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-25 09:14 PM | Reply

As if you right wingers trump suckers give one flying FHK about the homeless

Apparently you care so much about the homeless that you won't mind them loitering around your yard.

#10 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-11-25 09:15 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

www.commondreams.org

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-25 09:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The -------------------'s budget would increase homelessness in every state. MAGA

www.cbpp.org

#12 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2017-11-25 09:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

- increase homelessness in every state

"Let them stay in my hotels!" - Donald Antoinette, Last Russian Queen

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-25 09:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

The -------------------'s budget would increase homelessness in every state.

MAGA - G + H = MAHA = Make America Homeless Again

#14 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-25 09:19 PM | Reply

10 | Posted by Crassus at

I have been homeless in the past you FHKING idiot

#15 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-11-25 09:19 PM | Reply

We need to treat the causes of homelessness, and no, the cause is 'not having a house'. Simply throwing money at shelters only prolongs the problem, it does not solve it.

#16 | POSTED BY MIDTOWNLANDLORD AT 2017-11-26 04:36 AM | FLAG:

Correct! But either you're too young, ignorant or don't care about facts. The main cause of homelessness is mental illness. Corky touched on it in # 3 but it sailed over your empty crainium. If you're going to pick a side in politics, at least know some history.

#17 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-11-26 05:09 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"We need to treat the causes of homelessness, and no, the cause is 'not having a house'."

Not having a home is... the definition of homeless.
What "causes" did you have in mind?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 05:40 AM | Reply

Simply throwing money at shelters only prolongs the problem, it does not solve it.

It doesn't prolong the problem but it doesn't solve it either, so you are half right. Shelters can provide a relatively safe place for one of the most at risk segments of society but they do very little to end the problem.

Even better are the housing first initiatives being tried. Get a place to call your own and gaining access to help becomes easier. Getting a job becomes possible. Early studies show 75% of people in housing first initiatives remain housed a year later. It also costs less per year than a shelter system.

Combine housing first with mental health and addiction treatments and watch homelessness nearly vanish.

#19 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-11-26 07:28 AM | Reply

--You could always have them crash at your place

Rich Hollywood Democrats that dominate Malibu have plenty of space.

#21 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-11-26 10:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

. Economy is just about as good as it can get and yet our homeless population is booming. -

Happens every time there is a republican president, yet it miraculously disappears when a Democrat is President

#22 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-26 11:37 AM | Reply

"Happens every time there is a republican president"

How on earth did you miss the whole economy-he-got, vs. economy-he-handed-off of the Dubya years?

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-26 12:09 PM | Reply

Happens every time there is a republican president, yet it miraculously disappears when a Democrat is President

#22 |

"Wrongway" Mackris....

upload.wikimedia.org

The economy does better under Democrats

www.usnews.com

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-26 12:23 PM | Reply

#3

What's next Corky, a Woodrow Wilson deflection?

#25 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 12:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I have been homeless in the past you FHKING idiot

#15 | POSTED BY PUNCHYPOSSUM AT 2017-11-25 09:19 PM

Congrats on pulling yourself out of that spiral.

That being said, one would think that you would be furious at Malibu rather than ranting about how much you hate Republicans, who have never even held a seat on the Malibu City Council.

#26 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 12:31 PM | Reply

"Happens every time there is a republican president, yet it miraculously disappears when a Democrat is President"

You're demonstrably wrong.

Which begs the question: What source(s) did you rely on?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-26 12:33 PM | Reply

So apparently RoC wants us to believe the cause of homelessness is the Malibu City Council?

Because handouts, right?

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 12:35 PM | Reply

#25

SO, no argument to the fact that historically the economy does better under Dems?

How typical of you.

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-26 12:36 PM | Reply

You could always have them crash at your place. You know, something that Jesus loving conservatives always want to do, because, you know, that's what Jesus would do ...

LMAO

#9 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2017-11-25 09:14 PM

Or I could continue to donate $1,000 month to OPCC and do pro bono work for Chrysalis like I have done for the past 20 years.

How about you? Got space on your futon?

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 12:36 PM | Reply

-So apparently RoC

Should just change his handle to Red Meat for Yellow Dogs.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-26 12:37 PM | Reply

"Republicans, who have never even held a seat on the Malibu City Council."

Nice try.

Malibu City Council elections aren't defined by parties.

images.search.yahoo.com

www.malibutimes.com

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-26 12:37 PM | Reply

So apparently I have struck a nerve by pointing out that the heavily Dem enclave of Malibu is incredibly NIMBY.

Stop assigning positions, Snoofy, you are much smarter than Corky so shouldn't need to resort to strawmen.

#33 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 12:38 PM | Reply

"Rich Hollywood Democrats that dominate Malibu have plenty of space."

So does Trump. What's your point?

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 12:38 PM | Reply

I have lived in Malibu, Dan, I know that it is technically non-partisan but a registered Republican has never won a seat in Malibu.

#35 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 12:39 PM | Reply

"a registered Republican has never won a seat in Malibu."

Link?

Or is this just your "technically non-partisan" opinion?

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-26 12:40 PM | Reply

What's your point?

Should be pretty easy for you to figure out.

#37 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 12:40 PM | Reply

RoC, is the city council right, does handing out free food attract more homeless people?

Word gets out on their Obamaphones, something like that.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 12:41 PM | Reply

I don't need a link, I live next door to Malibu now and have followed their politics since it became a city.

A Republican wouldn't stand a chance running for a seat in the Bu.

#39 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 12:42 PM | Reply

RoC is pointless. Mackris says something incredibly stupid, and there he is to defend her... without any facts, of course.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-26 12:42 PM | Reply

RoC wouldn't you rather lead by example of the Republican town that ended homelessness? What can Malibu learn from that town? Also which town is it?

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 12:44 PM | Reply

#38

I think that has little or no effect, the OPPC and Bread and Roses in Santa Monica feed, clothe and house thousands of homeless a day and are only 5 miles away from UMC in Malibu.

For the homeless out by Malibu High, which is past Point Dume, that distance increases to 14 miles, which is more problematic.

#42 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 12:50 PM | Reply

"Rich Hollywood Democrats that dominate Malibu have plenty of space."

So does Trump. What's your point?

#34 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Does Trump own a mansion in Malibu, Goofy?

#43 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-11-26 12:50 PM | Reply

Learn to read, Corky, I was heckling you for your Ray-gun reference, I hadn't even read Andrea's post.

And Snoofy is still waaaaay smarter than you.

#44 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 12:51 PM | Reply

RoC wouldn't you rather lead by example of the Republican town that ended homelessness?

Look up Ogden UT.

How about the 10 Cities with the highest homeless populations, who has total control over those cities?

#45 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 12:56 PM | Reply

#40 | POSTED BY CORKY

This is well documented .... I realize history isn't your strong point Cork&Paste, and Snoofy is still smarter than you....

The Astonishing Decline of Homelessness in America
www.theatlantic.com

Where have all the homeless gone ...
books.google.com

#46 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-26 12:59 PM | Reply

Those of us who lived through it will never forget the left's unceasing campaign blaming Ronald Reagan for the homeless in the 1980s. It was a vicious campaign, replete with the typical name-calling and nasty hyperbole. To this day, liberals haven't let go.

"Reagan deliberately created ‘homelessness,'" writes one observer at the Democratic Underground.

Adds Peter Dreier, a well-known progressive who teaches at Occidental College: "[A] fitting tribute to [Reagan's] legacy would be for each American city to name a park bench -- where at least one homeless person sleeps every night -- in honor of our 40th president."

The left launched an unceasing campaign from Reagan's first year in office until his last, as if there had been no such thing as a homeless American until Ronald Reagan took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Reagan biographer Lou Cannon noted how Reagan had been in office mere months and liberals were already erecting tent cities outside the White House intended to evoke images of "Hooverville" during the Great Depression. These mock shanties were declared "Reagan ranches."

spectator.org

#47 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-26 01:02 PM | Reply

- I was heckling

Ah, well, it's so hard to tell that from your "arguments", counselor.

But, pls, continue bragging about your charity and your "wealth". That's really entertaining, lmao.

Maybe you can give Nulli a place to stay.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-26 01:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Maybe you can ask Snoofy to explain my #30 to you Corky.

And I am sure Nulli is fine.

#49 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 01:06 PM | Reply

How about the 10 Cities with the highest homeless populations, who has total control over those cities?

Still waiting on this answer Snoofy...

#50 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 01:08 PM | Reply

"Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.

He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state's mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization.

In other words, if you are struggling with mental illness, we can only help you if you ask for it.

But, wait. Isn't one of the characteristics of severe mental illness not having an accurate sense of reality? Doesn't that mean a person may not even realize he or she is mentally ill?

There certainly seems to be a correlation between the de-institutionalization of mental health patients in the 1970s and early 1980s and the significant number of homelessness agencies created in the mid-to-late 1980s. PATH itself was founded in 1984 in response to the significant increase in homelessness in Los Angeles."

www.povertyinsights.org

"Ronald Reagan's shameful legacy: Violence, the homeless, mental illness
As president and governor of California, the GOP icon led the worst policies on mental illness in generations"

www.salon.com

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-26 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I think that has little or no effect,"

Okay. So. What DOES have an effect?

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 01:11 PM | Reply

"How about the 10 Cities with the highest homeless populations, who has total control over those cities?"

Aren't they the same ten cities with the highest total populations?

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 01:13 PM | Reply

#53

Nope. Try again.

#54 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 01:15 PM | Reply

Make a point or blow away, windbag.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 01:16 PM | Reply

RoC how did they eliminate homelessness in your city?
That would be an excellent point for you to make.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 01:17 PM | Reply

#52

Take a look at a map and weather.com, that should clue you in.

#57 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 01:17 PM | Reply

A map of the weather can solve homelessness?
Well that was easy!

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 01:19 PM | Reply

It's called the PPTFC, google it.

And you are just avoiding the point, Snoofy, since it destroys your narrative.

#59 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 01:19 PM | Reply

#58

Now you are verging on Corky levels of "specialness", you specifically asked whether handing out food had an effect on homeless people in Malibu, I answered.

#60 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 01:21 PM | Reply

Sorry that should be PPTFH, which works with the OPPC.

#61 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 01:22 PM | Reply

Is anyone surprised the rich don't want the poor near them?

File this next to, powerful men use power to coerce sex from women.

Class warfare is very real. It doesn't see gender or race or party. It's also not really discussed. The rich don't want the poor to know how little their lives matter.

#62 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-26 01:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"you specifically asked whether handing out food had an effect on homeless people in Malibu, I answered."

I also asked you what actually solves homelessness, and you don't have an answer.
I also asked what Republican cities have solved homelessness, and you don't have an answer.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 01:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Is anyone surprised the rich don't want the poor near them?"

Trump supporters are.
Normal people, not so much.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 01:24 PM | Reply

Corky warbles whenever his nest of eggs is threatened.

The golden Malibu eggs are among his most prized possessions.

#65 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-26 01:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#63

You never asked the first question, and I answered the second.

Please try to keep up.

#66 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 01:27 PM | Reply

So which Republican cities have solved homelessness, and how did they do it?

San Diego is pretty damn Republican and we're crawling in them. Any tips? Other than of course stop feeding them?

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 01:28 PM | Reply

Have fun chasing your tails, Snoofy and Corky, I am actually off to Bread and Roses to serve lunch, as I do every Sunday with my son.

#68 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 01:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

--is incredibly NIMBY.

The only place more white than Malibu is Nimby Naples, 98% white.

#69 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-11-26 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- stop feeding them?

"Let them eat cake!" - Queen Marie RoC

#70 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-26 01:31 PM | Reply

Does Trump own a mansion in Malibu, Goofy?
#43 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Pretty close, actually!
www.trump.com
Occupying the most desirable location in California, The Estates at Trump National present a lifestyle usually reserved only for guests at the world's finest hotels. Prominently positioned atop the Palos Verdes Peninsula outside of Los Angeles, panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island grace every window.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 01:32 PM | Reply

"I am actually off to Bread and Roses to serve lunch, as I do every Sunday with my son."

You have no idea what ends homelessness. Thanks for admitting it.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 01:33 PM | Reply

#68

People who brag about their charity are worse than those who do none, because they are doing it so they can brag.

#69

Somewhere a violent Nazi isn't being coddled.

#73 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-26 01:33 PM | Reply

"People who brag about their charity are worse than those who do none"

I tend to agree with this.
RoC put his dick in a charity's ass and now he thinks it smells great.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 01:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I don't need a link, I live next door to Malibu now and have followed their politics since it became a city."

As if you know how they vote in a private booth.

Like I said initially...nice try.

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-26 01:35 PM | Reply

Truly sad that none of the right-wingers will share their thoughts on what causes homelessness, and how to end homelessness.

This is problem that affects us all, yet the entire point of this thread is to politicize it, and make it a Democrat problem.

Sad!

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 01:41 PM | Reply

#76

I answered how to end it in #19. If we add in a UBI to the equation then pretty much everything a government could do would be done.

There are too many causes to address them all but national health care would be one step to address both the mental illness and the health care cost induced homelessness. No idea what of the total percent that is but combined it is probably a pretty decent chunk.

#77 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-11-26 01:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You're right-wing? I thought you supported Obammacare...

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 02:01 PM | Reply

If we add in a UBI to the equation then pretty much everything a government could do would be done.

I don't foresee UBI coming to capitalist America.

Europe, Canada, Australia... sure. I can see those social democracies implement UBI.

But it will be centuries before America does anything to help Americans. Especially with a Republican in the White House and Republicans in congress.

Helping Americans isn't what the Republican Party stands for.

#79 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-26 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Dawn Randall, a member of the church, said it recently received an email from city officials. "Very succinctly, they claimed we are increasing homelessness," she told CBS."

It's not the governments job to feed the homeless, that is what charities are for. Well unless they are located in an uptight 1% community, then screw them.

#80 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-26 03:07 PM | Reply

You have no idea what ends homelessness. Thanks for admitting it.

That wasn't the question. And thanks for doing nothing to help.

#81 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 07:53 PM | Reply

You came back to double down on nothing, or are you gonna say why Republican San Diego has such a homeless problem, and what will fix it?

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 07:54 PM | Reply

People who brag about their charity are worse than those who do none, because they are doing it so they can brag.

Pinch retorted that I do nothing for the homeless, I set him straight. You guys got all wound up about it.

And trust me, people who do no charity are probably the worst people imaginable.

#83 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 07:56 PM | Reply

Somewhere a violent Nazi isn't being coddled.

I am sure you will make up for it by coddling a Groper. Have you defended Franken or Conyers lately?

#84 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 07:57 PM | Reply

I'm sure you will never, ever say what can end homelessness.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 07:58 PM | Reply

RoC put his dick in a charity's ass and now he thinks it smells great.

#74 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-11-26 01:34 PM

At least I do something other than complain about it...been to Malibu lately?

#86 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 07:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Why would I go to Malibu, if the stench of the poor isn't enough, there's you.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sure, continue to lower unemployment, re-establish State and/or local Mental Hospitals, increase funding for drug intervention programs, build affordable housing and get you starting to do charitable work to help the homeless instead of complaining that there is no solution. It

Got any better ideas or are you going to continue to whine?

#88 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 08:01 PM | Reply

What do you do other than complain about it?
Attract more of it with handouts, like they are trying to stop in Malibu?
How's that working out for you?

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:02 PM | Reply

Good to know that you are a Pinto Liberal at heart, Snoofy.

#90 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 08:03 PM | Reply

"build affordable housing"

What's "affordable" to a homeless person?
You tell me, it's your idea.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- I set him straight.

Yeah, a couple of times, proudly.

luke1428.com

#92 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-26 08:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Got any better ideas"

Yeah, try this one:
Homelessness is defined as the lack of a ____.

Fill in the blank, and give whatever that mysterious thing is to the homeless.
Then, by definition, they won't be homeless any more.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:05 PM | Reply

Fill in the blank, and give whatever that mysterious thing is to the homeless.

Then, by definition, they won't be homeless any more.

#93 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-11-26 08:05 PM

Wow, you are a simplistic moron some times, it's a wonder you remember to breathe.

HUD: Defining Chronic Homelessness

#94 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 08:13 PM | Reply

#92

Corky, in case you weren't paying attention, this is a thread about feeding the homeless.

#95 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 08:14 PM | Reply

You're talking about chronic homeless.
Not the same as homeless.
It's a subset.

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:14 PM | Reply

It's a subset.

That has to be the lamest retort I have seen in a looooong time.

Snoofy posting that retort

#97 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 08:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Let's work on
"Homelessness is defined as the lack of a ____"
Until we reach clarity on how the English language works.

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:19 PM | Reply

Go ahead and fill in the blank Snoofy, I have already told you what needs to be done, and it's a lot more complicated than you are willing to admit (it's a subset, lol)...but then again, have already admitted you can't stand the stench of those gross homeless people.

#99 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 08:23 PM | Reply

98

Funny, ironic, and downright trollish.

#100 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-26 08:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From your link in #94,

"HUD adopted the Federal definition which defines a chronically homeless person as
"either (1) an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who
has been continuously homeless for a year or more, OR (2) an unaccompanied
individual with a disabling condition who has had at least four episodes of
homelessness in the past three years."

Notice how "homelessness" is integral to their definition of "chronic homelessness."
You'd do well to factor homelessness into your own understanding of what homelessness is; even the non-chronic kind.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I have already told you what needs to be done"

Yeah but you also told me to get to work for a charity.

What charity is building homes in downtown San Diego, and do you really think hey let guys like me work construction?

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:25 PM | Reply

LOL, do you even read your own crap? The guide, after all, is about the homeless.

Good to see you scanned the first page though, why don't you educate yourself on what a "disabling condition" is and get back to me.

#103 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 08:27 PM | Reply

"and it's a lot more complicated than you are willing to admit "

Cities, countries, whatever, that have succeeded in solving their homeless problem, have they done it without providing housing?

Since you know so much, please, take me to school.

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:27 PM | Reply

- in case you weren't paying attention...

... you were bragging about it... just like the hypocrite Pharisees.

#105 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-26 08:30 PM | Reply

Yeah but you also told me to get to work for a charity.

What charity is building homes in downtown San Diego, and do you really think hey let guys like me work construction?

San Diego Habitat for Humanity

Click on the link, give them a call, they don't turn anyone away.

#106 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 08:30 PM | Reply

#104

Like I said hours ago, google Ogden, Utah, they have probably the most comprehensive solution for homelessness in the country.

#107 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 08:33 PM | Reply

"Corky, in case you weren't paying attention, this is a thread about feeding the homeless."

It sure as hell isn't a thread about making them not actually be homeless any more, that's for sure!

Here is what this thread is about:

Homeless Person: "Help me, I'm homeless"
RightOCenter: "Here, have some soup."
Homeless Person: "I can't build a home out of soup."
RightOCenter: "I know. We're building a wall too."
Homeless Person: "None of this makes me not be homeless any more."
RightOCenter: "You'll probably be needing this blanket then too."

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:33 PM | Reply

"Habitat for Humanity is pleased to offer 11 affordable homes in the Logan Heights community of San Diego for purchase by qualified buyers.
Timeline: Groundbreaking in April, 2017. Homes will be built in phases. Completion in 2019."
www.sandiegohabitat.org

Sure. At that rate we'll have this homeless population all housed in about five hundred years time. Sign me up! I'm helping!

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:36 PM | Reply

Homeless Person: "Help me, I'm homeless"
Snoofy: "Not my problem."
Homeless Person: "I haven't eaten in days."
Snoofy: "I know. you probably haven't bathed either."
Homeless Person: "None of this makes me not be homeless any more."
Snoofy: "You smell, go away, I can't help you build a house."

#110 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 08:37 PM | Reply

There are few people in San Diego that haven't eaten for days.
Several thousand, however, without a home.

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:41 PM | Reply

"Since modern homelessness began more than thirty years ago, research and experience have overwhelmingly shown that investments in permanent housing are extraordinarily effective in reducing homelessness -- as well as being cost-effective." www.coalitionforthehomeless.org

"Receipt of subsidized housing was the primary predictor of housing stability among formerly homeless families (odds ratio [OR] = 20.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.9, 42.9)." www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It's not hard to figure out what fixes homelessness. Even I can do it.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Cities, countries, whatever, that have succeeded in solving their homeless problem,"

No they haven't.

They've addressed it.....not solved it.

#113 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-26 08:56 PM | Reply

... you were bragging about it... just like the hypocrite Pharisees.

#105 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2017-11-26 08:30 PM

Seems like someone is feeling a little guilty about something.

Get out and help a perfect stranger who needs it, you will undoubtedly be shocked at how grateful they will be.

#114 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 08:57 PM | Reply

"Get out and help a perfect stranger who needs it, you will undoubtedly be shocked at how grateful they will be."

Go read #112, stranger, and be grateful.

#115 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:59 PM | Reply

"They've addressed it.....not solved it."

#100

#116 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 08:59 PM | Reply

Thanks for providing support for my point in #88 ("build affordable housing=receipt of subsidized housing"), but you need to add social services for disabling conditions and stable employment to keep them off the streets.

You are right, even you can do it.

#117 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 09:01 PM | Reply

And to cut off your obvious retort, "subsidized" does not equal "free."

#118 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 09:03 PM | Reply

Or I could continue to donate $1,000 month to OPCC and do pro bono work for Chrysalis like I have done for the past 20 years.
How about you? Got space on your futon?

#30 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

My futon is actually an old ratty couch with so much 409 and Febreze scrubbed in to it, it'd stop a charging Rhino in its tracks at 50 paces ...

Just so I'm clear, $1,000 a month toward charity for 20 years pro bono is pretty damn impressive and deserves allot of credit on you part ... and you should DEFINITELY be commended for that level of giving.

All of that said, and deservedly so to RightofCenter ...

You wouldn't have to do all that if you and other misguided affluent and well-to-do citizens supported through out your lifetime(s) politicians like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Bernie Sanders -- all politicians who want to attack the social problems like homelessness (and veterans homelessness) at the root cause.

We're the richest country in the history of the world, our corporate profits are at record levels -- yet we argue over food stamps and why they're homeless people walking our streets.

Since I don't have the bank you have, I instead knocked on doors and made phone calls for Bernie's 2016 presidential campaign ... I did the best I could as a precinct captain by winning my precinct and my county -- a helluva run.

Experts say that the Bush Tax Cuts cost the nation ~ $6.6 Trillion ... finance.yahoo.com

So I'll make you a deal ...

I'll scrape together my 1,500 bucks or so that I received courtesy of Dubya's free tax payer money (Bush Tax Cuts) as long as you and all the other well-to-do people near, and at the top of the economic food-chain, give back all the free money received via Dubya Tax Cuts.

Last time I looked, 6.6 Trillion FREAKING bucks would be more than enough to pay for all the programs needed that would reduce homelessness to near zero -- deal?

The added benefit of giving back all that free tax payer money Bush gave you is that you won't have to see these homeless people walking the streets in and around your nice neighborhood -- just saying ~

#119 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-26 09:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- someone is feeling a little guilty about something.

Yes, and you should be. Jesus saved his worst words for the hypocrites who like to make their charity known to others.

#120 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-26 09:17 PM | Reply

120

I thought he unloaded on the folks conducting business in the Temple in Jerusalem pretty harshly. He kicked over the tables and called it a den of thieves.....I have to check that but that's how I remember it.

Did he bash the hypocrites worse?

#121 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-26 09:23 PM | Reply

Jesus roadied for the Doobie Brothers back in the early '70s.

#122 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-26 09:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

- Did he bash the hypocrites worse?

Oh, yeah he did.

biblehub.com

www.biblegateway.com

- Jesus roadied for the Doobie Brothers back in the early '70s.

www.youtube.com

#123 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-26 09:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Mental illness and/or drug/alcohol addiction. The solution is to institute involuntary treatment programs. The dual evil of Reagan + the ACLU made that impossible. We need people to stand up to the judicial branch to bring this problem under control.

#20 | POSTED BY MIDTOWNLANDLORD

The funny thing about authoritarianism is that it's only fun when you're not on the receiving end.

This post should disqualify you from voting. Ever.

#124 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-26 09:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

. Economy is just about as good as it can get and yet our homeless population is booming. -
Happens every time there is a republican president, yet it miraculously disappears when a Democrat is President

#22 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

#125 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-26 09:43 PM | Reply

Take a look at a map and weather.com, that should clue you in.

#57 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

What numbers or source are you using?

www.forbes.com

The most apparent trend I can spot there is cost of living. That list is a where's where of expensive ass places to live, with a few (ie Philli) that I'm not sure about the CoL.

#126 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-26 09:54 PM | Reply

You wouldn't have to do all that if you and other misguided affluent and well-to-do citizens supported through out your lifetime(s) politicians like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Bernie Sanders -- all politicians who want to attack the social problems like homelessness (and veterans homelessness) at the root cause.

You are exactly correct, the problem is, none of these fine gentlemen ever came up with a way to pay for it.

We're the richest country in the history of the world, our corporate profits are at record levels -- yet we argue over food stamps and why they're homeless people walking our streets.

In part, this is why we need to get those profits back to the US and tax them. Wealth inequality is a big problem not only in the US but worldwide, and we need to focus not on how much of a tax break the truly wealthy get but on how to tax their true income, by eliminating carried interest and the 20% tax credit that people like Gates and Soros get when they contribute to family foundations.

Since I don't have the bank you have, I instead knocked on doors and made phone calls for Bernie's 2016 presidential campaign ... I did the best I could as a precinct captain by winning my precinct and my county -- a helluva run.

That's awesome, well done.

As for prior tax cuts, even though Johnson is a very well respected economist there are plenty of studies that show that those tax cuts caused our GDP growth rate to double over the next ten years, and don't forget that Obama, in 2010, not only extended those cuts but two years later made most of them permanent, which helped the continued recovery in 2012.

It's very easy to focus on the negative when talking about Tax Policy but the picture is far more complex than anyone of us really understands.

#127 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 09:59 PM | Reply

What numbers or source are you using?

The most apparent trend I can spot there is cost of living. That list is a where's where of expensive ass places to live, with a few (ie Philli) that I'm not sure about the CoL.

Expansive beaches and a constant stream of 70 degree days. The Peoples Republic of Soviet Monica has become more hostile to homeless sleeping on the beaches, and since Malibu doesn't have its own police force (they contract with the LA County Sheriff) the homeless have found that they can camp on the beach and only get hassled by the rich Hollywood libs that will just scream at them until they cry themselves out, since the Sheriff's are prohibited from moving homeless people from where they are camping as that is a Municipal, not County, jurisdiction.

That is what this is really all about, the citizens of Malibu are aghast that these smelly homeless are sleeping in their yards and won't stand for it.

#128 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 10:06 PM | Reply

Expansive beaches and a constant stream of 70 degree days.

I get that that's why there is a significant homeless population in CA, but my point is that the city with the most (NYC) and most of the cities on that list in the Forbes link aren't similar to CA in climate or much else.

And climate only seems to account for so much given 28% of the nations homeless are in CA.

Anyways, it's not important enough of a point to argue over. I was just pointing out that lack of affordable housing seems to be the best correlate of homelessness rates.

#129 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-26 10:21 PM | Reply

Anyways, it's not important enough of a point to argue over. I was just pointing out that lack of affordable housing seems to be the best correlate of homelessness rates.

I think it does correlate, but as you point out, if it was a single factor (like weather), then almost all the homeless would make their way to LA or Oahu. Cost of transportation aside, studies have shown that many homeless don't want to leave where they were when they hit the streets. When the CoL makes getting a roof over your head prohibitive, homelessness increases.

However, it isn't just about giving the homeless housing. On LA's Skid Row, homeless people can get vouchers for rooms at shelters and Social Workers try to pass them out, more than 40% refuse them for various reasons, leaving shelters at about 70% capacity on most nights. When it does get cold, the occupancy rates get near capacity, but that is less then 10% of nights in LA.

#130 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-26 10:32 PM | Reply

"but as you point out, if it was a single factor"

Placement in subsidized housing was the primary predictor of not being homeless later. Odds ratio 20, which is astronomical.

That should matter, when formulating policy.

Plenty of evidence supports "housing first."

Plenty of mythology supports... other approaches.

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 10:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

all wrong.
creating homelessness... BS.
attracking many...that's the point the world over, bring them ALL.

#132 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-11-26 10:47 PM | Reply

"However, it isn't just about giving the homeless housing."

It's primarily about giving the homeless homes though.

The other things, like food, and health care, and education, are called food, health care, and education, because they are different from homelessness.

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-26 10:48 PM | Reply

However, it isn't just about giving the homeless housing. On LA's Skid Row, homeless people can get vouchers for rooms at shelters and Social Workers try to pass them out, more than 40% refuse them for various reasons, leaving shelters at about 70% capacity on most nights.

I'd be curious to see what each room entailed, as some may see it as more dangerous to be concentrated in one place than being out on the streets with room to disappear.

I'd also have to imagine that a shelter doesn't feel much like a home.

#134 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-26 10:55 PM | Reply

The republicans seem to think that if you treat people with mental illnesses bad enough they will decide to become sane

#135 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-27 06:27 AM | Reply

"As for prior tax cuts, even though Johnson is a very well respected economist there are plenty of studies that show that those tax cuts caused our GDP growth rate to double over the next ten years, and don't forget that Obama, in 2010, not only extended those cuts but two years later made most of them permanent, which helped the continued recovery in 2012."

You are completely full of crap. All of the gains made after those tax cuts was lost in 2007-2009 when Bush's "house of cards" (housing bubble) collapsed. Then Obama did not make them permanent, he raised taxes on the highest earners to 39% and capital gains to 25%, then added 3% more when Obamacare passed.h Which planet do you live on cuz it ain't Earth.

#136 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-27 06:58 AM | Reply

"As for prior tax cuts, even though Johnson is a very well respected economist there are plenty of studies that show that those tax cuts caused our GDP growth rate to double over the next ten years, and don't forget that Obama, in 2010, not only extended those cuts but two years later made most of them permanent, which helped the continued recovery in 2012."

No there is not a single study that shows tax cuts caused growth. There are studies that show growth happened after tax cuts but every time it was temporary and none of it went to lower and middle class Americans.

Reagan's tax cuts came at the beginning of the tech revolution. They did not cause the tech revolution or the economic boom brought by the tech revolution. The policies enacted did, however allow the formation of the dotcom bubble and we all know how that worked out for most people.

While household incomes have grown, Individual incomes are at late 1970s levels.

If you actually include housing, transportation, and energy in inflation calculations instead of leaving them out and pretending there is no inflation, real wages have fallen for most Americans.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the dollar experienced an average inflation rate of 2.99% per year. Prices in 2017 are 197.0% higher than prices in 1980.

In other words, $1 in the year 1980 is equivalent to $2.97 in 2017, a difference of $1.97 over 37 years.

Yet in raw dollars according to FRED the median individual income in 1980 was $22,038. In 2016 it was $31,099

fred.stlouisfed.org

So even if you buy the artificially low inflation rate excluding housing, transportation, and energy of 197% since 1980, real median wages have only risen 41% so purchasing power has declined 53%

Math works

#137 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-27 10:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The maths are part of the sciences which requires facts which rwingers abhor. Facts could mean that Trump couldn't make up his own news... then where would we be?

#138 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-27 11:46 AM | Reply

"Math works"

It does when you understand it...you apparently do not.

If you read the explanations in the grpah you provided, the numbers are in 2016 adjusted dollars.

In 1980, median personal income was about $12.5K in 1980$.

The graph you provided accurately demonstrates that median income has actually gone up considerably.

#139 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 12:06 PM | Reply

No there is not a single study that shows tax cuts caused growth. #137 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

BS ...

A study from Christina Romer, President Obama's former top economist...

Panel B of Figure 1 shows the two types of exogenous tax changes, those for deficit reduction
and those for long-run growth, separately. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of tax actions for
long-run growth are tax cuts.

The behavior of output following these more exogenous changes indicates that tax increases are highly contractionary.

The most striking finding of this exercise is that tax increases have a large negative effect on
investment.

The most striking finding of this exercise is that tax increases have a large negative effect on
investment.

In short, tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact
on output.

Since most of our exogenous tax changes are in fact reductions, the more intuitive way
to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects.
eml.berkeley.edu

Have great day!

#140 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-27 12:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

History says that Supply-Side Mackris is wrong yet again.

"changing the top income tax rate does not have a predictable effect on economic growth."

www.politico.com

#141 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-27 12:15 PM | Reply

#140 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Believes economic models that have been proven wrong on every trial run but refuses to believe scientific models of climate change as the Earth continues to warm.

Genius, Mackris, Genius.

And unfortunately you did not read the conclusion which states they specifically did not find that Supply Side economics actually works. In fact, they recognized that certain demand side generation might work.

It appears tax cuts for the lower income brackets are the only functional tax cuts that drive increased GDP.

Try READING the article. It will REALLY help.

#142 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-27 12:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#142

You optimist, you!

#143 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-27 12:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"A study from Christina Romer..." - #140 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-27 12:11 PM

Also from Christina Romer:

Some in Washington and in the news media have seized on a study I conducted with David Romer, my husband and colleague, that they say shows tax increases having a bigger short-term effect on then economy than spending cuts.

They are mistaken

source

#144 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-27 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"In 1980, median personal income was about $12.5K in 1980$."

Adjusted for inflation using CPI:
$12,500 in Jan 1980 = $38,060 in Jan 2016.

Not $31,099.

It's a hard sell that incomes have gone up when buying power has actually gone down 20%.

#145 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 01:00 PM | Reply

Danni, stop believing everything you are told to believe by HuffMediaTalkingCommonPoMattersPointsDreamsMemo, almost all the the Bush Tax Cuts were extended by Obama and then made permanent by Obama. Cherrypicking the change in the top rate and then the Healthcare bump doesn't mean a thing.

The Bush tax cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003, were designed to sunset after 2010 so they could pass Congress through the reconciliation process. They were extended by President Obama through 2012 so as to not raise taxes during the recession/weak recovery; additionally, in exchange for extending them two years, Obama was able to negotiate the payroll tax holiday and the extension of Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC).

The most recent extension of these cuts has allowed conservative members of Congress (and others, like Grover Norquist) to claim victory on these tax cuts, which briefly expired on Dec. 31, 2012, only to be reinstated almost in full. Conservative representative Dave Camp (R-Mich.) summed up the situation by saying, "After more than a decade of criticizing these tax cuts, Democrats are finally joining Republicans in making them permanent." Indeed, in many ways these are now Democrats' tax cuts as much (if not more so) as they are Republicans.' In the House of Representatives, the bill was passed by majority Democratic votes.

Corky, your article "proves" nothing, it just says that "it's unclear whether cutting the income tax on the wealthy boosts economic growth."

Hans, you and Andrea are talking past each other on the same paper, you are focusing on "short-term effect on the economy" and Andrea's focuses on "the vast majority of tax actions for long-run growth are tax cuts."

#146 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-27 01:30 PM | Reply

Link: Economic Policy Institute: The Bush tax cuts are here to stay

#147 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-27 01:31 PM | Reply

"it's unclear whether cutting the income tax on the wealthy boosts economic growth."

RightOCenter, you actually believe that???

#148 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 01:34 PM | Reply

"It appears tax cuts for the lower income brackets are the only functional tax cuts that drive increased GDP. "

Which was exactly my point in #127.

"there are plenty of studies that show that those tax cuts caused our GDP growth rate to double over the next ten years"

#149 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-27 01:38 PM | Reply

"It's a hard sell that incomes have gone up when buying power has actually gone down 20%."

Are you really as clueless as Hatter?

Just sticking to the information he provided, the SLF is saying that personal incomes increased by 35% over the last 40 years. And spending power, as you put it, is reflected in that adjustment.

#150 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 01:43 PM | Reply

MadB: What's the buying power $12,500 1980 dollars, expressed as the buying power of 2016 dollars?

CPI says $38K

Median salary in 2016 is only $31K.

#151 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 01:48 PM | Reply

The effects of the Reagan tax cuts are pretty well documented. Not only did they result in increased revenues (in adjusted terms), but they also significantly shifted the tax burden to the right, and on to the shoulders of higher income earners.

So let's recap. Increased revenues, decreased burden on lower income earners.

So why isn't this something progressives point to as a success? First, it was a republican. Second, it resulted in increased income inequality, as the wealthy were allowed to keep the money they made. And if you're a progressive, I think it's more acceptable to have a poorer society with a lower gini coefficient than a richer society with a higher value.

#152 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 01:49 PM | Reply

#148

Well, studies have shown that long term GDP increased when Reagan did it in 1986, Bubba did it in 1997 and Bush in 2001 and 2003. NBER: Tax Rate Cuts Would Raise Long-Term Growth:

In a recent NBER study, Taxation and Economic Growth (NBER Working Paper No. 5826) Eric Engen and Jonathan Skinner conclude that a major tax reform -- on the order of scaling back average tax rates to those last seen in the Eisenhower Administration -- would increase economic growth by at most 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points. The authors caution, however, that while the growth effects of tax reform may be small in the short-term, their impact is much larger over a longer horizon. If an inefficient tax system had retarded economic growth by 0.2 percent since 1960, then GDP in 1996 would be 7.5 percent smaller, for a net reduction in output of $500 billion. To put this in perspective, that level of annual output reduction is nearly ten times this year's federal government budget deficit. Since per capita GDP growth during the past decade has been only 1.3 percent, the lower tax rates would raise real per capita growth by about one-fifth of its recent value.
The problem with the talking point about how bad cuts for the wealthy are is that is conveniently ignores the impact of the cuts on on lower income levels, which, as Syco pointed out, drive increased GDP. Sure, you could cut everyone's taxes but the top earners, but you would never find a politician, Dem or Repub, that would agree to that when in power since they would be cutting their own fundraising throat.

As acknowledged in the NBER study, "Tax rate cuts would raise long-term growth...cutting marginal tax rates across the board by 5 percentage points and cutting average tax rates by 2.5 percentage points would increase the growth rate of U.S. GDP by 0.3 percentage points per year."

#153 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-27 01:55 PM | Reply

- Corky, your article "proves" nothing,

It's the history, stupid.

Silly Supply-Siders should listen to conservative economist Ben Stein... if they can't quite grasp all the studies that tell them the same thing....

www.youtube.com

#154 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-27 01:57 PM | Reply

"MadB: What's the buying power $12,500 1980 dollars, expressed as the buying power of 2016 dollars?"

"CPI says $38K"

The inflation calculator I used said $36.4K, but no matter. The SLF didn't start with a pre-defined median personal income indexed in 1980$. I found the number on google. What matters is that, regardless of what year the dollars are indexed in, you can see the 35% increase in median personal incomes. You can check this by entering the data from 1975 and calculating for 2017. It comes out to around $66K, even though the published amount by the SLF is $31K.

If what you were saying was true, then the graph provided by the SLF would show a downward trend...a decrease of 23% in 2016 CPI-U-RS Adjusted Dollars, Not Seasonally Adjusted.

#155 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 01:58 PM | Reply

"Supply-siders often credit President Reagan's huge 1981 tax cut with spurring robust growth in the ensuing years. But while growth was strong during the 1980s, it was stronger still in the years following President Clinton's 1993 tax increase on top earners.

Whereas GDP grew at an average annual rate of 3.5 percent during the seven years following the 1981 cut, it grew at 3.9 percent per year over the seven-year period following the 1993 tax increase.

In addition, nonresidential fixed investment also grew at an annual rate of over 10 percent during those seven years, compared to a rate of less than 3 percent in the years following both the 1981 and 2001 cuts.

At the same time, median household income and real hourly earnings both grew faster after the 1993 tax increase than after the 1981 tax cut.

A recent paper by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service also found no correlation during the postwar years between economic growth and the top tax rates on normal income and capital gains.

Moreover, it found no discernible relationship between top tax rates and either investment or private savings, stating that the "reduction in the top statutory tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth."

Obviously, there are many factors that contribute to growth, but economic history clearly shows that there is no correlation between low taxes on the wealthy and high growth rates for the country."

democracyjournal.org

#156 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-27 02:01 PM | Reply

"The purest supply-side economics experiment to date is finally over. And it was an unmitigated failure.

A diverse coalition of Republicans and Democrats in the Kansas state legislature voted on Tuesday to roll back Governor Sam Brownback's sweeping 2012 tax cuts, overriding his veto.

After five disastrous years, Brownback's historically ambitious plan to make real every Norquistian's sweetest fantasy has been beaten back to the regressive hell from whence it came."

newrepublic.com

Supply-siders want to Make America Kansas Again.

#157 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-27 02:02 PM | Reply

"If what you were saying was true, then the graph provided by the SLF would show a downward trend"

What I'm saying is true.
Go check the CPI yourself.
We'll wait.

#158 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 02:05 PM | Reply

Corky, did you even watch Ben Stein in that video you Corked n' Pasted? Stein is arguing for Bowles Simpson: raise taxes on the extremely wealthy ($2M +), cut them for everyone else and dramatically cut spending across the board. The Young Turks guy is cherrypicking the clips to highlight Ben's discussion regarding historical tax rates, but Ben stresses cuts for everyone but the 0.1% will spur long term growth and that "$250K is not rich."

#159 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-27 02:09 PM | Reply

Tax benefits should bubble up, not trickle down
BY KIMBERLY CLAUSING, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR -- 11/27/17 11:40 AM EST

Yet, when one looks at the actual details of the House and Senate tax bills, one sees that their true priorities are upside down. Claims of help for workers melt into nothing more than trickle-down economics. The House bill provides $1.5 trillion in deficit financed tax cuts.

Of this, $600 billion go to pass-through businesses; 98 percent of these benefits accrue to those with incomes greater than $100,000. Another $150 billion goes the top one-fifth of 1 percent of households that would normally pay the estate tax. And corporate tax cuts total another $750 billion.

thehill.com

#160 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-27 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The effects of the Reagan tax cuts are pretty well documented. Not only did they result in increased revenues (in adjusted terms), but they also significantly shifted the tax burden to the right, and on to the shoulders of higher income earners."

Other policies moved the income distribution even more to the right, which is why since 1975 the bottom four tiers saw practically no gains in household income.

You seem to have a hard time acknowledging that happened.

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- Ben stresses

That there is, "no correlation during the postwar years between economic growth and the top tax rates on normal income and capital gains."

Which is exactly what the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service also found. Not to mention too many historical tax studies to mention, so I won't.

#162 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-27 02:12 PM | Reply

But hey, you could just move to Kansas and see the results of the most recent Tinkle Down experiment.

#163 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-27 02:15 PM | Reply

"What I'm saying is true...Go check the CPI yourself."

You're comparing two separate sources and expecting to get a similar outcome. But feel free to explain the lack of a downward trend (and the presence of an upward trend) in the SLF data.

We'll wait.

But since you asked, the difference is likely in the adjustment methodology used by the SLF and the methodology used within the inflation calculator you used. I came up with a different number than you did, even using the same 1980 data point.

#164 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 02:19 PM | Reply

"You seem to have a hard time acknowledging that happened."

That's because it was not policy driven...policy could have stopped it at the expense of society I suppose...but it's also unimportant. If I make $100 more in a year, am I worse off because someone else makes $200 more in that same year? Personally, I would see myself as better off regardless. Even if someone else was making $200 million more per year. Especially if it was resulting from the same conditions that were allowing me to earn more.

#165 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 02:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Whereas GDP grew at an average annual rate of 3.5 percent during the seven years following the 1981 cut, it grew at 3.9 percent per year over the seven-year period following the 1993 tax increase.

In addition, nonresidential fixed investment also grew at an annual rate of over 10 percent during those seven years, compared to a rate of less than 3 percent in the years following both the 1981 and 2001 cuts.

At the same time, median household income and real hourly earnings both grew faster after the 1993 tax increase than after the 1981 tax cut.

That's funny, right after that tax increase, GDP plummeted in 1994-95, which resulted in Bill Clinton's tax cuts in 96-97:

One of the most dangerous myths that has infected the current debate over the direction of tax policy is the oft repeated claim that the tax increases under President Bill Clinton led to the boom of the 1990s.

While this myth is now a central part of liberal Democratic folklore, it is contradicted by the political disaster and poor economic results that followed the tax increase. The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on "the rich," but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar.

The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.

During the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, respectable relative to today's economy, but disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965.

For example, it was a half a percentage point slower than under Reagan during the four years following the first year of the recovery from the 1982 recession.

Speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said: "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."

Even Clinton realized his tax hike was a disaster, and so did the voters, handing Congress to the GOP.

#166 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-27 02:23 PM | Reply

"You're comparing two separate sources and expecting to get a similar outcome."

I'm computing the purchasing power of 1980 dollars in 2016 dollars.

Maybe you should give it a try. You might learn something.

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 02:24 PM | Reply

"But hey, you could just move to Kansas and see the results of the most recent Tinkle Down experiment."

Or go to Venezuela and see what socialism gets you.

I, for one, would take Kansas any day of the week. So would the Kansans. So would the Venezuelans...or at least those who lacked the connections to the ruling socialists.

#168 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 02:24 PM | Reply

Once Clinton realized his mistake, he enacted as big a tax cut as Reagan did:

However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.

Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.

The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.

In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.

The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.

The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.

The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000:

Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.

Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.

As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.

Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.

Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year.

Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.

Shared prosperity indeed! But one created not by raising tax rates on high income but not yet rich middle class families, and certainly not by raising the capital gains tax rate or by imposing the equivalent of the Buffett rule, a new alternative minimum tax of 30% on incomes over $1 million, nor by massively increasing federal spending.

Forbes: The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase

#169 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-27 02:26 PM | Reply

"I'm computing the purchasing power of 1980 dollars in 2016 dollars."

But you're using a data point originating from one source and comparing it to an output from another. This would be OK if there was nothing else available. In this case you have a single source providing input and output data, complied by a very credible organization. You're rejecting their output because it conflicts with your faith that people aren't better off economically.

#170 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 02:27 PM | Reply

"That's because it was not policy driven."

Sure it was. Lowering the capital gains tax rate, the Volcker Rule, all that stuff is policy.

#171 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 02:27 PM | Reply

"But you're using a data point originating from one source and comparing it to an output from another."

No, I'm not.
I'm using your stated value in post #139
Was that not the right number?

#172 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 02:30 PM | Reply

"Sure it was. Lowering the capital gains tax rate, the Volcker Rule, all that stuff is policy."

That was policy that may have discouraged activity that benefitted high income earners, investors, and skilled workers.

It would have nothing to make low value labor more valuable.

#173 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 02:31 PM | Reply

"I'm using your stated value in post #139"

Which did not originate in the SLF data.

#174 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 02:32 PM | Reply

It was the right number if you google median income 1980.

#175 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 02:32 PM | Reply

"In this case you have a single source providing input and output data, complied by a very credible organization."

Maybe the problem is your $12.5K number then because the Fed claims to be using CPI just like I am.

#176 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 02:34 PM | Reply

"Or go to Venezuela and see what socialism gets you. I, for one, would take Kansas any day of the week."

Why does every sucky situation get a pass if there is someplace on earth worse?

Kansas government sucks, regardless of what happens in Venezuela.

#177 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-27 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Maybe the problem is your $12.5K number then because the Fed claims to be using CPI just like I am."

That's exactly what I'm saying. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with the number...just different calculation methodologies.

And if you buy into what the SLF is saying, then why can't you admit the 35% increase in median personal income?

"Kansas government sucks, regardless of what happens in Venezuela."

Because many of those who criticize Kansas, which is a failed economy relative to most US states, support measures that aren't very different from those brought to VZ by socialism.

#178 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 02:40 PM | Reply

Median sale price of a new home in 1980 is around $65k.
By 2016 it's $300K. That's over four times as much.

If personal income kept pace with that, you would have a point here.

But it hasn't.

#179 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"And if you buy into what the SLF is saying, then why can't you admit the 35% increase in median personal income?"

Probably because I don't buy into your interpretation of what the Fed is saying.

Add the graph of median sale price of new houses to that fed graph.

You can see that in 1980 the median new home was about triple the median income, $22K vs $65K.
In 2016 it's about nine times the median income, $31K vs $306K.

To sum up, when wages have gone up 50% but housing has gone up 250%, you're not doing better.

#180 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It would have nothing to make low value labor more valuable."

I never said it did. I'm saying those policies moved wealth and income to the right, even more than tax policy moved taxes to the right.

And that's how we ended up with "Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

#181 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 03:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- aren't very different from those brought to VZ by socialism.

lol... it's like your, "the poor in the US are rich compared to Somalia!" absurd nonsensical deflections.

Try to stay in this country with your oddball comparisons... not that they will make any better sense.

Kansas was the latest rwing effort at a Tinkle Down lab and it was an abysmal failure... much like every other Supply Side failure in history.

But your economic masters do appreciate your willingness to be Tinkled Down upon.

#182 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-27 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If personal income kept pace with that, you would have a point here. But it hasn't."

A better way to assess housing costs is in terms of cost per square foot. And what you find is that costs really haven't changed in terms of inflation adjusted dollars. Around $110 per square foot. There has certainly not been the increase you're suggesting. Even is terms of inflation adjusted costs, the average in 1980 (using your numbers) is $65K. That's a little over $201K in 2016$, but doesn't address differences in size between now and then.

"Probably because I don't buy into your interpretation of what the Fed is saying."

Do you feel like you know what the SLF is saying? Because I don't think you do.

#183 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 03:09 PM | Reply

Are you familiar with the concept of inflation adjustment Snoofy? I don't think you are. Even if you did google it. If not, you wouldn't have posted housing costs in different eras without doing the adjustment.

#184 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 03:11 PM | Reply

"I never said it did. I'm saying those policies moved wealth and income to the right, even more than tax policy moved taxes to the right."

The biggest policy shift was opening up the availability of commercial credit to more and more people. Had that not happened, you would see far less income inequality than you currently do.

But outside of that, your assertions are incorrect. It wasn't a shift of wealth to high income earners from low income earners. That wealth was new, created as a result of the new tax policies and staying with those who earned it. In the absence of that tax policy, that wealth simply wouldn't have existed.

#185 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 03:17 PM | Reply

Is MadBummer trying to pretend wages have kept up with inflation?

A house down the street from me sold in 2011 for $335k. It's 2017 and the house is now up for sale at just under $600k.

Are you going to pretend wages have increased enough in the past six years to justify the cost of the house?

#186 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-27 03:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That wealth was new, created"

Created by who, and distributed to who?

By your words, created by debtors, and distributed to creditors.

That's a flow of wealth from debtors to creators.

#187 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 03:31 PM | Reply

Are you familiar with the concept of inflation adjustment Snoofy? I don't think you are.

That's an odd thing to say, after I point out the CPI says $12.5K in 1980 has the purchasing power of $38K in 2016.

You think the CPI figured that out without taking inflation into account?

It seems like you are the one not really taking inflation into account.

#188 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 03:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Because many of those who criticize Kansas, which is a failed economy relative to most US states, support measures that aren't very different from those brought to VZ by socialism."

And you support, on a national scale, what was brought to Kansas. What's your point? Again, just because VZ sucks, doesn't suddenly mean trickle-down works.

#189 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-27 06:20 PM | Reply

"A house down the street from me sold in 2011 for $335k. It's 2017 and the house is now up for sale at just under $600k.
Are you going to pretend wages have increased enough in the past six years to justify the cost of the house?"

That's way more than the average house price increase in the nation.

That's probably in a locality that has seen Drammatic economic activity which has driven the price of housing up that much.

I'm not saying wages have kept up with inflation. I'm just saying that's a bad comparison

#190 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-27 06:23 PM | Reply

--That's probably in a locality that has seen Drammatic economic activity which has driven the price of housing up that much

And overpopulation in California driven by illegal immigration and policies that restrict housing construction for environmental reasons.

#191 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-11-27 06:47 PM | Reply

"A house down the street from me sold in 2011 for $335k. It's 2017 and the house is now up for sale at just under $600k."

And a co-worker of mine just bought a house here in northern Louisiana for $5000.

Do you have a point?

#192 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 06:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I'm not saying wages have kept up with inflation."

Eberly, I have a question for you.
You can probably guess what it is too:
Have wages kept up with inflation?

#193 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 07:04 PM | Reply

That's way more than the average house price increase in the nation.

California real estate is on fire.

I have anywhere between 2 to 3 people a week inquiring about purchasing my house.

I'm hoping to hold out one more year then sell.

But. The GOP's wonderful tax plan may screw me.

#194 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-27 07:07 PM | Reply

"That's an odd thing to say, after I point out the CPI says $12.5K in 1980 has the purchasing power of $38K in 2016."

It was odd, since you followed up by presenting housing costs indexed in 1980$ as being equal to those indexed in 2016$. So it was either willful dishonesty or ignorance. And that sort of dishonesty is even a little too blatant for you.

"What's your point? Again, just because VZ sucks, doesn't suddenly mean trickle-down works."

Whether it works or not is a subjective statement. Free market forces have done more to improve the lives across the globe that any other system yet to be designed...including socialism. But if your key concern is equality, the free market will not produce it until all stakeholders develop equal capabilities. Until then, equality will be the result of individual generosity or the threat of violence. Because no market force is going to make a ditch digger equal in value to a doctor.

#195 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 07:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Do you have a point?
#192 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

If you had read the last line from my post you quoted. You would have understood the point.

Possibly.

You suffer with reading comprehension.

#196 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-27 07:09 PM | Reply

"I'm not saying wages have kept up with inflation. I'm just saying that's a bad comparison"

How can you say that wages haven't kept up with inflation? In adjusted dollars, all quintiles have either remained stable or increased.

#197 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 07:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"In adjusted dollars, all quintiles have either remained stable or increased."

That's because you did not take inflation into account.

When you look at the purchasing power of the median wage in 1980, it's more than the purchasing power of the median wage in 2016.

That means it... hasn't kept up...

#198 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 07:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"But. The GOP's wonderful tax plan may screw me."

Oh, how I doooo love it when progressives get a taste of their own medicine. Suck it clown...you as much as anybody has been clamoring about how the rich need to pay more. Now that you're going to be affected...now it's a bad deal.

The good news is if you sell your house in CA for $600K, that'll buy a lot more house in rural Alabama.

#199 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 07:17 PM | Reply

"Have wages kept up with inflation?"

I don't know without looking it up.

you tell me.

#200 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-27 07:18 PM | Reply

"California real estate is on fire."

Recently, a hell of a lot of it was on fire.

#201 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-27 07:19 PM | Reply

you as much as anybody has been clamoring about how the rich need to pay more. Now that you're going to be affected.

How does the middle class getting screwed have any affect on the rich?

The GOP's tax plan screws the middle class and the poor.

#202 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-27 07:24 PM | Reply

"California real estate is on fire."
Recently, a hell of a lot of it was on fire.

That was my ever so clever play on words.

#203 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-27 07:25 PM | Reply

"That's because you did not take inflation into account."

That's with inflation taken into account, einstein.

images.search.yahoo.com

When you look at the purchasing power of the median wage in 1980, it's more than the purchasing power of the median wage in 2016.

Really? Show me. I mean, I have no doubts that for some jobs that's the case, but that has nothing to do with inflation or any other costs. If you have little or no labor value, it doesn't matter how much inflation in decreasing...you're still going to be outpaced.

#204 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 07:27 PM | Reply

"you tell me."

See 204.

#205 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 07:27 PM | Reply

"since you followed up by presenting housing costs indexed in 1980$ as being equal to those indexed in 2016$."

You mean this statement?

"You can see that in 1980 the median new home was about triple the median income, $22K vs $65K.
In 2016 it's about nine times the median income, $31K vs $306K."

Yeah, for whatever reason the Fed doesn't inflatuon-adjust those dollar amounts on home prices.

Si If you use your $12.5K unadjusted value for median income, the gap between median income and median home price goes from about 5x to 9x during that time.

So wages clearly aren't keeping up with housing cost inflation, any way you slice it.

#207 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 07:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"How does the middle class getting screwed have any affect on the rich?"

Do all us middle-classers deserve to live in a $600K house?

I'm in the process of figuring out what I'm going to do with the rest of my life. Like millions of others, Phoenix looks like a decent option. Not knowing anything about it other than employment opportunities and location, a friend suggested Scottsdale. But I guess that's a fashionable place right now. And while I don't have a problem paying $400K for a house worth $400K, i'm not going to buy a $250K house just for the neighborhood.

Nope.

#208 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 07:30 PM | Reply

"So wages clearly aren't keeping up with housing cost inflation, any way you slice it."

Again, your math is wrong. I think you're conflating personal income with household income...or something.

Here are the real numbers:

Median household income 1980: $16,671 (1908$)//$48,557 (2016$)

The actual median household income for 2016 was $59,000,

Again, methodology will affect some of these numbers. maybe by as much as $2K. But not by the $20K or $30K you're suggesting.

Why don't you take an econ course or something. This would be easier for you.

#209 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 07:39 PM | Reply

"Here are the real numbers"

Do the same for houses, and you'll see income inflation being outpaced by housing cost inflation. By about double.

Which is important, because for most people, their biggest monthly expense is rent/mortgage; about 1/3 their total expenses.

Factor in college expenses for parents who pay them and it gets a lot worse.

#211 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 07:47 PM | Reply

Median Income, STL Fed, Real Dollars:
fred.stlouisfed.org

1974 $23,426
1980 $22,038
2016 $31,099

The purchasing power of the median income has risen about 50% since 1980. You can't say the same for house prices.

#213 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-27 08:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Then you will likely be priced out of the market because neighborhood is a big determining factor in home prices."

I'll look out in Queen Creek.

The thing that needs to be remembered is that, while you may own the structure. The government always owns the land it sits on. And guess what happens if you decide to stop paying your property tax bill.

#214 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 08:07 PM | Reply

"If houses were only a roof over your head, then you would have a point. They aren't. For most, rightly or wrongly, they are also an investment."

Even if you ascribe to this, it doesn't change the fact that housing, per square foot, is pretty much the same now as it was in 1950. I tried looking up numbers for 1980 and couldn't find anything, but in terms of cost per square foot, there is almost no difference. Between 1992 and 2010, costs per square foot actually declined.

Houses are more expensive now, but that's because the demand has changed from the 900-1200 square foot dwellings in 1950 to a nationwide average of just under 2200 in 2010. It would be strange to think that the cost of a house would not increase as the size did.

#215 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 08:18 PM | Reply

"If houses were only a roof over your head, then you would have a point. They aren't. For most, rightly or wrongly, they are also an investment."

Doesn't really get to the fact that the cost of the "investment" is rising at about double the rate of wages.

"Even if you ascribe to this, it doesn't change the fact that housing, per square foot, is pretty much the same now as it was in 1950. "

Doesn't matter, because houses aren't sold per square foot. They're sold one to a lot. The point you're making might explain one reason why housing inflation has outpaced wage inflation, which leaves us with the fact that housing inflation outpaces wage inflation. It's not like you can sell the bank some square feet to lower your mortgage.

#216 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 08:40 PM | Reply

Percentage change in Family Income, 1949-1979 and 1979-2012 (Reported in 2012 $) www.russellsage.org

1949-1979
Bottom 20%: 104.1%
Second 20%: 108.0%
Third 20%: 117.3%
Fourth 20%: 110.8%
Lower Limit of Top 5%: 106.1%

1979-2012
Bottom 20%: -4.4%
Second 20%: 4.2%
Third 20%: 13.0%
Fourth 20%: 27.6%
Lower Limit of Top 5%: 40.4%

Apparently MadBomber would like me to believe those two tables depict an economy that's improving?

#217 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 08:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It would be strange to think that the cost of a house would not increase as the size did."

It would be strange to price houses per square foot like you're buying ground beef per pound. It doesn't work that way. They won't tear down a room and charge you less.

#218 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 08:49 PM | Reply

"Doesn't matter, because houses aren't sold per square foot. "

Price per sq ft is used to compare houses when shopping.

Ever bought a home?

#219 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-27 08:51 PM | Reply

"It would be strange to price houses per square foot like you're buying ground beef per pound. It doesn't work that way"

Yeah....you've never bought a house.

#220 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-27 08:52 PM | Reply

Median household income is not a good indicator of growth. If a household with one income was earning $30k and now that household with 2 incomes is earning $50k they are NOT better off.

#221 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-27 08:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

221

If one income went backwards and it forced the other to work then you're right.

But if one went to work part time to add to the total then they are certainly better off.

#222 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-27 08:56 PM | Reply

"Yeah....you've never bought a house."

They can take a room off if you want to pay $50K less? LOL

#223 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 08:57 PM | Reply

"Price per sq ft is used to compare houses when shopping. "

Yes, but MadB is using it to compare housing cost from 1980 to today.

#224 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 08:58 PM | Reply

Retail and commercial space you can actually acquire on a per square foot basis.
They'll partition it for you, where possible.
Houses, not so much.
You might be able to buy a parcel of land that's being split up, is the closest you'll get.

#225 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 09:03 PM | Reply

"Doesn't matter, because houses aren't sold per square foot. They're sold one to a lot. The point you're making might explain one reason why housing inflation has outpaced wage inflation, which leaves us with the fact that housing inflation outpaces wage inflation. It's not like you can sell the bank some square feet to lower your mortgage."

What would be even more mysterious is a more than doubling in house size with no accompanying change in price, wouldn't you agree.

And remember, builders respond to demand signals from the market. In the current market, the demand is for greater square footage, and as the square feet add up, so does the cost.

That's not to say that there aren't many, many little 900 square foot houses in any given city. My co-worker just bought one for $5k.

#226 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 09:04 PM | Reply

"Apparently MadBomber would like me to believe those two tables depict an economy that's improving?"

Um, yeah...if you understand math. It pretty much reflected what I've said to you all along.

#227 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 09:06 PM | Reply

"If a household with one income was earning $30k and now that household with 2 incomes is earning $50k they are NOT better off."

I'm not sure how you can say that without being able to objectively state the value of the time of the other worker's. Only the worker can do that. And the amount earned is greatly dependent on the skill of the worker. I make a little over $110K a year. How much would my wife need to earn in order for us to be better off than when she wasn't working.

#228 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 09:09 PM | Reply

It's not improving if the percentage change in 40 was between 104% and 117%, and the percentage change in the next 33 years ranged from -4.4% to 44%.

It's doing far worse from 1979 to 2012 than from 1949 to 1979. Growth is waaaay down.

#229 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 09:11 PM | Reply

"Retail and commercial space you can actually acquire on a per square foot basis. They'll partition it for you, where possible. Houses, not so much."

I promise you that you can go to a realtor and tell them that you want a house of a certain number of square feet. Or a certain cost per square feet. Or you can go to a builder, tell them how much money you want to spend, and they can tell you how many square feet you can afford. And statistically, you'll be paying per square foot around what you would have paid in 1950. And 1980 too, I'd bet.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Sometimes its OK to finish your drink and call it a night.

#230 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 09:13 PM | Reply

"It's not improving if the percentage change in 40 was between 104% and 117%, and the percentage change in the next 33 years ranged from -4.4% to 44%."

It is improving...for those of us who understand math...you could say that it's not improving as drastically as it did previously (something that's easily explained by the post-war demand for materiel that was produced largely by the US), but that's very different than saying it's not improving. You're still getting richer, statistically. Don't be greedy.

#231 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 09:15 PM | Reply

"What would be even more mysterious is a more than doubling in house size with no accompanying change in price, wouldn't you agree."

A doubling in house size that goes along with a doubling in house price might make sense. Sort of like a doubling in the amount of ground beef I buy goes along with a doubling in the price. Maybe a little less than double if you really "buy in bulk" which is not how houses work. But... that's not what has happened.

This is also ignoring the fact that the price of a house is, in many places, mostly the plot, not the house.

#232 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 09:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It is improving...for those of us who understand math...you could say that it's not improving as drastically as it did previously"

That means it's not doing as well as it used to be doing.

If your investments made 100% ROI one year, then the next year you turned out 10% ROI, you didn't do better the second year.

#233 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 09:16 PM | Reply

A doubling in house size that goes along with a doubling in house price might make sense.

No it doesn't .....

Sort of like a doubling in the amount of ground beef I buy goes along with a doubling in the price.

No its nothing like that ...

The cost of the land is fixed and almost 50% of the cost given a suburban house, doubling the house size doesn't double the price....

#234 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-27 09:21 PM | Reply

"Sort of like a doubling in the amount of ground beef I buy goes along with a doubling in the price. Maybe a little less than double if you really "buy in bulk" which is not how houses work. But... that's not what has happened."

In 1980, the average square footage of a house was 1595. The average cost (your numbers) was $65K (1980$), which comes out to $194,576 (2017$). Cost per square foot in 2017$ would be $121 per square foot.

I couldn't find an average for square footage in 2017...but in 2013 the average square footage was 2598. The average cost of a house in 2013 was $311,400. In 2017$, that would be $329,721.19. The per square foot cost in 2017$ would be $126 per square foot.

That's a 4% increase since 1980. That's noise.

#235 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 09:32 PM | Reply

"If your investments made 100% ROI one year, then the next year you turned out 10% ROI, you didn't do better the second year."

But you're still Improving. You're still better off in year n+1 than you were in year n.

#236 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 09:34 PM | Reply

It's also disingenuous to bring location into the argument. It's a fact that many very prestigious neighborhoods were originally populated by middle class families. But as those communities grew, the land became more valuable. The house my father owned in the Redwood City Hills would cost as much as $4M on the market today. He was an electrician when he bought it.

In 50 years, it will be totally different neighborhoods sporting multimillion dollar homes. Many of which are ignored today.

#237 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 09:40 PM | Reply

It's also very, very critical to remember that in 1980, a fixed-rate 30 year mortgage had an 18% interest rate.

Consider a $250 loan. At current rates (3.79%, loan only), you'll pay a total of $418,849 ($1163/month) over the course of a 30 year loan.

If you were paying an 18% interest rate, you would wind up paying $2,000,310 at $6,251 per month.

#239 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-27 10:14 PM | Reply

"It's also very, very critical to remember that in 1980, a fixed-rate 30 year mortgage had an 18% interest rate."

Actually, it was '81.
www.valuepenguin.com

But those rates were outliers, as you can see. Almost cherry-picking, if you're using that as a base.

#240 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-27 10:19 PM | Reply

"If you were paying an 18% interest rate, you would wind up paying $2,000,310 at $6,251 per month."

Only if you were so stupid, you didn't understand how to refi.

Regarding your $2MM+ total, tell us: what percentage of those who took out 30 years loans in '81 do you believe paid them off in full without refinancing?

#241 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-27 10:28 PM | Reply

"But you're still Improving."

Not really.
You're not on a trajectory of improving.
You're on a trajectory that your gains will be even less in the next reporting period.
Negative, as a matter of fact.

If you are in a plane flying at 30,000 feet and next time you look it's at 3,000 feet, you're not improving.

#242 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 10:28 PM | Reply

"In 50 years, it will be totally different neighborhoods sporting multimillion dollar homes. Many of which are ignored today."

There will be new neighborhoods doing that, where there's nothing now.
The old hoods will mostly still be there.

#243 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 10:31 PM | Reply

As if you right wingers trump suckers give one flying FHK about the homeless

#4 | POSTED BY PUNCHYPOSSUM

Have you ever handed out food to the homeless? I have, in Detroit in January.

#244 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-28 08:40 AM | Reply

If you are in a plane flying at 30,000 feet and next time you look it's at 3,000 feet, you're not improving.

But that's not the case here. In this case, you're a plane flying at 30,000 ft with a climb rate of 20,000 ft per minute. Then your climb rate decreases to 20,000 ft/min. But just because your vertical velocity decreases doesn't mean you're in a descent.

And you're an idiot if you don't understand the difference.

#245 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 09:26 AM | Reply

"But those rates were outliers, as you can see. Almost cherry-picking, if you're using that as a base."

Definitely. Had those rates persisted, no one would have been buying houses. But the fact remains that mortgage rates have steadily declined since that time frame, increasing the amount of house that can be bought with a set amount of cash.

#246 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 09:28 AM | Reply

"The old hoods will mostly still be there."

more likely, the old hoods will be bought, reinvented, and populated by a younger, wealthier demographic than previously inhabited the area. That's been almost a constant in many US cities over the last 20 years.

#247 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 09:30 AM | Reply

"Have you ever handed out food to the homeless? I have, in Detroit in January."

If you did it in return for a vote, you might be a Democrat.

#248 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 09:49 AM | Reply

Hole--"Malibu"

#249 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-28 10:26 AM | Reply

I'm not sure how you can say that without being able to objectively state the value of the time of the other worker's. Only the worker can do that. And the amount earned is greatly dependent on the skill of the worker. I make a little over $110K a year. How much would my wife need to earn in order for us to be better off than when she wasn't working.

#228 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-11-27 09:09 PM |

When you start adding things up The second job only adds a fraction of it's income to available income.

When you consider added transportation, insurance, food, childcare, clothing, etc most of the second income is eaten by the costs of having the second person working. Then at the end of the day all the housework still has to be done. The social costs are enormous. The move from one income to two income families is the root cause of many of our biggest social problems.

When I was a kid latchkey kids were a novelty and an exception. Now they are the rule. We are in the 3rd generation of kids who grew up without effective parental supervision.

#250 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-28 11:04 AM | Reply

#250 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

No education jobs don't pay as much as they used to. Have to make sure the owners get more money, you see.

#251 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 11:06 AM | Reply

If you are Christian, you really have no choice but to help the poor. If you don't, you are a faux Christian.

#252 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-28 11:29 AM | Reply

"When you start adding things up The second job only adds a fraction of it's income to available income."

But you're still making the statement that the second workers time is more valuable to you than the labor income that this time translated in to. That's a determination only that family can make. And if the costs of putting a second family member to work outweigh the benefits, then the second worker doesn't go to work.

My wife is a fitness instructor. She works a few hours a day teaching classes. It's not really so much the money as it is something to keep her busy. I don't really want her to work for another few years, when my oldest daughter can drive the other around to soccer practice and the millions of other things they have going on. But if she wanted to work I wouldn't stop her, and eventually her ass is going to have to get a real job.

#253 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 11:48 AM | Reply

"If you are Christian, you really have no choice but to help the poor. If you don't, you are a faux Christian."

Do good Christians hand out fish, or do the teach people how to fish?

#254 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 11:49 AM | Reply

Do good Christians hand out fish, or do the teach people how to fish?

#254 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-11-28 11:49 AM | REPLY |

Both. How much is enough? Your last penny.

Col. Sanders, Founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken
"There's no good reason to be the richest man in the cemetery."

#255 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-28 01:49 PM | Reply

Do good Christians hand out fish, or do the teach people how to fish?

#254 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-11-28 11:49 AM | REPLY

republican christians teach them to fish and then make them rent the boat and the rod and reel and give them whatever fish they catch in return for just enough money to survive long enough to go fishing the next day

#256 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-28 01:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"There's no good reason to be the richest man in the cemetery."

That's true. I'm encouraging my father to blow his money on whatever stupid crap he wants. It's the time in life. He can spend it on stupid crap before he dies, or me and my siblings will.

#257 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-28 03:00 PM | Reply

Only the Methodists could get in trouble for being overly Christian. :)

#258 | Posted by Tor at 2017-11-28 07:45 PM | Reply

The problem with modern christians is that they charge people to teach them to fish, then charge them to rent the boat and rod and reel, then tax the fisherman but not the boat owner and then take his fish and sell it and give the fisherman a pittance in return. Then we look down our nose at the fisherman who is working hard for his pennies and glorify the boat owner who is doing nothing except count the money he got from the fisherman's hard work

#259 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-29 12:03 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort