Tucker: We’re watching civilization collapse in real time

[Marenco]

[TheCount]

I'd have found the billionaire a lot more believable if he had been on his log cabin set wearing a flannel shirt and dockers while he said it.

[kahless]

Except for the beginning where he says our leaders have failed, this is one of those times Tucker is way off the mark and is showing his elitism. His beef is with the courts ruling homelessness should not be criminalized, really, wow.

To simply say government policy is a magnet encouraging people to do drugs and live on the streets is moronic. The thing to really follow is where is that massive amount of funding going and where the money is not going. It is certainly it is not going to housing and treatment of mentally ill and that is the problem.

A population of 4 million people will statistically has on average 5.2% severely mentally ill, about 208,000 people. 6.7% of the population has combined substance abuse and mental illness problem. In LA there is an estimated 63,000 homeless so this makes sense if you are not dealing with a mental health and drug crisis, to house and treat, you are going to have a large homeless population.

This is another one of those stories recently where the right is going off the rails. Just like the daily hoopla over poor people stealing from a few box cars of a multiple billion dollar company, making it like it is the end of the world. Rather than blame conditions that created the economic conditions that caused the thefts lets blame poor people.

The elites have a knack for blaming all their problems on conditions they helped create.

[CaptUSA]

Except for the beginning where he says our leaders have failed, this is one of those times Tucker is way off the mark and is showing his elitism. His beef is with the courts ruling homelessness should not be criminalized, really, wow.

To simply say government policy is a magnet encouraging people to do drugs and live on the streets is moronic. The thing to really follow is where is that massive amount of funding going and where the money is not going. It is certainly it is not going to housing and treatment of mentally ill and that is the problem.

A population of 4 million people will statistically has on average 5.2% severely mentally ill, about 208,000 people. 6.7% of the population has combined substance abuse and mental illness problem. In LA there is an estimated 63,000 homeless so this makes sense if you are not dealing with a mental health and drug crisis, to house and treat, you are going to have a large homeless population.

This is another one of those stories recently where the right is going off the rails. Just like the daily hoopla over poor people stealing from a few box cars of a multiple billion dollar company, making it like it is the end of the world. Rather than blame conditions that created the economic conditions that caused the thefts lets blame poor people.

The elites have a knack for blaming all their problems on conditions they helped create.

As someone who grew up poor and had to deal with government "help", I think I have a pretty good frame of reference here. No amount of money spent by the government will ever solve their incentive problems. It became VERY clear to a young kid dealing with social workers that they were not there to help us solve our problems, they were there to leverage our problems for their own gain.

Government is not this benevolent force implementing the will of the people; it is an institution that operates on damaging incentives. To "solve" the homeless problem would mean an instant cut to budgets and elimination of government agencies. They have the incentive to make it easier to be poor - not to make it easier to escape poverty.

Now, I will agree with you on the criminalization of poverty... If that worked, we could just criminalize anything we found undesirable. I think Tucker misses the mark there. But there is an opposite form of elitism that expects a certain percentage of people to be homeless and expects the taxpayers to care for them. The truth is that the vast majority of the homeless can provide enough value to their fellow man that will enable them to take care of themselves. I've seen it. But when the state makes it easier for them to stop trying, many of them will. Instead of the incentive to provide value, they instead have the incentive to consume value - both through taxpayer funds and through theft that gets passed off in higher prices for everyone else.

There are only 4 ways to survive in the world. You can steal, which shrinks wealth. You can beg, which shrinks wealth. You can scavenge, which does not shrink or grow wealth. Or you can trade, which creates wealth for both sides of the trade. To say that there are people out there that have nothing of value to trade to their fellow man is probably the most elitist position of all.

[tod evans]

To simply say government policy is a magnet encouraging people to do drugs and live on the streets is moronic. The thing to really follow is where is that massive amount of funding going and where the money is not going. It is certainly it is not going to housing and treatment of mentally ill and that is the problem.

More or even different 'government' isn't going to fix problems caused by government.

Neither cops or social programs will 'fix' homelessness or dopers.

Get government out of the mix! Stop feel-good program funding with tax-dollars.

Stop prosecuting property owners who actually protect their property, again, more government intervention.

Remove government hurdles for private enterprise that wants to help, either by compassion or by force.

We've all watched what government does and many suffer the results, all of us suffer the expense.

[A Son of Liberty]

Or you can trade, which creates wealth for both sides of the trade.

Trade creates wealth for both sides of the trade? Surely you jest? I've been told that only one side benefits from trade.

[TheTexan]

Trade creates wealth for both sides of the trade? Surely you jest? I've been told that only one side benefits from trade.

Told by who? Surely noone on this forum would say something so outlandish.

[A Son of Liberty]

Told by who? Surely noone on this forum would say something so outlandish.

Oh that's right, it's different when there's an imaginary line between the two partners.

[TheTexan]

Oh that's right, it's different when there's an imaginary line between the two partners.

And here I thought you missed the point, well done sir

[A Son of Liberty]

And here I thought you missed the point, well done sir

lol, we may disagree on this, but you're still one of my favorite members here my man.