Seattle Socialists Strangle Golden Goose

[Kath]

Now, I agree that the 750 million distributed to these non-profits needs to be accounted for, but just because it's not accounted for does not necessarily mean it is being used inefficiently.

I think it's exactly what it means, by orders of magnitude.

750 M for 10 K homeless? That's $75,000 per homeless person. If you can't fathom how caring for one homeless person with $75K is possible, then there is literally nothing left to discuss.

[Fife]

Hey look, I can use quotation marks too!

"Ha-Ha."

I prefer a greater supply of safe and preferred housing.

I guess that's just were we differ.

[JohnDonne]

Are you denying ...

If I didn't explicitly deny something then instead of typing "ARE YOU DENYING . . ." why don't you redirect that energy into fucking yourself? Jesus you all get tiresome. Progessive passive aggressive pussy posting 24/7.

Oh and the head tax is for businesses that make over 20 million, not 38K. Slight difference, I realize.

You think the head tax is the only tax Seattle City Council passed for affordable housing?
You probably do. And once you're proven wrong seven times over you'll locate a typo, a colloquialism, an analogy, or verb in the wrong tense in my post and immediately launch into a tiresome rendition of "Are you saying . . ."

You clearly don't live in King county as evidenced by your complete lack of knowledge surrounding this situation and the years of previous failures that have pushed people and businesses to the breaking point with the council. Rather than spoon feed you a decade of local news so you can perform the full range of leftist-diversions, excuses, and misdirections, I'm going to grab some dinner.

Good luck convincing anyone not already inducted into your cult of misanthropy that wasting a billion bucks is fine, as long as you have a pie chart (and no results). I'm sure it'll be the same smashing hit it always is with the mom's-basement crowd.

You said:

You all must have missed their rock-solid premise that Amazon causes all this to happen by ruthlessly providing well-paying jobs. If it wasn’t for Amazon and their generous compensation packages no one in Seattle would shoot heroin or live on the street.

That's a purposeful mis-characterization of my side's argument, which is: The Seattle tech boom has caused property values to sky-rocket, causing rents to go up, causing an increase in homelessness. I was just trying to do you the respect of clarifying your position, even as you straw-manned mine, but perhaps you are too angry to type clearly? Lol.

I don't live in King county, lol, you got me there. But since you're worried about people who make $38,000 a year, I was just letting you know the recent head tax doesn't apply to them. Glad you're clear on that, but it helps other readers who might be confused by your unclear typing.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Hey look, I can use quotation marks too!

"Ha-Ha."

I prefer a greater supply of safe and preferred housing.

I guess that's just were we differ.

Should we subsidize that, then?

[Okeefenokee]

I bet DB isn't even sharing his dinner with the homeless.

[Haumana]

Hey look, I can use quotation marks too!

"Ha-Ha."

I prefer a greater supply of safe and preferred housing.

I guess that's just were we differ.

Should we subsidize that, then?

AKA: Lower taxes in that area and streamlining the building process. Viola!

[Fife]

Hey look, I can use quotation marks too!

"Ha-Ha."

I prefer a greater supply of safe and preferred housing.

I guess that's just were we differ.

Should we subsidize that, then?

Well, "duh."

How is it that we do that, again?

[DBTrek]

I don't live in King county, lol, you got me there. But since you're worried about people who make $38,000 a year, I was just letting you know the recent head tax doesn't apply to them. Glad you're clear on that, but it helps other readers who might be confused by your unclear typing.

No one was confused but what I typed, nor did I ever state the recent head tax affected people making $38k.
You feigned confusion, and paired it with your "ARE YOU DENYING . . ." ruse because you can't defend the billion dollars the Seattle City Council has already squandered.

You're taking over for Jedi, doing everything you can to distract from the fact that Seattle's progressive government is ineffective, wasteful, greedy, ill-prepared, and obstinate in the face of repeated failure.

But My message is still getting through, no matter how many progressive tools feign being flummoxed, or deliberately misinterpret my statements to shift focus.

A billion dollars gone, the homeless situation only growing worse.
The equivalent of $17k in taxes from every man, woman, and child in Seattle and what did the coucil buy us? More homeless.
Now they've resorted to pilfering the largest employers in the region because their rapacious greed remains unhindered by their record for failure.
And here you are cheer-leading them on.

And here I am a cutting through the lies.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

"Ha-Ha."

I prefer a greater supply of safe and preferred housing.

I guess that's just were we differ.

Should we subsidize that, then?

Well, "duh."

How is it that we do that, again?

Great question.

I am sure there is a "real" supply-side solution that has never been tried.

[JohnDonne]

Now, I agree that the 750 million distributed to these non-profits needs to be accounted for, but just because it's not accounted for does not necessarily mean it is being used inefficiently.

I think it's exactly what it means, by orders of magnitude.

750 M for 10 K homeless? That's $75,000 per homeless person. If you can't fathom how caring for one homeless person with $75K is possible, then there is literally nothing left to discuss.

Straw man, I explicitly stated that the non-profit money should be accounted for and even suggested an audit.