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.

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

Oh, I have very clearly mis-communicated. The mere fact that $75K per homeless person couldn't get the job done is indisputable evidence that the money was used completely ineffectively. This should be obvious, no?

[DBTrek]

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.

Now that the money is gone, someone should account for it, by gum!!!
But a missing billion shouldn't reflect poorly on the same city council working on chasing the biggest employers in Seattle out of town. Just because they handled a billion poorly doesn't mean they shouldn't rape our largest businesses for another $45million.
They have pie charts, folks.
They can point to names on a spreadsheet that they handed all the money to.


Yeah, you're being straw-manned, all right. As you repeatedly attempt to defend the indefensible.

[Fife]

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.

Interesting that you have snark as opposed to an attempt to answer that question.

J/K, that's not really interesting.

:goteam: :drunk:

[JohnDonne]

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.

Like I said, the money used for affordable housing is accounted for and is producing results. By the way, affordable housing isn't just for the homeless, it's also for low income people.

The increase in homelessness can be explained by the rapidly increasing rents, caused by the tech boom, and outsiders migrating to Seattle.

Attracting outsiders is a messy feature of any city which decides to provide services for its homeless when other cities won't. Doesn't mean the right solution is to "let them freeze" as you so eloquently put it.

I have already agreed that the non-profit money should be accounted for. Anything else, you yapping chihuahua?

[JohnDonne]

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.

Oh, I have very clearly mis-communicated. The mere fact that $75K per homeless person couldn't get the job done is indisputable evidence that the money was used completely ineffectively. This should be obvious, no?

I mean, you'd have to look at how that number was calculated, do these non-profits provide services to non-homeless that's being counted for homeless? But yes, it should be accounted for.

[DBTrek]

Attracting outsiders is a messy feature of any city which decides to provide services for its homeless when other cities won't. Doesn't mean the right solution is to "let them freeze" as you so eloquently put it.

Ohhhhhh my.
Why sheriff, I do declare, I believe this scoundrel has begun fabricating quotes for me!


Had no idea you were feeling so boxxed in.
Guess you have more self awareness than you let on.

[Kath]

I have already agreed that the non-profit money should be accounted for. Anything else, you yapping chihuahua?

Except that it cannot be accounted for. Nobody can legit say that they spent close to $100K per homeless person and ended up with more homeless, yet show how that money was used efficiently. These are completely mutually exclusive. Both cannot possibly be true.

Dude, do you even ROI?

[JohnDonne]

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.

Now that the money is gone, someone should account for it, by gum!!!
But a missing billion shouldn't reflect poorly on the same city council working on chasing the biggest employers in Seattle out of town. Just because they handled a billion poorly doesn't mean they shouldn't rape our largest businesses for another $45million.
They have pie charts, folks.
They can point to names on a spreadsheet that they handed all the money to.


Yeah, you're being straw-manned, all right. As you repeatedly attempt to defend the indefensible.

By that logic, all revenue to the city should be suspended because a portion of it may have been mismanaged. I think we both know that's unreasonable though.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

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.

Interesting that you have snark as opposed to an attempt to answer that question.

J/K, that's not really interesting.

:goteam: :drunk:

I don't pretend to have the answer.

But, for fun, we can look at deregulation. In California, to develop a plot, there needs to be road access that can accommodate fire/emergency services. Building that access can be prohibitively expensive.

Good regulation?

[JohnDonne]

I have already agreed that the non-profit money should be accounted for. Anything else, you yapping chihuahua?

Except that it cannot be accounted for. Nobody can legit say that they spent close to $100K per homeless person and ended up with more homeless, yet show how that money was used efficiently. These are completely mutually exclusive. Both cannot possibly be true.

Dude, do you even ROI?

Here Kath:

I mean, you'd have to look at how that number was calculated, do these non-profits provide services to non-homeless that's being counted for homeless? But yes, it should be accounted for.