This is what Clinton helped bring on. Don't let's elect another Clinton.

[Mairead]

Setting the stage to move forward on a plan to convert long-vacant office buildings into upscale lofts and shops, {Los Angeles} city officials in recent months have posted signs notifying homeless people that they are breaking the law by sleeping on the street, and police have been rounding up violators.

The city also has proposed two ordinances that would prohibit churches, civic associations and other unauthorized groups from feeding the homeless and would make it a crime for the homeless to erect tents on the street.

Many U.S. cities also are facing a sizable increase in their homeless populations, a surge experts attribute to higher unemployment and a decline in the amount of affordable housing. Some predict the problem will escalate over the next few years when 5-year deadlines under welfare reform kick in, pushing millions off public assistance rolls.

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/epoor17_20030717.htm

We need to avoid 'fiscal conservatives'. They help the wealthy elites at the expense of the poor. And no one who works for their living is immune from suddenly becoming poor. In fact, that's one of the goals of the elites: to make the rest of us poor. Poor people are docile, biddable, and powerless. Such a deal.

[BlueState]

1. OK I don't really agree with you, but....

... I am deeply disturbed by "...ordinances that would prohibit churches, civic associations and other unauthorized groups from feeding the homeless..."

Trampling on people's rights for the most despicable of purposes.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Although poverty did do better under Clinton than now, I agree

Here is an interesting op-ed from my LA Times this AM

10 Things We Can Do to Perpetuate Homelessness

snip

10. Keep thinking that the homeless are just lazy and shouldn't be helped.

9. Assume foster kids magically become responsible, self-sufficient adults at age 18.

8. Provide public food programs, but ignore the real reasons people are hungry.

7. Make it hard for the homeless to access services by spreading out services all over the county.

6. Encourage NIMBYism.

5. Let law enforcement deal with it. Outlaw homelessness and throw the homeless in jail.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-vo-roberts19jul19,1,2782734.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

You have to register to read the rest but it's free.

[dsc]

3. Note to Mailread

Clinton isn't in office anymore. And even when he was he didn't have anything to do with laws in California. Poverty declined in every demographic under Clinton (only under Johnson had this happened before). There were fewer homeless under Clinton (your own article says this) than there are now. There were also fewer then than under Bush I. In short, Clinton made a bad problem better.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. How is this Clinton's fault?

So some municipalities are proposing terrible ordinances directed against homeless people. And you manage to blame Clinton, who helped raise the standard of living for all Americans and who has been out of office two years, for this?

[papau]

5. You mean Reagan brought on this problem -homeless dead in the street

While homeless is a constant problem over the years from the beginning of time, it was not until Reagan that income for the poor went lower (the rising tide during Reagan, unlike during Clinton, did not help the poor) while Social Services were cut to the bone (again a Reagan "block grant" gift to the states and the poor)

Clinton only tried to change the Aid rules to require an attempt at work - vetoed a harsh version, signed a better version, but only after getting GOP agreement to admend to make it still less harsh in the next 6 months - which the GOP did and Clinton signed.

So Clinton indeed was part of the work rule change - and if that is your compliant - you have all the right in the world to be angry with Clinton. Just so long as you save most of your Anger for Reagan, Bush, the GOP, and the media that refuses to say that cutting aid to the poor hurts poor folks.

[gottaB]

7. Straight up it was Reagan

It was Reagan who gave us masses of homeless people, but don't forget the Democrats in Congress who went along with him. Short summary of the Reagan recession here.

The thing about Clinton putting an end to "Welfare as we know it" is that he was presiding over a boom economy and had overly optimistic projections for future growth. Did he even think about what the effects of his policies would be in a downturn? Should he have? Should he have also considered that Gore would not prevail and the idiots would take over? Did he really "feel our pain"? You've got to wonder.

Mairead's outrage is righteous to a point. I think one can be fiscally conservative without beating up on the poor. Reagan slashed spending on everything except the military, which he pumped up like nobody's business. And stupid junk like Star Wars. And he gave tax cuts!

The same kind of pigs at the trough is happening right now, except that when the Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative, the Democrats laugh at them, and even a few Rockefeller types can be seen snickering or looking sheepish.

If somebody claims to be fiscally conservative--and a lot of politicians do, for better or worse-- you've got to look at their spending priorities and tax plans. Even a guy like Edwards would be much better than the Bushies, that's for sure. However, that might not be good enough. If you want to be progressive and really change things, you can't ignore what Kucinich is saying.

[lancemurdoch]

6. disgusting

I find these ordinances to not feed people disgusting. Workers are employed on the whim of people who have money, workers follow the orders of the bosses these people employ. These people who run the economic system screw it up so that homelessness increases, so that wages fall and so forth. It's becoming more common, even the singer Jewel (Kilcher) was homeless for a time in her early years due to money problems. She's beautiful and a good singer and even people like her are hit by problems like these - and I have friends who due to financial problems and an abysmal social welfare system were homeless, often living in their cars, for short periods of time.

And now this system that has no jobs for people willing to work, of people who are running the economy into the ground for working class people, they screw the economy up to the point where people are homeless and hungry - and then they make it illegal to feed these people! This isn't theoretical, people in groups that feed the homeless like "Food Not Bombs" have been arrested for feeding homeless people in parks. That's the right wingers solution - they mess up the economy so people are homeless and hungry, and then they arrest the people who feed them, since Delay and company says the government should not be involved in feeding hungry people. Are these people trying to be as evil as possible or what? They certainly have interests far removed from the working class people of this country who have some solidarity and sympathy for their fellow man, that's for sure. They cut food stamp programs and then arrest the people who go out to feed the hungry. If you want to read about harrasment of food not bombs go to Google and search for food not bombs and words like arrested.

[acerbic]

8. Hooray! Americans from the left and the right united in common cause:

Whatever the problem, IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT! :silly:

[AZStudentsforKerry]

9. If you believe that, get ready for 50+ years of Bush

:puke:

[MercutioATC]

10. "Fiscal conservatism" is not "helping the wealthy" and the "Drug war"

is not racist. Both philosophies/policies have been used inappropriately, but both have good effects on society if done responsibly.

I've heard you badmouth fiscal conservatism before. What is your issue with it (as a policy, not as it has been applied at times)?