Okay, now my vote really cancels out yours.

I'm guessing you don't drive a Lamborghini, huh Joel?

Hey, Clav,

You're doing a lot of guessing tonite. I guess you've been right on both counts, though.

After all of Joel's ranting, the best he can come up with is Ralph Nader? Hell, I thought he was going to tell us "where the gatherin' is to be, with a thousand blades a flashin', by the risin' of the moon." Ralph Nader??? Come onnnnn. Let's get down and dirty. Let's kick some ass and run Rambo against the evil rich hoard. (If we win, can I get some rich guy's Hummer? That'd be great. We won't need no stinkin' guillotines. We can just run down all the rich bastards with their own monster SUVs.)

B-tone

I'll take the yachts.

Been lookin' to corner the market...

Joel just blows the same tired old horn over and over.

You know what I thought when I got to this sentence:

At least 20 percent of Americans are on top of the economic ladder. Some 60 million people are not suffering because of high gasoline prices, are driving around in expensive $40,000+ cars, are living in sumptuous McMansions and vacation homes, have good health insurance, and are shopping in expensive stores and eating in luxurious restaurants that continue to do gangbuster business.

I was thinking damn, America is doing something right if such a large segment of society is above the usual vicissitudes of working life.

And of course, the class of people who have all the things he lists is MUCH larger than just 20 million people. Easily twice that larger. And what he also doesn't mention is that the rest of the population is incredibly well off compared to the underclass of most of the other nations on earth.

Dave

Great article Joel.

"And what he also doesn't mention is that the rest of the population is incredibly well off compared to the underclass of most of the other nations on earth."

Quoted (and emphasized) for Truth.

That's why all those campesinos keep on comin', and why ALL Our immigrants have come.

I would count myself as one of the 84% of folks that believes the U.S. is on the wrong track. Not because the economy is in shambles, it isn't. Not because the vast majority of Americans are hurting, they aren't. But because of the overwhelming tide of socialism I see coming down the pipe. It's everywhere I look lately and few seem to mind. To me it appears so unavoidable as to be completely inevitable.

So there are many reasons folks may believe the U.S. is on the wrong track. Don't presume you speak for them all.

"And of course, the class of people who have all the things he lists is MUCH larger than just 20 million people. Easily twice that larger."

I would even go as far to say ... three times as many.

"despite revolting conditions, Americans seemed completely unready to revolt."

Yes, we're not ready to revolt. That's because despite how bad things are now, things aren't "bad" enough to cause change. The disenfranchised squawk about gas prices, but they drive monster trucks and SUVs and drive them stupidly. All that will happen will be a shift in where the money goes.

Three years ago, when gas prices took the first leap into the stratosphere, I became angry and changed what I could in my world. However, I don't see that sort of consciousness in anyone else, not even in the young. We'll just continue to take it until the bottom drops out.

I will say this: It is definitely true that the schism between the haves and the have nots is very wide. It is also true that the poorest of people in the U.S. are, as a group, better off than the poorest in many other parts of the world.

But that is all relative, isn't it? Someone living in a rat infested inner city hovel living day to day, hand to mouth, may be "better off" than their counterparts in say, Malawi, but their lives still suck.

While the richest of the rich invite the "wretched refuse" to "eat cake" as they casually give guided TV tours of their 30000 square foot summer homes with a running water fall in the master bath, don't be altogether surprised if some unrest amongst the "teeming masses" should ensue. It seems that the "haves" don't quite understand just how grotesque the vision of their "conspicuous consumption" really is. It could - probably not - but could come back to bite them in the ass one day.

B-tone

"...don't be altogether surprised if some unrest amongst the "teeming masses" should ensue."

Maybe.

But the rulers of this country (i.e., the "haves") have historically been smart enough to see that the "have nots" get just enough to keep them quiescent (Henry Ford and his $5 wage, e.g.), which is why the "have nots" are generally better off than their counterparts elsewhere.

It is also the chief reason why communism never successfully took root here.

Clav,

You're probably right. But certain, perhaps equally unlikely, but, nevertheless, possible scenarios could materialize - say, perhaps one or more terrorist attacks within our borders, and/or a really significant hit and dismantling of the economy - or who knows what else - could change the mood of the country dramatically, and perhaps for the worse.

We have, in a sense, become sheep mollified with being spoon fed dribs and drabs, just enough to keep us hopeful that better days are to come. However, remove or significantly disrupt that hope, and the paradigm could change drastically.

I am not hoping for any kind of revolution - certainly not a violent one. The death and destruction that would likely ensue would, IMO, far outweigh any possible gains for the masses. But the lessons of the French Revolution among others, cannot be wholly ignored if the status quo is to be maintained.

B-tone

"But certain, perhaps equally unlikely, but, nevertheless, possible scenarios could materialize - say, perhaps one or more terrorist attacks within our borders, and/or a really significant hit and dismantling of the economy..."

Such events are more likely to unite, rather than further divide, the country.

"We have, in a sense, become sheep mollified with being spoon fed dribs and drabs, just enough to keep us hopeful that better days are to come. However, remove or significantly disrupt that hope, and the paradigm could change drastically."

All true. My point is, the rulers will keep feeding just enough dribs and dabs to keep everyone mollified; and that was the MAIN lesson of the French revolution, which, I contend, OUR rulers learned very well.

Baritone, why is anything that goes on with the ultra-rich relevant to the average citizen, except as entertainment?

Their wealth is not made by depriving others in the rest of the population of wealth. They don't make the poor any poorer just because they are rich. And if they are a bit richer today than they were 10 years ago, that has no impact on anyone else.

The resentment against the ultra-rich is illogical, unjustified, and largely exists as a creation of the left for political purposes.

Dave

Their wealth is not made by depriving others in the rest of the population of wealth. They don't make the poor any poorer just because they are rich. And if they are a bit richer today than they were 10 years ago, that has no impact on anyone else.

Are you joking?

Hubris? Politicians exhibiting hubris? The last one I remember who didn't suffer from terminal and chronic hubris was Truman, and even he displayed it every once in a while. "Lying politicians?" Gracious me. That is a redundant repetition if there ever was one.

Bread and circuses, Sir, bread and circuses, are the answers. Free bread and other stuff for all! We also need more reality shows on TV; have entertainment persons endorse candidates -- they could draw straws to determine which endorses whom -- and perhaps have Senators Obama and McCain make appearances on Survivor and other neat entertainment shows. Perhaps (after her divorce trauma is done) Madona can form a singing group including both candidates, and take a road show to Zimbabwe. That would show that they all care for the truly downtrodden, in a bipartisan way.

Many of the poor and downtrodden in the U.S. perhaps perceive themselves to be so largely because they continue to be told (as they have been for many years) how rotten their lives are and that it is the fault of everybody else; certainly they have done their best and behaved well, so it can't be their fault. Perhaps they could consult with some of the folks who suffer great peril to come to the U.S. because their lives are so rotten and miserable elsewhere and they see some hope for a better life in the U.S.; riot police might be necessary to monitor the consultations, less violence ensue, but that's not an insuperable problem. Perhaps some bountiful and public spirited organization could arrange for some of the poor and downtrodden in the U.S. to exchange places with their counterparts elsewhere. Just be sure that they carry absentee ballots or return to their rotten country in time to vote.

Baritone says (Comment #11),

While the richest of the rich invite the "wretched refuse" to "eat cake" as they casually give guided TV tours of their 30000 square foot summer homes with a running water fall in the master bath, don't be altogether surprised if some unrest amongst the "teeming masses" should ensue. It seems that the "haves" don't quite understand just how grotesque the vision of their "conspicuous consumption" really is. It could - probably not - but could come back to bite them in the ass one day.

Dave,

That contention is ludicrous - no doubt a creation of the right for political purposes. You are a student of history, are you not? Maybe you should enroll in "Revolution 101."

B-tone

"Are you joking?"

No, he's not. The wealth of our economy is not a zero-sum equation. The money I make is not coming out of someone else's pocket, except as it represents value exchanged. Though not empirically wealthy, I am wealthy compared to the average homeless person, but my income does not reduce his.

No, I would imagine it's pretty hard to reduce zero income. Good point.

Clav, in re Comment #19, by making more money you pay more taxes, which (in addition to building bridges to nowhere and making more pork projects possible) actually helps the homeless and other poor and downtrodden, maybe.

Dan

"Oh yeah, the poor are actually grateful that I have more money than they do."

You guys can't seriously believe this nonsense, can you?

Responding to both Dan and Jordan:

My taxes DO pay for some homeless facilities; they also help pay for the welfare (and often, SS) checks that many homeless receive; most homeless have some income, very few have literally zero, but that's not the point.

A couple of additional points about the homeless:

Many if not most, are drunks or addicts, or both. They have SOME income to purchase their liquor and drugs.

A substantial addition to the homeless came about as a result of the misguided liberal idea that we needed to close down most of the nation's mental facilities. Many (if not most) of the inhabitants of these places had nowhere else to go, no family to care for them, and wound up on the streets as a result.

Dan,

So, of course, ALL the fucking poor people are poor ALWAYS because they don't behave properly, because it's their own damn fault. Or as Dave has reiterated a number of times: the poor just like being poor. They prefer it that way. It suits them. The poor, then, are NEVER in a million fucking years victims. The rich are ALWAYS rich because they are good, and they behave well.

Dave has pointed out how good the sub-prime situation is because it affords investors an opportunity to cash in. That's great! That's the fucking American way! And those who are put on the street are supposed to be grateful. Grateful I guess because nobody chopped off their heads or threw them into a dungeon.

Politicians are a product of the society from which they emerge. Politicians are forced to lie simply to survive. Truth gets no one elected. Voters want to hear what they want to hear. Pols jump through hoops and do other embarrassing and often foolish things because the electorate expect it of them; demand it! Politics will always be a dog and pony show. We get the government we deserve. We got George Bush, supreme idiot, because that's the best we deserved.

Dan, you seem to have the answers. Share with us your vision of a system in which we get the truth (whatever the fuck that may be.) A system in which we demand and get, not a fucking side show, but honor and ethics from our elected representatives. I wait with baited breath.

B-tone

Many if not most, are drunks or addicts, or both. They have SOME income to purchase their liquor and drugs.

Bull-fucking-shit.

Your ignorance of the poor and impoverished within your own borders is embarrassing, but I guess stereotypes simply work better in gated communities.

I suspect that Davey is really a Calvinist. It is the Calvinist's believe that the rich are rich because God ordained it, and the poor poor for the same damned reason.

If Davey boy ever found himself (God forbid!) down and out, without any resources, he also might resort to drugs and alcohol as a way out of his misery.

Nothing gets under my skin more than the creeps out there that in their utter arrogance and meanness lash out at the most unfortunate among us and tell us its their own damned fault.

Sure most of us create our own reality, however there are factors in life that happen to people that are out of our control that can cause a person to be reduced to poverty very quickly, a medical emergency without insurance is a prime example.

This is what I find most distasteful in Davey's political philosophy by the way, aside from the fact that he pretends to be an advocate of liberty and a constitutional republic. He invariably sides with the ruling elite, like his side kick Clavy, yet they are both peons!

Pardon me while I get my barf bag.

Jordan, I came over to this thread to see what was going on. The "Fresh Comments" showed your name and the first line of your posting. I couldn't believe you'd be saying that the poor are mostly addicts.

Joel, where did you get the 20% figure? I've got a guess as to its origin. You were looking at the income levels by quintile. So what you're saying is that in America, 20% of the population is in the top fifth. (I dunno, maybe I'm wrong.)

But I'll tell you this much. Those people with "McMansions" are suffering financially more than any other group. They've in all likelihood invested all their earnings in the real estate market. These are probably boomers who anticipated retiring on the money from the sale of their house. So don't despise the temporarily-wealthiest who are overinvested in property.

You do realize that income and wealth follow a life cycle? There are always poor people, but they change income levels over the years. The bottom income people are always rising, and the percentage wealth among the people at the top is always declining. It's a regular turnover.

That contention is ludicrous - no doubt a creation of the right for political purposes. You are a student of history, are you not? Maybe you should enroll in "Revolution 101."

I've taught Revolution 101. The first thing you learn is that revolutions don't happen when the poor are oppressed. They happen when the poor are affluent enough to want more than just survival, but are institutionally barred from any kind of economic or social advancement. They also happen when the middle class faces similar barriers.

Those barriers just don't exist in our society. The ultra rich may be far away, but we have plenty of examples of people rising to that status from nothing. And we certainly have solid upward mobility from the poor to the middle class and a real boom in people moving from the middle class up into the range of the regular (not ultra) rich.

Dave

I suspect that Davey is really a Calvinist. It is the Calvinist's believe that the rich are rich because God ordained it, and the poor poor for the same damned reason.

We've been over this before, Pablito. I'm an atheist with some sympathy towards pantheistic paganism. Calvinism is nonsensical.

If Davey boy ever found himself (God forbid!) down and out, without any resources, he also might resort to drugs and alcohol as a way out of his misery.

You're too new to the site to have gotten the full explanation of my years of suffering in poverty, but I went for most of a decade at a minimal salary with barely enough income to survive, and came out of it eventually without resorting to drugs and alcohol. When you have 3 jobs you don't have time to be a drunk or do drugs.

Nothing gets under my skin more than the creeps out there that in their utter arrogance and meanness lash out at the most unfortunate among us and tell us its their own damned fault.

Please note that I didn't suggest anything like this. For most who are poor it's a phase of life or the result of a combination of circumstances and likely temporary. Very few people are genuinely unwilling to raise themselves up out of poverty and most eventually do.

This is what I find most distasteful in Davey's political philosophy by the way, aside from the fact that he pretends to be an advocate of liberty and a constitutional republic. He invariably sides with the ruling elite, like his side kick Clavy, yet they are both peons!

You just don't get it, Pablito. Not surprising for someone who thinks that sound money management is putting gold inside his mattress. If you believe in liberty then you can't deny the rich their right to BE rich, or the right of others to have the opportunity to become rich. I don't side with the ruling elite, I just acknowledge that they don't lose their rights as citizens just because they are wealthy or priveleged. They're not the enemy.

Dave

So the poor should just bide their time, huh? Wait for that gold to "tickle down" from the top so that they too can get on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous?" Dave, if there are no barriers to the attainment of wealth for the poor, then why do you suppose they remain, in fact, poor? Do you once again fall back to your fairly lame psychobabble about how they prefer it that way?

At any given point in history, there is only so much wealth to go around. Socialists, in their recognition of that fact, sought to spread existing wealth evenly. Of course, human nature being what it is, that had no chance of working.

Capitalism, in its Darwinian mode mandates for the survival of the richest.

I am not a socialist, but neither am I a convinced capitalist. Capitalism allows far too many people to fall through the cracks. The Horatio Alger myth sets up a paradigm most capitalists buy into, which puts the onus upon anyone not pulling themselves up by their boot straps into the realm of success. It makes it easy to dismiss the poor as failures, as lazy, even as dangerous.

How affluent were the poor in France prior to its revolution?

B-tone

Mr. B-Trickle economics was a sham and a con to feed the rich as far back as when Nance Reagan's astrologer dreamed it up and fed it to Ronnie.

Baritone,

You interpret my remarks in Comment #17 as suggesting that "ALL the fucking poor people are poor ALWAYS because they don't behave properly, because it's their own damn fault" That ain't what I said at all. I said that many of them are, and that many feel that they are poor because they have been told repeatedly that they are. There is a substantial quantitative difference between All and Many.

You suggest that I share my

vision of a system in which we get the truth (whatever the fuck that may be.) A system in which we demand and get, not a fucking side show, but honor and ethics from our elected representatives. I wait with baited breath,

So the poor should just bide their time, huh? Wait for that gold to "tickle down" from the top so that they too can get on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous?" Dave, if there are no barriers to the attainment of wealth for the poor, then why do you suppose they remain, in fact, poor? Do you once again fall back to your fairly lame psychobabble about how they prefer it that way?

I said no 'institutional' barriers. The poor have lots of hard things to contend with, but there isn't a system which denies them any possibility of advancement. They have problems with education and family background and skills and experience, but they don't have a law or a caste system which says they must stay poor or that they cannot move or are prohibited from changing jobs or learning skills or getting and education. They have problems which may be difficult to deal with, but which can be overcome and are not insurmountable.

At any given point in history, there is only so much wealth to go around. Socialists, in their recognition of that fact, sought to spread existing wealth evenly. Of course, human nature being what it is, that had no chance of working.

I think the finite wealth concept is out dated. We live in a post-capitalist society where wealth is elastic and there are microeconomies and zone economies and various niches, with entrepreneurial forces of great power plus a huge underground economy. Because person X is rich his wealth did not make person Y poor. And if you took all of X's wealth away it would not make Y any better off.

How affluent were the poor in France prior to its revolution?

The French revolution is a classic example of what I'm talking about. They had an increasingly educated and affluent middle class for which there was no provision in the structure of the society. They had the wealth and education but not the political power to go with it. Thus, revolution.

Dave

Clavos said:

"A substantial addition to the homeless came about as a result of the misguided liberal idea that we needed to close down most of the nation's mental facilities. Many (if not most) of the inhabitants of these places had nowhere else to go, no family to care for them, and wound up on the streets as a result."

Here in CA it was Gov. Ronald Reagan (a famous conservative republican politician) who closed down the mental institutions and sent the occupants into the streets. I had voted for him, but I thought it was madness, and so it was. How do you figure this was a 'liberal' idea?

Jordan, in #26 quotes me and replies:

"Many if not most, are drunks or addicts, or both. They have SOME income to purchase their liquor and drugs.

Bull-fucking-shit."

From Wikipedia:

"Individuals who are incapable of maintaining employment and managing their lives effectively due to prolonged and severe drug and/or alcohol abuse make up a substantial percentage of the U.S. homeless population.[47] The link between substance abuse and homelessness is partially caused by the fact that the behavioral patterns associated with addiction can alienate an addicted individual's family and friends who could otherwise provide a safety net against homelessness during difficult economic times." (emphasis added)

bliffle,

Regarding the closing of mental health facilities, Wikipedia has this to say:

"Community Mental Health Act of 1963 [Reagan CA governorship 1967-1975] was a pre-disposing factor in setting the stage for homelessness in the United States.[73] Long term psychiatric patients were released from state hospitals into SROs and sent to community health centers for treatment and follow-up. It never quite worked out properly and this population largely was found living in the streets soon thereafter with no sustainable support system."

The CMHA was passed during the liberal Kennedy administration. It was signed into law by Kennedy, and the bill was his brainchild.

Reagan did close facilities in CA while governor, but he was neither the originator of the idea nor the was CA the first state to implement the provisions of the CMHA.

Dave,

I am glad to hear that you pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps, something that all of us that were not born into privilege must do if we are to survive with any degree of comfort.

I have no aversion to wealth, and quite frankly wish that I had several million more Federal Reserve notes stuck under my mattress.

I do not dislike the ruling elite because they are rich, but because of their policies, and their never ending quest to centralize and globalize thier power, not for the average guy in the fields of Uganda, but for themselves.

If we were ever to have a discussion on what evil is, I am sure that you would agree that this word, has to do with other humans imposing their will on people usually less fortunate or less armed than others. I find them evil, thats all, not everyone out there that is affluent either. I am talking in particular about the fat cats. the Soros's of the world, and of course particularly Dr. Strangelove Kissinger. By the way Strangelove was quoted in this book by Woodward and Bernstein "The Final Days" on chapter 14:

"In Haig's presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy."

Now that's the ruling elite that supports the troops eh bubba?

Clavos, can you please link me to the Wikipedia article you used? I'm not sure what your search terms for, nor am I sure of the significance of the references. A user edited and produced "encyclopedia" is always something I'm skeptical of.

Jordan,

Here's the link.

The quoted passage is under the sub-head, "Main Causes of Homelessness"

I am glad to hear that you pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps, something that all of us that were not born into privilege must do if we are to survive with any degree of comfort.

I think the term 'pulled yourself up by your bootstraps' is nonsensical. It implies some sort of superhuman feat, when all that's generally required to get out of poverty is to work hard, work more, and manage your life responsibly.

And just for the record, I do come from what you would consider a privileged background. I went to some of the best schools, travelled all over the world, had a future queen as a babysitter, and my family background is one of at least reasonable wealth (enough to meet the super-rich, but not enough to really be one of them). But for various personal reasons I went out on my own with no financial support from my family after college, and went through some very lean times before eventually getting things on track and figuring out how to make a decent living on my own terms.

I do not dislike the ruling elite because they are rich, but because of their policies, and their never ending quest to centralize and globalize thier power, not for the average guy in the fields of Uganda, but for themselves.

There is a huge difference between the 'ultra rich' and the ruling elite. The ruling elite may be rich, but few of them are among the very richest people in society, and they make up only a tiny portion of those we would consider rich at any level.

One of the problems we have here in America is that there are so damned many rich people compared to a normal society that we don't really know where to draw dividing lines between the wealthy and the middle class. Plus the boundaries are incredibly fluid, with people of moderate means able to move up in wealth quickly under the right circumstances pretty easily.

You also have different kinds of rich people. There are a lot of very rich people who are just not politically active, who don't choose to be part of your 'ruling elite'. They're interested in making money, but not so much in making laws or running governments. Then there's another class of people who come from the middle class and the various levels of wealth, who are interested in wielding political power. They have enough money to get educated and make the right contacts to advance themselves and get influence, but it doesn't generally make them super-rich. It makes them more marketable and gives them new and different opportunities, but those things are not enough to catapult them to the very highest levels of wealth.

If we were ever to have a discussion on what evil is,

You forgot that I don't believe in the existence of evil.

I am sure that you would agree that this word, has to do with other humans imposing their will on people usually less fortunate or less armed than others.

I don't think that how fortunate the victims of oppression are is relevant. If you force people to do anything against their will, then if you have to use the term evil, that's it.

I find them evil, thats all, not everyone out there that is affluent either. I am talking in particular about the fat cats. the Soros's of the world, and of course particularly Dr. Strangelove Kissinger. By the way Strangelove was quoted in this book by Woodward and Bernstein "The Final Days" on chapter 14:

You know, Kissinger is certainly quite creepy, but is he really a 'fat cat'? He was always treated as a political outsider, had very limited influence, and never became staggeringly wealthy.

"In Haig's presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy."

You don't expect me to have anything good to say about Kissinger, do you?

Now that's the ruling elite that supports the troops eh bubba?

Except that I'd argue that the flaw you're pointing to is a flaw in Kissinger, not in the elite, the ruling class or 'fat cats' generically across the board. For every Kissinger there is going to be someone as extreme in the other direction, who devotes their wealth and their life to doing good for others. It's always a mistake to condemn whole classes of people based on the actions of a few examples.

Dave

Your so dense you dont even know who Kissinger works for Davey. As far as his wealth goes, how do you know, did ya look at his tax records bubba? Not part of the ruling elite my ass. Him and brzenski, and rocky, and cheney, and the whole cfr bunch of em, nothin but fascists. You oughta know better.

The CMHA was the product of a congressional committee formed in 1955 during the Eisenhower administration. Kennedy signed it in 1963 after congress composed the bill, but that was not the impetus behind Reagans closure of institutions. He campaigned for governor on a campaign of reducing taxes with such closures as well as other measures. The CMHA was premised on moving patient care out of large institutions and into smaller community institutions, it was NOT intended merely to pull the rug out from under the unfortunate. In fact, the CMHA was a finance bill intended to finance facilities closer to the community.

If Reagan read the CMHA at all, he never referred to it, he simply used it to justify simply closing institutions. He did, and it was a disaster. He made thousands homeless. They started showing up prominently on town streets and commercial areas. The other half of the CMHA, financing and building community facilities, never came to pass. And that was the primary intent of the CMHA!

Ironically, Reagan didn't even reduce taxes! The year after he took office my taxes doubled, and most other people had a similar experience.

Worse, he destroyed good functioning institutions such as Agnews hospital in Santa Clara county, a huge and quite friendly home for the distraught that provided modest but safe facilities. Agnews was established on a large piece of land that had been considered too poor for 'normal' farming of the high yield fruits and nuts of most county farms so they had a large dairy and raised some subsistence crops to offset a large part of the operations costs. All that was lost when Reagan closed it. Now that property is covered with new townhouses and Silicon Valley business parks. Somebody made a lot of money. I hate to think that people were made homeless to develop land.

I think it's just another case of the efforts of better men being undermined and reneged by their successors.

What you describe that Reagan did happened all over the country, bliffle.

In every state loony bins were closed and the inmates turned out on the street; and many states beat Reagan to it by as many as ten years.

Reagan wasn't the first nor the worst.

"I hate to think that people were made homeless to develop land."

One of America's most time honored traditions; started with dispossessing the Indians, and continues until today, with Kelo and takings.

My intention was not to savage Reagan (after all, I voted for him, tho later I concluded he had a distressing willingness to break a lot of eggs without actually making an omelet), but to counterbalance your unjustified implication that 'homelessness' was the result of partisan liberal politics ONLY, thus absolving the rest of us of responsibility. Nay, all political sides, liberal, conservative and independent, contributed. Everyone found it easy to pick on helpless crazy people. So now we have them confronting us on every street corner and throwing the refutation of our opulent brags in our faces.

We did it the usual way (just like the indians, as you point out) by promising a 'giving' to justify a 'taking' and then reneging after we got what we wanted. In fact, in the USA we have a famous colloquialism for it: "Indian giver". There are other slang expressions for it, like double-cross.

You bring up the 'takings' issue, and one must ask, if we are to have a 'takings' recompense, then we have truly opened up a nightmare of such issues as reparations for past 'takings' (how much do we owe the native americans? And slaves?) as well as the symmetrical issue of 'givings'. How do we assess beneficiaries for the bounties that civil governments customarily bestow on them for token fees? Will we charge them for true market value? Will we charge a western desert farmer the acreage fee of Iowa farmland for providing irrigation water? Will we charge a 'giving' fee to truckers on the interstate highway system sufficient to pay for their 'givings'?

Point taken, bliffle, but my original point was that the original initiative to close the asylums came from the liberal side of the aisle, and I stand by that, since one of the earliest justifications for the idea was that keeping them locked up in asylums was cruel.

You're right, though. Once that particular door was opened, everybody jumped through it.

BTW, by "takings" I meant taking of land by the government and then turning it over to private entities to make a profit, as in Kelo.

You're the first one to use that definition of 'takings' that I've ever heard. And my friends in Sand Point Idaho (bigtime rightwing enclave) have been talking about 'takings' for at least 20 years.

Reagan didn't need the CMHA and I don't even think he was aware of it. The CMHA was intended to finance aid facilities closer to the community, NOT to terminate state institutons. I think Reagan just closed them on General Principles, namely that the government shouldn't help anyone, for fear of deadbeats.