[Democrat Culture] LA homeless services CEO charged with widespread fraud

"What they should have done is take all that money and gave it to a company that does nothing. A company that is owned by someone already rich and maybe even connected to the mayor or official that gives out the contracts. . . .that is the way it should be" - MAGA

They don't care about money . . . only WHO gets it

Rocket River

 

Republicans make up an imaginary problem
Yell about it all the time
then give some corporation/already rich person
More money than the Democrats would have spent in 4 administrations
But be ok with it as long as their leader , his cronies and other rich people
who they worship get the money

Trump and his family laughing all the way to the bank is definitely a demonstration of "how easy it is to systematically defraud"

Rocket River

 

The headline from the OP is actually not true at all. If this was a Democratic party policy that led to legislation to setup a government service, there would be checks and balances to prevent fraud.

It is the Republican party and especially the MAGA wing of the Republican party (which is like 95% of the party) that wants to privatize services like this without any oversight, and checks and balances.... OR rely on religious organizations that get tax benefits and are able to lobby politicians with free reign which undermines the first amendment.

If a CEO of a private homeless service committed fraud shame on him, and I hope the government prosecutes him. However the cause of helping homeless people on its face is a noble issue, and one that should have our government should have programs there to help solve.... AND those programs should have oversite to prevent fraud like every other good quality Democratic policy led organization such as Social Security, Medicare, etc.

 

@Salvy
@Os Trigonum
@GOATuve

 

The best thing we can do with government spending is end it. I don't want to change who is in charge of taking my money and giving it to other people. I don't want someone to audit who they give it to. I want them to stop taking my money.

You don't solve the problem with more programs. Programs are what perpetuate the problem. You solve the problem by stopping the flow of money. Homeless people in California can just keep being homeless because they keep getting paid every month for doing nothing. They don't use that money to turn their life around, they use it to keep living the life they already have.

 

The homelessness is the result of the drug addiction and mental illness. The programs never solve the main problems and get them on track to be employed and independent.

 

There are people with drug addiction and mental health issues everywhere. The places with the most problems with homelessness are where they subsidize homelessness. There is an old adage in government: if you want less of something, tax it; if you want more of something subsidize it.

 

There is another adage in logical reasoning: correlation doesn’t imply causation.

 

While correlation alone is insufficient to establish causation, it is a useful tool in searching for causal factors. For example, there is correlation between wearing galoshes and rainy weather. Obviously wearing galoshes doesn't cause rainy weather. Rainy weather is a causal factor in wearing galoshes though. Having a bigger homeless problem probably isn't a causal factor in the decision to subsidize homelessness. It could be entirely unrelated, and the correlation is simply a coincidence. Given what we know about incentives, I feel comfortable saying that subsidizing homelessness exacerbates problems of homelessness. You are free to disagree.

 

Not sure why you dismiss causality going in the other direction. Or any number of other confounding factors.

 

Because I understand incentives. Having a big homelessness problem could certainly incentivize the homeless industrial complex California has created, because it allows the people engaged in the non-profits and NGOs to line their pockets. It doesn't make sense to see the homelessness problem and decide that the solution is to provide them enough money to have a subsistence living on the streets plus buy drugs, but not enough to pay rent and move into housing. Certainly not to do that for years and years while seeing the problem stay the same or get worse.