Some Red State/Blue State Indicia

the continued use of the same data point as a new argument that's been discussed adnauseum is a tell

Btw isn't like Mississippi also outperforming the socialists in in Europe?
 
Except those data are wrong. Germany's per capita GDP (and this includes backwards formerly communist areas in East Germany) is comfortably above Mississippi's. About $10,000 per year using PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). For the Netherlands (which doesn't have a backwards formerly communist area to weigh down the national average), the difference in per capita GDP versus Mississippi is about $15,000.

From where I sit the European Socialists are easily outscoring Mississippi. And Oklahoma. And West Virginia. And Arkansas. And Alabama. And Kentucky. And Louisiana. And Tennessee.

And so are all those socialist blue states.

Scoreboard don't lie!!
 
Last edited:
Yes I would expect those major countries to be outperforming small states.

And per capital GDP is going to be heavily influenced by government spending. I'll bet you'll never guess which states and countries spend more!
 
They aren't outperforming small states such as New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Hawaii.

Next excuse please.
 
zitothebrave said:
Leave it to th econservative snowflakes to complain about a state trying to improve public transportation and land access.

Read the summary of the bill

This bill, based on laws and regulations in Colorado and Minnesota,, would align the Commonwealth’s transportation plans with its climate mandates. It would require MassDOT’s transportation plans to provide a reasonable pathway to compliance with our emissions limits for the transportation sector. If a statewide transportation plan were not going to deliver adequate emissions reductions, then it would have to be amended to include greater investment in public transit, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, or other clean transportation options. The bill would also require MassDOT to set goals for reducing the number of statewide driving miles, which would be considered when EEA sets greenhouse gas emissions limits and sublimits. Finally, the bill would establish an interagency coordinating council—similar to the existing coordinating council for EV charging infrastructure—to come up with a whole-of-government plan to reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase access to transportation options other than personal vehicles. The legislation would ensure that Massachusetts stays on track to reduce emissions from transportation—the sector that accounts for the greatest share of emissions in the Commonwealth.
Click to expand...
stopped reading after "aligns their transportation plans with its climate mandate"

enjoy your monitored driving habits due to your lunatic party
 
who cares - think about the amazing GDP per capital this created


HFvPmI5bQAA_qU9
 
I have a question for the phd ( yes i know he won't answer)

Why is homelessness so high in California? Its doubled under Newsom.

Theyve thrown money at it. Oh have they. 4x increase

Why is it worse?

Does it matter?

The public said "ok tax me even more to solve this problem"... but the problem got much worse.

Why?
 
sturg33 said:
I have a question for the phd ( yes i know he won't answer)

Why is homelessness so high in California? Its doubled under Newsom.

Theyve thrown money at it. Oh have they. 4x increase

Why is it worse?

Does it matter?

The public said "ok tax me even more to solve this problem"... but the problem got much worse.

Why?
Click to expand...
This a question only a phd can understand
 
why has homelessness doubled in California during Newsom's governorship

No, homelessness in California did not double under Governor Gavin Newsom (in office since January 2019). It rose substantially through 2024 before showing preliminary signs of decline in 2025 data.

The Data​

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Point-in-Time (PIT) counts provide the standard one-night snapshot:

  • 2019 (Newsom's first year): ~151,000 people experiencing homelessness statewide.
  • 2024: ~187,000 (a ~23-24% increase from 2019; an all-time high).
  • 2025 (preliminary, from ~30 of 44 Continuums of Care): Unsheltered homelessness dropped an estimated 9% in reporting areas (the largest decline in 15+ years), with some local counts (e.g., Los Angeles County down 4%, San Diego down 7%) showing broader decreases. Overall statewide figures are not yet finalized but indicate stabilization or modest reversal after years of growth.
California still accounts for ~24% of the nation's homeless population despite having ~12% of U.S. residents, and roughly two-thirds are unsheltered (far higher than states like New York or Massachusetts). The rise predates Newsom: numbers fell from ~140,000 in 2007 to ~114,000 in 2014, then accelerated.

Why Did It Rise Significantly (and Why the Recent Turnaround)?​

Homelessness is driven by interacting factors—primarily a severe shortage of affordable housing, untreated severe mental illness and addiction, and policy choices that affected inflows and outflows. No single cause or administration explains it fully, but here's what the evidence shows:

  • Housing costs and supply shortage: California has among the highest housing prices and rents in the U.S., driven by decades of restrictive zoning, environmental reviews (CEQA), local opposition to new development ("NIMBYism"), and slow permitting. This makes it extremely difficult for low-income people (especially those exiting shelters or treatment) to find stable housing. Building enough units has lagged demand by hundreds of thousands. High costs push more people into homelessness and make exits harder.
  • Mental illness, substance abuse, and policy incentives: A large share of the chronically homeless population has serious mental illness, addiction, or both. California's "Housing First" model prioritizes rapid permanent housing without requiring treatment or sobriety as a condition. Proposition 47 (passed in 2014, before Newsom) reclassified many drug possession and theft offenses as misdemeanors, reducing legal pressure for treatment. The fentanyl crisis amplified this. Result: more people cycling into street homelessness rather than recovery. California has far fewer shelter beds per homeless person than states with better outcomes.
  • Spending vs. outcomes: Since 2019, the state has allocated ~$24 billion+ specifically for homelessness and related housing programs (on top of local and federal funds). This funded shelters, "Housing First" placements, prevention, and programs like Project Homekey (which created ~16,000 units). However, multiple audits (state auditor, Legislative Analyst's Office) found poor tracking of results, high administrative/overhead costs, and limited permanent housing produced relative to dollars spent. For example, one analysis noted the equivalent of ~$160,000 per homeless person (based on 2019 numbers) over five years, yet the count rose. Inefficiencies and fragmented local implementation contributed.
  • Other contributors: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted services and economies. California's mild climate makes unsheltered living more viable than in colder states. In-migration of vulnerable people has been alleged but is secondary to the structural issues above.
Recent progress (2025 data) is linked to policy shifts under Newsom: stronger local accountability for spending, ordered encampment clearances (post-2024 Supreme Court ruling), mental health reforms (Prop 1 bonds for treatment facilities), and more shelter/housing placements. The state claims these helped it buck national increases (which were ~18% in 2024). Critics note the drop follows years of growth and that overall numbers remain elevated.

In short, the increase reflected a long-building housing crisis plus approaches that did not sufficiently prioritize treatment, enforcement, or rapid housing supply expansion. Billions in spending produced some placements but not enough to offset inflows. Recent enforcement and accountability measures appear to be bending the curve downward for the first time in years—but sustained results will depend on fixing housing supply, treatment access, and program efficiency. The problem is complex, predates any one governor, and has no simple partisan fix.
 
acesfull86 said:
This made me chuckle.
Click to expand...
When I lived in Berkeley about 20 years ago I had a friend who worked in social services and spent most of his time trying to help the homeless. Like most people in Berkeley he was pretty far left. But he always told me that more than enough resources were available for dealing with homelessness. The problem was the approach. On the issue he knew the most about he often sounded conservative.
 
I asked the phd why homelessness increased despite massive money and he asked his robot friend instead.

Outcomes simply dont matter to leftists.

But all that money spent producing no results helps the gdp!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top