3 ms·

As JSavageOne said, "What a shame that the wealthiest country can't manage its cities." which is correct. Blaming long term policies on any single politician fr

As JSavageOne said, "What a shame that the wealthiest country can't manage its cities." which is correct. Blaming long term policies on any single politician from decades ago is a disingenuous.

bastardoperator 5y ago
Yes, lets shift blame to the local governments! Despite the fact that Reagan passed the "Lanterman-Petris-Short Act" in California as Governor and then removed all funding for Mental Health at the State and Federal level. Hey, at least people that aren't a harm to themselves or others can die on the street in dignity now.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > Despite the fact that Reagan passed the "Lanterman-Petris-Short Act" Reagan was governor. Governors sign bills. Legislatures pass them. This was a bipartisan effort and was viewed as a civil rights issue, to not hold people in confinement against their will. Lanterman was a Republican, Petris and Short were Democrats. Reagan could have vetoed it, so he shares in the responsibility, but it was a bipartisan, popular bill. > removed all funding for Mental Health at the State and Federal level. Do you really believe that all funding was removed? What is your basis for this shocking claim? It's very hard to cut government spending, and Reagan wasn't known for doing that (spending in almost every area increased under Reagan). Reagan was known for tax cuts, and since spending went up, Reagan was also known for big budget deficits (not like today, where Reagan would be viewed as a model of restraint, but compared to his predecessors the peacetime deficits were shocking). What you are saying is just wildly false. From 1983-1992, Government spending on mental health grew an average of 6.5% annually in real terms.[1] "Cost-cutting" -- really a slowing down of spending increases, happened in the 2000s, where spending on mental health grew only by 4.7% annually in real terms. This was the slowest spending growth in history for mental health. The U.S. spends an enormous amount on mental health, with dubious results. Here are two good rules of thumb when thinking about these issues if you are honestly trying to understand our history, rather than trying to score a political point and blame things on your enemies. These two should be your null hypothesis: 1. social spending always goes up. It never goes down. It does not matter who is President. Presidents don't cut social spending in any area. 2. Nothing in America happens because of one person. We have separation of powers and divided government. Everything is always a compromise reached by those in power at the time. This is a good explanation for 1, since the best way to get agreement is to buy people off with more spending. [1] https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/HistoricalNHEPaper.pdf https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Sta...

As JSavageOne said, "What a shame that the wealthiest country can't manage its cities." which is correct. Blaming long term policies on any single politician from decades ago is a disingenuous.

bastardoperator 5y ago

Yes, lets shift blame to the local governments! Despite the fact that Reagan passed the "Lanterman-Petris-Short Act" in California as Governor and then removed all funding for Mental Health at the State and Federal level. Hey, at least people that aren't a harm to themselves or others can die on the street in dignity now.

rsj_hn 5y ago
> Despite the fact that Reagan passed the "Lanterman-Petris-Short Act" Reagan was governor. Governors sign bills. Legislatures pass them. This was a bipartisan effort and was viewed as a civil rights issue, to not hold people in confinement against their will. Lanterman was a Republican, Petris and Short were Democrats. Reagan could have vetoed it, so he shares in the responsibility, but it was a bipartisan, popular bill. > removed all funding for Mental Health at the State and Federal level. Do you really believe that all funding was removed? What is your basis for this shocking claim? It's very hard to cut government spending, and Reagan wasn't known for doing that (spending in almost every area increased under Reagan). Reagan was known for tax cuts, and since spending went up, Reagan was also known for big budget deficits (not like today, where Reagan would be viewed as a model of restraint, but compared to his predecessors the peacetime deficits were shocking). What you are saying is just wildly false. From 1983-1992, Government spending on mental health grew an average of 6.5% annually in real terms.[1] "Cost-cutting" -- really a slowing down of spending increases, happened in the 2000s, where spending on mental health grew only by 4.7% annually in real terms. This was the slowest spending growth in history for mental health. The U.S. spends an enormous amount on mental health, with dubious results. Here are two good rules of thumb when thinking about these issues if you are honestly trying to understand our history, rather than trying to score a political point and blame things on your enemies. These two should be your null hypothesis: 1. social spending always goes up. It never goes down. It does not matter who is President. Presidents don't cut social spending in any area. 2. Nothing in America happens because of one person. We have separation of powers and divided government. Everything is always a compromise reached by those in power at the time. This is a good explanation for 1, since the best way to get agreement is to buy people off with more spending. [1] https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/HistoricalNHEPaper.pdf https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Sta...