>>>It's almost scary to see "resurgent" dem challengers unseating long-term dem incumbents in primaries.
>>>The woman in MA is a shoo-in to win the general election in November as is, probably, the woman in the Bronx.
>>>It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the money to corrupt them.
>
>Meanwhile one of the Black Lives Matter founders has a lot to say about Antifa and who's supporting BLM. Might be worth looking up.
>
>>>John likes to cite the increase in employment and that's certainly a good thing, but how do we square that with this:
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42248999
>
>Your citation describes a sharp bump in working homeless in California and the East Coast- you know, those vile states overrun by deplorables who vote Trump. No, wait... ;-)
>
>I'd suggest 2 things: are there any consistent features of the cohort- psychiatric history? Family breakup? Minimal education? Anything? And second, rather than raw numbers, what % of the population for reasons you've raised before = if the population rises and the % of *anything* stays the same, it's neither better nor worse. The challenge is to consider why so many working people can't have a home. That's not confined to the US, but certainly I see resentment elsewhere when homeless citizenry are pushed back by leftist fascination with queue-jumping immigrants. I'd suggest that to help Trump raise prosperity, a great start is to reduce the number of people *who for whatever reason* are willing to work for low rates that undercut the local citizenry. This means joining the fight against corporate interests eager to reward themselves and shareholders by keeping wages so low it needs government top-up. Because despite Chicken Littling, so far the minimum wage in CA hasn't led to thousands of restaurant lay-offs. Seems to me that if you ask the customers, they're likely to agree to pay an extra buck for what you call an "entree" if it helps reduce poverty- or even to convert the tip into a higher ticket price and tipping purely as a reward for excellent service because the server already is paid enough to live. This does mean discounting the belief that unless tied directly to tips, service will be awful. All the status quo does is ensure that attractive youngsters earn more than anxious dads who can't pay the bills unless somebody takes mercy on them tonight.
>
>After some exposure to warped sense of humour, you can probably guess which hatemonger had this to say:
>
>I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. [in my wide travels] I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
>
>Seems to me that's the same as saying that you pay people enough to live and guess what, they make a pretty good stick of it. Rather than stifling them in poverty and arguing over the size of the gratuity or handout they deserve. That logic can't apply as long as there's high unemployment- but with 200,000 more in work in the last month (not last quarter as I'd suggested) the "unfit for office" president is offering a chance to undo decades of cruel corporate evisceration of blue collar and now middle class Americans. Shame that some of those who consider themselves bleeding hearts for the poor, are too interested in all the Russian spies under Stormy's skirts, to actually help make things better.


It's really pretty simple

Housing costs have risen more rapidly than real incomes for millions of people.

That's OK for people who make enough to absorb the rise, but there are millions of people in the US who live from paycheck to paycheck. A rent increase of just $50/month is enough to force some of them out. The lucky ones wind up with family members or even in their cars, but some wind up on the street.

Income inequality has been discussed ad nauseum, but its effects for people on the margins are real.
This is not a repub or dem thing. The trend started during the Reagan years, but the dems have had ample opportunity to reverse it and haven't.