On poverty

It's not just what party controls the WH that's folly. It more depends on the make up of the House the Senate and the WH and that balance of power, not just who was President.

 

Once crime sets in the jobs leave, the tax base leaves, property values tumble poverty sets in. And when those in those communities don't seem to care and would prefer the police not be there stopping the crime, what big business is going to build a factory there and have people with enough education to work there to come there and work? As the article I cite in starts in the home and breeds young men into a criminal lifestyle.

What do you even mean poverty "facilitates crime", we know it doesn't in all poor areas. And when the people of the community facilitate crime it will drive poverty as I said above. You know the "Don't Snitch" movement. Yea what's a better way to facilitate crime than to drive law enforcement out.

Yea the criminals who live in poverty know which areas facilitate their crime, it's where the money is. But to even try to compare the crime levels in those rich neighborhoods to what goes down every night on that South Side of Chicago is the height of absurdity.

If there is a relationship shown and a comparative analysis conducted yes it can.

Until the crime can be at the least controlled and then eliminated you will not raise these areas out of poverty.

 

The buck stops at the resolute desk, good or bad.

 

It's fun when obvious public union members (NEA in this case... "you are dismissed" ROFL, drop tells here such as the above). Nonresponse noted, you aren't dealing with school children here, sorry. Burden is on you to ground your lowbrow social sciences "neoliberal" drivel.

Sell crazy... erm... "neoliberalism" somewhere else.

 

The crime rate in the inner cities say you're as wrong as you can be.

 

Obviously, you do not know what neoliberalism is.

Educate yourself.

 

For a crime to occur, two things are needed:

1. A criminal and a motive and/or desire to commit a crime

2. An opportunity for a crime to be committed.


Crime follows opportunity.

There are crimes in poor, middle class, and rich neighborhoods.

For example, the poor cannot afford all of the safety systems that rich people can afford, so there is more opportunity for burglars in poor neighborhoods. On the other hand, there are higher value items in rich neighborhoods, so more sophisticated burglars will work in rich neighborhoods because it is more lucrative.

In either case, was it social class that caused the crime? No, it was opportunity.

Crime follows opportunity. Being poor doesn't make one a criminal no more than being rich does ( Madoff was rich, remember? )

You are saying that because there are more crimes committed in poor neighborhoods, that poverty causes crime. There is more stress in poor neighborhoods, and thus in high stress areas, you'll find more people taking drugs to alleviate that stress, and where there are drugs, there are pushers, guns, and murders, etc.

It might provide more opportunity for crime, but to say poverty causes crime is not accurate.

There are plenty of rich criminals in the world, make no mistake about it.

 

Again for clarity, the crime rate in the inner cities say you're as wrong as you can be.

 

Of stop with the canards. Did the 2009 budget and it's resulting $1,400B deficit stop at Bush's desk? Was Clinton responsible for the Gingrich/Kasich budgets and tax policies which produced the surpluses. You understanding of our government and how it works is not very deep is it.

 

1) Poverty AND crime are caused by the same thing. Apathy. If one could be said to cause the other, then it's crime causing poverty. Poverty does not, and never has, caused crime.

2) Everyone in America (and most of the Western World) has access to free education. How are you planning to force parents to support that education? Because that IS the key to education making a difference. Let us know how you plan to make it happen, thanks.

 

It arises from caring enough to be honest. Pretending it's a result of poverty is a vicious lie. It's vicious because only someone who wants the bad stuff to continue, will ignore the cause and the cure.

 

It's almost certainly intentional. They've probably always known there's no relationship between poverty and crime, but there's a vested interest in getting the masses to believe that. If the masses believe it, solutions are prevented. You can't retain the right level of disenfranchisement without such a carefully constructed web of BS. A web so complex and self-patrolling that the lazy thinker is never going to escape it and see it for what it is.

I say 'almost certainly' and 'probably', because there's so little likelihood that educated adults can believe it. The world is FULL of very poor people who don't do crime - a child can see how obviously false it is. However, I would never presume to declare that there can be no educated adults stupid enough to actually believe it.

 

Oh, yeah, you remind me of the old adage, 'failure is an orphan, but success has a thousand fathers'

Let's get something straight, the Federal Balanced Budget Act signed into law in 1997 was a bipartisan act.

When the president signs the budget, his name is on it and he, at that juncture, owns it. If Clinton didn't want the budget, he could have vetoed it, expressing what kind of budget he would sign, and they would go from there.

While you might be reading about history, I ****ing remember it.

Here is the more complete story and context surrounding HR 2015.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...asich-touts-role-balancing-budget-creating-s/

Also, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Clinton signed into law which deregulated derivatives which greatly contributed to the crash of 2008 were also bipartisan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000#

But I don't see you rushing to claim your team taking credit for those.

 

Your statement,
Our government is perfectly willing to feed and clothe a person from birth to death without requiring a single hour of work.

Is disingenuous, which is an adjective which precludes honesty as your assertion appears to be critical of social programs, and thus implies there is something wrong with helping the needy.

If that wasn't your implication, you should have so stated, because that statement begs for qualification.

I do agree with the premise that poverty is not the cause of crime, per se.

 

More specifically, apathy towards others' rights. In a country at peace both with its neighbors and among its own people, poverty is caused by the apathy of the privileged towards the rights of those whose rights the privileged own; crime is caused by the apathy of criminals towards the rights of their victims. The difference between the privilege holder and the criminal is that the state enables and supports the former's abrogation of others' rights, but opposes the latter's.

There is certainly an obvious causal connection: crime reduces wealth because it often involves destruction of value.

Force them? Why not pay them? Instead of throwing money at teachers' unions and school board bureaucracies, just pay parents directly for their kids' demonstrated academic progress, and let the market figure out the most efficient ways to deliver it.

 

Clinton requested MORE spending that Congress approved and signed onto the the Gingrich and Kasich budgets because his political adviser told him do so or you will not be reelected.



https://www.ipi.org/docLib/reagandf.pdf-OpenElement.pdf


His budgets were always DOA and yes Gingrich can be a graceful person. And that same goes with welfare reform which Clinton opposed but was HIGHLY effective in getting people off the dole and back into the workplace, a double whammy a person who was formerly a government expense because a source of government revenue. Obama and Biden failed to bring that about again in their 8 years as the LFPR plummeted and Trump turned that around along with increasing wages and salaries.

 

It starts with the systemic social problems within these communities, problems that require something of the people there spending does nothing and in fact history shows makes it worse.

What is one of the most touted government programs targeted to minorities and especially black minority communities? HeadStart. Yet the most exhaustive study done by the federal government itself, HHS, found there was no measurable different in educational achieve between students who did and student who did not attend HeadStart by the time the reach the 2rd grade. All that money spent on what turns out to be a VERY expensive babysitting service where we pay people with masters degrees to play with and feed and watch their children during the day freeing them up, including people who don't work anyway. Why not just have a basic daycare for women who actually work and if someone who doesn't work still wants their children to attend then they can work at the center 3 days a week volunteering their free time.

Try to bring that to Congress and the damn will burst on the cries of racism by the left, how DARE you harm these little children, no matter the governments own study says it does no good in the first place. These things get untouchable. But no one wants to discuss the crime and failure of the family.

 

And that is systemic in these minority communities, these poor communities. Just watch when there is looting and arson it's the whole community going on a rampage and thinking they have a right to do so, they don't care that it is illegal and harms someone else. So cavalier I guess that they go to each others houses for a party and it goes like "Yea I got the 75" QLED at Best Buy during the last looting, don't it look great?" "Yea you were lucky to get there in time before someone else got it", slapping of hands. Me and the host told me something like that I'd say screw you and walk out and call the police on him.

Well it also involves criminal records which means it is far harder to now get a job especially if you did not take advantage of the free education that was offered to you. How do we deal with the system crime and disregard for the law in these communities? Without that we throw all the money in the world at it and get no results.

I am all for educational vouchers............you betcha. It's for the children not the parents. We have to get some kind of parental control of the schools and that by their ability to choose the schools to which they will send their children and teachers like every job I have ever had will be judged on their outcomes and advanced, or not, based on that not years service.

 

It's never the whole community, just a minority of idiots. Worse, they don't even care that it harms them.

Some people in these communities understand, and call for an end to the tolerance and even celebration of crime. So far, no dice.

They would probably respect the law more if they could see some link between the law and justice. Their experience of the law is that it is their enemy: flagrant and commonplace wrongful convictions, draconian penalties for economic "crimes" that violate no one's rights, absurdly excessive penalties for trivial offenses, long jail sentences to provide profits for private prison corporations and slave labor for industry, the list goes on and on.

Taxpayers throw money at it, but prison companies and industries that use prison slave labor extract money from it.

No, not vouchers, which only promote competition to register students, not to educate them. Direct cash payments to parents for their kids' academic progress. The market will reward the schools that do the best job, have the best methods, etc.

As crank pointed out, we need parents to take their kids' education more seriously. Paying them is the simplest, most effective way to do that.

No, we have to get some kind of parental motivation to focus strictly on academics.

If you think parents are better able to judge the quality of a school for their kids than professional evaluators, why are they so bad at judging the quality of a far simpler purchase for their kids: food? If we pay parents for their kids' academic progress, that will give them both the ability to pay for school and the incentive to find the schools that are most effective in teaching academics, not just the ones that are most effective at marketing.

 

Yeah, explain that apathy thing to Madoff, Epstein, The Mafia, Putin, etc etc etc. apathy isn't the cause of crime, apathy begets inaction. Greed is what causes most crime (those where the motive is financial gain ).

Public education is funded by taxes, but I was referring to enacting a program of education designed to improve self esteem, change attitudes that embolden poverty, ( such as apathy, etc ).

 

Your argument is that "Clinton acquiesced into signing a budget' but that doesn't change the fact that when he signs a bill, he owns it. the buck stops at the resolute desk, period. If you are going to blame the bad on the prez, you must also credit the good on the prez. It's one or the other, pick one, but you can't have it both ways because if furthers your agenda.

 

To be fair, I think he does have a point. Congressmen have to be willing to compromise to get a budget passed. Getting a budget passed is something that is essential.
If everyone held out until they got what they wanted, the government would never be able to approve a budget.

 

How about addressing some underlying issues in the economy?

I mean, it seems a little defeatist to just resign ourselves to the reality of widespread poverty and then put a little band-aid over it.

 

Not my statement. Nothing to do with me.

 

However I will address this, even though you accused me of dishonesty over SOMEONE ELSE'S comment.

I'm all about helping the needy - without limit. The needy, not the wanty. "Helping" the wanty means you rob the needy. I would never do that, had I the power to control social programs.