On poverty

In a single anecdotal example, you are right, but when you weigh statistics over a 50 year period, and one side constantly does better than the other, overall, well, your premise breaks down.

 

crime follows poverty, not poverty follows crime. the only way to lift poverty is to change individuals attitudes via education. For poverty to be erased, access to education and health care is vital. But, not always, crime follows greed in the white collar arena, and poverty has nothing to do with it. It's a slow, very slow process, but I don't see any other way. Enlighten us if you have some ideas. During Clinton, he imposed 'workfare' remember?

https://www.history.com/news/clinton-1990s-welfare-reform-facts

 

Nothing here I disagree with, sadly I think the most economically depressed communities aren't communities anymore I think they're more like refugee camps where struggles are individually suffered. I certainly don't have any answers. We've been throwing money into impoverished areas for decades and little has changed. I think the psychological trauma of poverty, the abject sense of hopelessness perpetuates the cycle. Whereas wealth begins somewhere and makes it's way down through generations paving the way for the next but where that doesn't exist there's no incentive to even try. During the depression there was a lot more community even in poverty to prop people up, I don't see that now even with the well to do. Our society has changed a lot and there isn't even anything like a neighborhood identity anymore. Time was when you knew everyone in your neighborhood and if it was small enough you knew everyone in your town. Again money doesn't seem to be the answer entirely, but how and what to spend it on that'll make a difference.

 

What do you mean? Higher taxes? Yes, they tend to. But they have a higher standard of living, so it's working well for them.

 

Quite. This should be obvious from the fact that when there's an economic crash, crime goes way up.

 

So why does the left want to let all the illegals in?

 

Why would some kid in poverty want to work hard to go to and stay in college when he can make $1,000 a night selling drugs on the street corner?

 

Celebrating the eradication of poverty in the U.S. via the innovations of free market forces and the private sector, and despite the progressive statists' need to aggravate social and economic causes of poverty towards their own vile self-benefit, is the very opposite of cynicism.

"Neoliberalism" does not exist, just like any material amount of "poverty" in the U.S. does not exist. It is made-up lowbrow statist/LW jargon that has become a braindead cliche' of late. Therefore, because it does not exist, it cannot be either sane nor insane, just like any other type of overwrought social sciences twaddle that does not exist.

Empty, not surprised. You may as well refer to "unicorn farts" as "neoliberalism."

Empty, not surprised. You made a post about poverty, quantify it in the U.S. then, in terms of a reasonable definition of privation in global terms, and not related to drug/alcohol abuse, mental illness, illegal immigration, poor personal choices or the purposeful machinations of the welfare state.

You can't, because just like "neoliberalism" it doesn't exist.

LOL, I clicked on that, sure thing.

 

Have cited the LW/statist Brookings report many times here, crickets chirp from the LW LIE NARRATORS on poverty so not going to bother linking it or quoting directly from it again other than a brief paraphrase. Google it if interested.

Brookings found that disadvantaged young people in the U.S. need do only three simple things to not only "escape poverty" but have a very high chance of entering the middle class in ONE generation: 1. Graduate free public HS. 2. Get a job, ANY JOB, and stay employed in it. 3. Do not have children young.

Not an especially tall order.

"Poverty in the U.S." is just another ad campaign for the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex, and as credible as other types of ad campaigns claiming "new and improved" or "4 out of 5 X agree." The ad campaign is designed to enrich the Complex and its millions of denizens, and like all the other lie narratives of the Complex, does an excellent job in its design.

 

Most value dignity and wanting to stay out of trouble, but some don't.

 

There is nothing worse than a neoliberal, except an arrogant one.

You are dismissed.

 

Supply and demand is one thing, but the government has its heavy thumb on the scale. Landlords pass the high taxes down to the tenant who then fills their car with heavily taxes gas and buys their needs from heavily taxed businesses. Would you say that makes things better?

 

Good list although I might add "stay out of jail" to it. A criminal record adds a whole bunch of difficulties to employment.

 

Proposition 13 stopped taxes from increasing after initial purchase. My Cousin owns a house in Dana Point, worth a million bucks, he purchased it in the 70s, but his taxes haven't risen since Prop 13 passed, in the early 80s, he could rent that house for $1500 per week, easy, but his total expenses to maintain the home, including taxes, he told me was about $600 per month.

My gas went up some, but it's hardly enough to worry about.

It's like this, whine about taxes all you want, sure, cost of living here is more than in Oklahoma.

Sure, I could rent a huge spread for $400k in Oklahoma, much roomier than anything in CA, ................


but, then i'd have to live in Oklahoma.

Sorry, I need the ocean air, the beauty of my state, more than i need a roomy house.

Everyone has their priorities.

 

Prop 13 just got split and now commercial property owners get to pay more. Any guess as to who will end up paying for that? Businesses were leaving CA before this new money grab. Dems in power with no reps in the way does not make society better.

 

False, it is crime that turns community in areas of poverty and we have seen it happen for decades. We have poor areas which do not have have crime rates but show me a community which does have high crimes rates that does not have high crime. In our cities former middle class and communities have turned into areas of massive poverty because the crime ran out the tax base and business. I worked in the heart of the South Side of Chicago in the mid 1970's and saw it happening. The light manufacturing firm which employed about 75 people mostly from that neighborhood started having break ins on a weekly bases, cars including mine vandalized and tires slit. They tried everything. I left and couple of years later they closed the location and moved it out to the western suburbs and the locals lost all those good paying jobs.

And yes education is key and we spend more on education in those areas than most, spending isn't going to solve this systemic contempt for education or the lower quality the government schools are providing. And it was Gingrich and Kasich who imposed workfare and forced Clinton to sign while at the same time he pledged give him a Democrat Congress and he would work with them to roll back that very successful welfare reform he opposed.

The problems are systemic to the mainly the black community and it is not racism, it is the problems those people in those communities create and government and the leftist refuse to address.

 

I gave you several which one do you want to discuss? And please answer my questions

Why do you claim the economy turns solely on who is President at the time? That's utter folly. Or that Presidents alone control government spending and resulting deficits? More folly. For instance the FY 2009 Bush/Rep deficits was a paltry $161B, then the Democrats took back the Congress for FY2008 and FY2009 do you assign those budgets and resulting Deficits to Bush? Especially 2009? OR how about the late 1990 budgets passed by Gingrich and Kaisch do you assign those Clinton? In both why?

 

False

This Criminologist Debunks the Dogma that Poverty Causes Crime
.....I guess the most startling [fact] to me was the lack of a consistent relationship between economics and violent crime. When I was a young professor — when I was studying these matters — it was always told to us that there is this huge relationship between poverty and crime, between economics and crime. And I sort of accepted this like everybody else. When I did this book, I learned that the issue is more complicated than we thought.

First off, as I said earlier, general economic conditions and violent crime are not consistently related.



Example: The Great Depression, in the early 1930s crime soared. After 1934 with the Depression still on and people widely impoverished by it, crime begins to go down, and keeps going down for the remainder of the ’30s decade.

Second example: 1960s, biggest crime boom in our history, and the economy is great. Unemployment is under four percent (4%), there’s no inflation, the economy is fizzing and violent crime soars.

Third example, and this one you know everyone’s going to remember: 2007–2008 the Great Recession. And what happens? Crime continues to fall. So [there is] no consistent relationship between general economic conditions and violent crime.
https://www.encounterbooks.com/feat...matically-debunks-dogma-poverty-causes-crime/

 

What criminologist does?

You just used Encounter Books as a citation. Can you offer a citation from a reliable source?

 

Or in other words

 

Yup, that's the difference! You know the facts and your opinion is sound, the other opinion is that of uncertainty and needs reinforcement from third, forth and a plethora of other opinions to make a point

 

Crime follows evil. If a person does crime in America, it is because they are evil. Not a single person in America needs to do crime to survive, not one. Our government is perfectly willing to feed and clothe a person from birth to death without requiring a single hour of work.

 

Crime follows poverty because poverty facilitates opportunities for crime. You could say once crime sets in, it keeps poverty from rising, but the order of causality is poverty>crime>deepened poverty. That might give the illusion of causality, but that's all it is.

There isn't crime in all poor neighborhoods because crime hasn't found a path of opportunity to those neighborhoods. Poverty doesn't 'cause' crime, per se, it provides opportunity for it, and whether or not opportunists move in, is another story, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Demographics of neighborhoods, perhaps a neighborhood has a strong community commitment to resist and thwart crime, whereas another neighborhood does not. Demographics are everything when it comes to crime. But there is crime in rich neighborhoods, as well, because of opportunity. Opportunity, just as electrons follow the path of least resistance, provides the path which crime follows.

https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/opportunity_makes_the_thief.pdf

There is crime in rich neighborhoods ( Madoff, etc ) and it hasn't resulted in poverty in rich neighborhoods.

Correlation doesn't necessary prove causation.

 

I don't. Over a period of 50 years, the overall statistical trends in a number of metrics favor democrats, which is a statement that does not equal 'why do I claim....." etc. Any president, right or left, can have a bad term, as Carter did in the late 70s.

 

YOur last statement arises from a simplistic mindset.