Return to the Hot Topics Forum

 o
Chicago violence

Posted by october17 5chgo (My Page) on
Sat, Sep 21, 13 at 7:22

13 people shot while watching a basketball game. Shooters and victims, all black.

Article is same old same old putting the blame on jobs and schools.

Sorry. But you cannot convince me that in three or four generations of baby mamas that none of them could go on to college or job training (all offered free for the taking) or just plain work their way up in a job.

Don't believe it.

I know people who flipped hamburgers at McDonalds for years in high school and junior college who became managers there.

The mamas don't show up one day a year to meet the kids teachers. And it's the schools fault? Sorry, don't buy it.

Here is a link that might be useful: more finger pointing


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Chicago violence

I've pointed this out before.

Not many folks at HT want to discuss the black kids dying in Chicago.

Now, give us some blonde, blue-eyed kids in PA, shot by one crazy white protestant Republican and they are on it!


 o
RE: Chicago violence

No, they are on it if it's a white person killing A black person. There's no excuse for that.

A multitude of excuses (blame white people) for black people to kill black people though.

A whole generation of black men will be dead in Chicago.

No biggie.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

The Black Church Initiative (34,000 black churches) is striving to get black men and boys back to church. Some here will ask, "why"?

Some folks here consider black on black crime none of their business.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

October, why aren't you mentioning the fact that this latest incident is AGAIN gangs?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Great mayor they have in Chicago. I understand he eliminated some of the gang units. Did away with a lot of the patrols in these neighborhoods. He probably lives in a gated community himself.

jmc, why is the fact that it is gangs significant?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"CHICAGO ��" A year after this city drew new attention for soaring gun violence and gang bloodshed, creating a political test for Mayor Rahm Emanuel in President Obama’s hometown, Chicago has witnessed a drop in shootings and crime. Killings this year have dipped to a level not seen since the early 1960s."

More at the link below...

Here is a link that might be useful: A Dip in Chicago Violence


 o
RE: Chicago violence

431 homicides in 2011, 500 in 2012, according to the FBI. The murder capitol of the US. Dip must be somewhere else.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Did you even read the article? Or are we going on the assumption that Chicago is the only city with a gang population and a murder/shooting statistic?

Here is a link that might be useful: Crime Rates


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Did you compare rates? The homicide rate in Chicago jumped almost 14%, far surpassing any other large city. Second was Houston with a 2% rise....New York's homicide rate dropped almost 20%.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

OH my we can't talk about that.

We can only rail and tsk tsk and demand controls about the random and infrequent mentally ill person that kills multiple people.

We might have to have some discussions of personal responsibility to explain the Chicago, Houston, New Orleans, Washington DC everyday disregard for innocent life.

Oh no.

Leave those murderers alone, it's not their fault.

It's the fault of the Democrats for giving these people a lifestyle where they don't have to work or go to school, can sleep late, deal drugs and kill innocent people, including children.

Gangs and thugs.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

And why do you think gangs and crime exist to the extent they do?

Here is a link that might be useful: FBI Numbers


 o
RE: Chicago violence

New Orleans 362,874 homicides: 136

Chicago 2,708,382 homicides: 500

Not too bad when you consider population density.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Gangs exist because of a need for acceptance and family. You'll find that most come from a single parent home. Usually a single mother. As has been said before...you get more of what you subsidize.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

We can only rail and tsk tsk and demand controls about the random and infrequent mentally ill person that kills multiple people.

So, right, we know that gun violence is much more than just mentally ill people doing it .... I agree. That's why just dealing with the "mental" problem like the NRA wants to do is not enough.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

The problems and causes go deeper than just single parent families and drugs... there are major socioeconomic issues underlying, here... if you care to look at the bigger picture.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"Not too bad when you consider population density."

Yes, tell that to the parents of those dead kids. That fact alone should soothe them.

I really don't care if black adults kill black adults, but I am concerned that so many black children are dying and we are quick to compare population density.

And in response to the lower crime rate in Chicago;

While murder in Chicago is down from last year, the racial disparity is virtually the same. More than 80% of the victims were:
African-American: 257;
Hispanic: 59;
white: 5.

No need to be concerned. It's gang related and it's mostly blacks dying. ((((((SARCASM))))))


 o
RE: Chicago violence

The bigger picture?

Reports from March indicate that more than half of African-American men without a high school diploma are unemployed.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Chicago violence

The gang violence and injury and death that results from it is tragic.

It's easy to say that the baby Mamas should exercise more personal responsibility , not doubt they should.

The tougher issue is what needs to happen that gives these kids a chance to move out of the cycle. They know nothing else.

The absent Dad's are every bit as much the problem. Young men who see themselves with no future and no family support. They find a "family" and others too look up to in the gangs.

Fixing the problem amd reversing the cycle takes hard work and commitment from all of society. Especially those with the means socially, financially, emotionally etc.

...but we don't we sit there and cast stones from our lofts. Blaming it all on lack of responsibility, laziness etc.

I'm no better , I don't do anything to help but I don't sit on a hill and preach either.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

This is exactly where guns are a problem in the US. It really has much less to do about the right of a guy/gal living in the woods to have a rifle for hunting, recreation, and defense.

Murders happen in highly populated areas and there is absolutely no question that reducing the guns in these areas will reduce the killings; of course it is a complex issue with many parts but this is true.

The argument that gun control does or does not work is not yet valid here in the US because there is no gun control. When someone claims that gun enforcement doesn't reduce crime, this completely ignores the fact that obtaining all kinds of guns is completely legal pretty much everywhere, even if you have to drive a few minutes outside of the city.

As for the criminals only argument, where do you think their guns come from? Purchased from the manufacturer like every other gun. Looking to other countries clearly suggests that less guns and less murders go together.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Do you think that race is a reason for this urban crime ?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Race and violence in the history of the United States?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sat, Sep 21, 13 at 13:20

"Gang violence" is a growing problem in the USofA, and there are many facts and figures on who the big players are ... and they all have in common one thing "drugs". Now if only we could stop those juvenile urban youths from bringing heroin/cocaine into the country on their freighters and private jets. At the link is a list of some of the biggest and baddest.

Here is a link that might be useful: linky dink


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Lots of money/drugs + poverty + lousy schools + broken families + no decent job prospects = violence.

All of which need to be addressed if the slaughter is ever going to stop.

I see the same equation here with the meth epidemic.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

mrsk: "Great mayor they have in Chicago. I understand he eliminated some of the gang units. Did away with a lot of the patrols in these neighborhoods. He probably lives in a gated community himself. "

I am completely unaware of this mrsk. Do you, by chance, have a link?

I'm thinking there are baby daddies in the picture here. The baby mamas get the subsidized housing, and baby daddies live there too. Do you really think anyone is checking up on who actually lives in these apartments? I mean, baby daddies live somewhere, don't they?

A follow-up story says there are a couple of houses (8 apts) that were shot up - twice - the night before the basketball game shooting. 26 children lived in the buildings. They said there were 26 bullet holes, one for each child. So, I'm wondering/figuring/pretty darn sure that there are gang-banger baby daddies living in the building who are the real targets of the bullets.

There is no one to save these children.

ohiomom: As far as the drugs being brought in, call the Mexican cartel and tell them to stop it! Actually, I saw somewhere that it's just one cartel whose goal in life was to get the monopoly on Chicago. Looks like he's got it. The killing is just turf wars going on between the local underlings. Oh, and the real and imagined slights, and flashing gang signs where/when one shouldn't, and other such reasons.

•Posted by jmc01 (My Page) on
Sat, Sep 21, 13 at 7:59

October, why aren't you mentioning the fact that this latest incident is AGAIN gangs?

Sorry jmc, it's kind of understood it's always gang-related. If it wasn't, you would have seen it on MSM.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

October what specifically do you think is the problem?

What specific ideas do you have to curb the problem?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

I couldn't get Mrs.' link to work. If half of black men without HS diplomas are unemployed, does that include the ones in jail?

How many non-blacks without HS diplomas are unemployed? Not half?

I'm not sure where this takes us -- especially since today's HS diploma by itself will only get you into the 'working poor' category. (Another disparity between the rich and the rest.)

Today's Chicago Tribune shows a map of gun deaths. Most Chicagoans know, and the map shows, that these "Chicago" killings are all withing a few square miles in the ghetto. (Let's call it what it is!)

Of course the mayor doesn't live there; the majority of three million Chicagoans don't live there, or ever GO there. (I'm awaiting the new concealed-carry folks to be getting down there right quick to 'take care of the problem'. They can start their own coffee houses in Englewood and tell Starbucks to lump it.)

DS was frequently at Christ Hospital (major trauma center) on the south side when he was training and working as a paramedic. We need daily coverage on the front pages of newspapers of the ER intake there. We need daily tallies on the heroin overdoses at the ER's in nice, white, suburbs too. It's all *connected*.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Does anyone realize how crooked and warped the government is in Chicago and Illinios?

That corruption is so indemic and wide spread, it has infected a huge number of citizens in that city and state.

The people suffering the worst are those at the bottom of the government ladder---those on public assistance and other government programs. They are kept in bondage by the system---which allows the top of the ladder to get rich.

There are now fourth generation Welfare folks---who have been raised by parents who never had a job, were never allowed to get what it took to get a decent education and learn self satisfaction from work and seld confidence to be able to support oneself. Those people have no other options than to stay in the system.

All that has been a long time in the making, but it is basically because of liberal programs that 'help' people without requiring those people to help themselves in the process.

It is not even a Dem/Pub issue---both parties contributed to the mess.

I've spent much of my life helping people help themselves. Habitat for Humanity, 4-H, civic involvement, and individual projects have shown me the ONLY way to really help people is to help them learn how to help themselves and become independent from government programs.

Simple ideas like paying a favor forward---I help you so you can help someone else, who then helps a third person---and so on. Having to work to get something.

I've seen people work much harder than I did for a house. All I had to do was go to work at my job and make payments. They have to work a full time job, work on their own house, AND work on their neighbors houses as well. But, they got a house, they did it with the help they needed to help themselves and they had pride and self accomplishment that lasts a lifetime and taught their children how to do the same.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

From the link chisue.

But in disturbing news, the unemployment rate for African Americans remains at 13.2 percent. Reports from March indicate that more than half of African-American men without a high school diploma are unemployed. Yet the nationwide rate for those without high school diplomas is just 11.6 percent.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

I heard some good news on CNN.

Regardless of the shootings on Thursday and today, it's still getting better in Chicago. I'm relieved.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

just saw Rahm"never let a trajedy go to waste" Emanuel on the tube. he wants to push for more draconian gun control. Like infringing upon me is gonna do his town any good! Too damned busy to clean up his own stinkin rat hole?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

I think you may have the wrong idea fancifowl. Infringing upon your right to target shoot in the woods is not equivalent to attempting to control the violence in urban areas. You are entitled to your opinion, however.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Does anyone realize how crooked and warped the government is in Chicago and Illinios? That corruption is so indemic and wide spread, it has infected a huge number of citizens in that city and state

There is political corruption in every State. You are embellishing, piling on and trying to create animosity for my City and the people of Chicago. It is a Fox talking point that has worn thin.

There are now fourth generation Welfare folks---who have been raised by parents who never had a job, were never allowed to get what it took to get a decent education and learn self satisfaction from work and seld confidence to be able to support oneself. Those people have no other options than to stay in the system. All that has been a long time in the making, but it is basically because of liberal programs that 'help' people without requiring those people to help themselves in the process.

Republicans, especially those from the Southern and Plains States, need to get off their ideological high horse about "lack of personal responsibility" as the core reason for every social problem in our urban areas. They always salt those pompous views with negative opinions about Blacks or Latinos, sarcastic digs at President Obama or negative views about our large Northern cities.
Meanwhile, most of them do not have the faintest idea what in the heck they are talking about.
Liberals have not contributed to social ills by seeking to protect the poor, the sick and the elderly with a safety net. Neither Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare or unemployment are given out as easily as one might think. And almost no one on food stamps or welfare wants to live that supposedly glorious lifestyle.
You are quite wrong in your presumption that public assistance in and of itself created a class of dependent people. When is the last time you were in one of the high crime urban areas you are addressing?

Liberals were not responsible for white flight from major cities or for the re-segregation of inner cities yet those were large contributing factors to the mess that has been made of these areas. Liberals were not responsible for allowing urban areas to become blighted crime zones where no businesses would ever want to locate. Liberals were not responsible for diminishing real estate values in the City and the tax base. Liberals were not responsible for allowing neighborhood public schools to deteriorate and to be underfunded. Liberals were not responsible for salary and benefit cuts for teachers, firemen, police and municipal workers.
And "personal responsibility" is a Right Wing ideology, not a solution.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

well art, then keep the silly regulations in the cities. Don't apply them to real America. You cant pile people on top of each other and surround them by concrete and expect them to have human behaviors.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Thank you, David...

And let's be clear that gang violence is not about race... there is gang violence within every race, crossing borders from north to south within the Americas, and beyond... encompassing whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

The problems run deep, and are mostly due to socioeconomic issues.

Thank you, Heri... gang related or gun violence is not singularly endemic to Chicago... every city and plenty of suburbs are part of the statistics. Why the focus is always placed on one particular city is beyond my comprehension.

Why don't we look at major cities in the states of Texas, Georgia, California, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, or any other state. They are not immune to the very same problems that plague Chicago.

Let's go further south and talk about the violence in Mexico, Columbia, Brazil... or how about the violence in the East, in Russia and surrounding areas, in Europe, in the Middle East...

There are drugs, gangs and violence almost everywhere. We simply don't see it so much in less populated areas, though these areas are not immune, either.

If we do not address the underlying issues, we'll never lessen the problems. They will continue to grow.



 o
RE: Chicago violence

You are quite wrong in your presumption that public assistance in and of itself created a class of dependent people. When is the last time you were in one of the high crime urban areas you are addressing?

*

I don't know who "you" is in this instance, but I can tell you that extended public assistance, combined with sloth and no expectations of personal responsibility most created a class of dependent people.

Without a need to provide one's shelter, food, and other needs, the sloth and subsequent criminal activity would not have had the time or opportunity to thrive.

I live in those high crime areas, and have for years.
I see it every day.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Yeah, that's it... it's got nothing to do with lack of jobs, low and stagnant wages, unequal opportunity, flagging education, or a host of other social and economic issues...

Right. It's purely sloth and lack of personal responsibility. Right...


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Terrible anyone killed 69% of all murders do use guns!
The flavor here is why are we ignoring black crime hmmm? In Chicago it's pretty focused from what I'm reading concentrated from what I keep getting & that must be alarming and dramatic if you live there.
I was very alarming in NY when we had 2000 murders 1500 murders every year back in the 70's & 80's that dropped to a level it was during the late 50's & early 60's the Eisenhower years. I'm not suggesting 2 back to back anti gun mayors had anything to do with it but it's something to look at.

If you look at overall crime stat tables tel me what you see in the dilution of the numbers.

The stats are 2 years old from the FBI interesting in the percentage differences for various crime by demographics


This second table shows back on black white on white etc.

Not a deflection but the thing that stands out most in these graphs a stark contrast is that the offenders are mostly male.

Here is a link that might be useful: interested or not


 o
RE: Chicago violence

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Sun, Sep 22, 13 at 10:41

Based on the table in Wikipedia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit, Kansas City, Newark, and New Orleans are even more dangerous than Chicago. So why beat up Chicago? It's only 16th on the list.

Baltimore has a do-nothing, ineffective mayor. Even the Governor, the former mayor, is critical of the current administration and increasing gun violence. Young men in the city don't expect to live beyond their 20's.

And nobody in Baltimore is talking about or doing anything. Oh, the occasional editorial, another "Our thoughts and prayers" vigil, but then it's back to the killing business as usual.

The schools are dreadful, there are 50,000 abandoned houses in the city, there are no "entry level" jobs, except in the drug trade, and other criminal enterprises, and the police don't make many arrests any more.

I work with families, and the children break my heart, they are smart, enthusiastic, love learning, work hard to learn, but there's not much future for them. By the time they get to middle school, the teachers stop teaching because of the problem children taking all their time, the buildings are falling apart, the books are outdated and falling apart, too, there are no supplies, and the whole school system is dysfunctional. The good kids get the message very quickly that they don't really matter, and the good teachers, who could make a difference, get driven out.

I don't know what the answer is, and whatever it is, it is complex, treacherous, and expensive. And, ultimately, the drive must come from within the affected communities to demand changes, over and over and over again.

There probably isn't an answer. Historically, the problem of urban crime, poverty, hunger, etc has been stalking man since the first city grew up 7,000 to 10,000 years ago. Human nature being what it is, someone is always going to look for the easy way out - a way to take advantage of the hard work of everyone else.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

I am one of the few people on here, in addition to Chase, who happens to think it is a little of both.

Lack of opportunity, low wages, poor schools and racism is certainly a big part of it. Another issue is that school budgets are in part based on property taxes. In an affluent area, plenty 'o tax to get IPads for the classrooms, smartboards, new textbooks. In a socioeconomically depressed area, they don't have any of those things.

When my Sister's family lived in a particular part of Boston, they had one computer for THE SCHOOL. (This is going back a few years). When they moved to the suburbs, they had one computer PER CLASSROOM. Therein lies the difference.

On the other hand, having a baby in high school or just beyond is a short road to poverty for most. This is not a racial issue! Black, white and purple, a kid growing up without a Father has a much tougher time. I see it at school every day. If it ends up that way, it is unfortunate: people die, get divorced, some men don't take responsibility for their kids. But, to start out that way is very unfortunate.

The school system is entirely different than when most of you raised your children. Kids get homework beginning in Kindergarten. If you have more than one child, helping them with their homework after working 8-10 hours is virtually impossible!

I think people without role models in white communities, black communities, i.e, lots of your friends get pregnant in high school, you don't know anything different. And it is a terrible decision.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

This also tends to be historical rather than hysterical asspect to crime whne focusing on demographics (for whatever purpose)
The majority of political cartoons & statistics for that later half of the 19th Century for NY Phildelphia Chicago & Boston cited the Irish menace & gangs. Later it was the Italians in Chicago there were even the Polish bootleggers.NY later had the Jewish & the Italian mobsters & their underlings the disorganized crime for those periods also seemed to follow these paterns.
Overall the war on crime in the US has always been more maintenance than anything else.


The overall crime rate is less than 60 percent of what it was in 1980. Despite the growth in population in the United States over the past 30 years, there are actually fewer crimes committed now than in 1980.

In fact, crime rates are lower across the board than in the past. Today, the murder rate is half what it was in 1980. The rate for forcible rape was nearly 43 incidents per 100,000 in 1992. Today it is 27. The rate of robberies reached a high in 1990 with 639 incidents per 100,000 people. Today, the rate is nearly half that. Non-violent crime, such as burglary or theft, also has declined. The number of burglaries fell from 3.7 million in 1980 to 2.2 million.

Again any crime is terrible & all are to be noted the flavor though seems to always be the same if it be the later half of the 19th century or current day Chicago.

Illinois does have the highest rate of robbery in the Country (284.7 incidences per 100,000 people)

Gee men are frightening!

Over 10 to 1

Here is a link that might be useful: Desseret

This post was edited by labrea on Sun, Sep 22, 13 at 11:24


 o
RE: Chicago violence

I don't know what the answer is, and whatever it is, it is complex, treacherous, and expensive.

That is exactly right. It is complex. It's not just "lack of personal responsibility". That's the easy answer for those that don't want to actually deal with the problem. Because dealing with the problem will cost money. Much easier to say lower my taxes and I don't care about those people because they're not "personally responsibile". That right wing nonsense is just that -- nonsense.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

October what specifically do you think is the problem?
What specific ideas do you have to curb the problem?

I have stated my thoughts on this before. It always causes a flury of personal attacks and defensiveness. But, oh well, here goes:

Cure the baby mama problem and it will greatly reduce the rest of the problems (gangs, crime, schools, falling-down neighborhoods, etc.). If there are no more gang members being born, there will be no gangs. There have to be stricter requirements to receive benefits.

Just plopping out a newborn should not entitle you to any benefits.

We can't just stop welfare as it is. It will have to happen slowly. Work requirements will have to increase and be enforced. Fraud needs to be rooted out.

I have suggested that unwed pregnant women without any means to support a baby should have to live in a dormitory-like setting. No more free individual apartments. Each of them will have to work around the place and attend school, training programs, or work a job. They will be responsible (dirty word, I know) for all the cleaning, cooking, making lunches, laundry, school volunteering, tutoring, etc. It should be a self-sufficient environment. Just this curb in benefits would reduce the number of girls getting pregnant. I'd bet jodi's farm on it.

Don't tell me it's not so easy to get benefits. I was in the room when four young women (baby mamas all, living with baby daddies) were schooling a fifth woman (married) on how to get free benefits. I'll give you just one quote: "Girl, you need to learn how to lie." It's that easy. Lie. How much of the screening process is researched, do you think? If you have three million people applying, how many of them are really researched? Maybe three hundred. And, I think I'm being generous. (One of these"teaching" women takes several vacations a year, disney twice a year. She's got two babies, another on the way. Baby daddy works too.)

As far as there being no jobs, just walk around downtown Chicago and look at the position-open signs. They are everywhere. I can't go a day without seeing several. So, wrong - there are jobs. It's just easier - and taught - to lie on benefit applications so you don't have to work. I have heard it with my own ears and seen it with my own eyes. Time after time after time. It is no longer the exception.

OK, now, tell me what a horrible, terrible rotten racist I am.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

As far as there being no jobs, just walk around downtown Chicago and look at the position-open signs.

Do the jobs pay sufficiently to pay for day care?

Do the jobs pay just enough to disqualify mother and child from free medical care and/or subsidized housing, but not enough to afford private care and/or market-rate rent?

The fact that there are jobs - what kind? pay? - is not enough to solve complex financial problems.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

First of all, you can't bet something that doesn't belong to you...

And second, wouldn't it seem more logical to cure the underlying issues... by improving wages and job offerings... by offering easily accessible education and birth control, and even the option of abortion for those that choose it... instead of balking at changes in health care and making choice an illegal impossibility? Or keeping wages low against rising cost of living? I think so.

You can't blame all the socioeconomic issues on single mothers. That's not factual, and it's not right.

Per capita, Chicago isn't even close to being the most dangerous city to live in.

There isn't an area of Chicago I'm afraid to walk through.. Detroit or DC, not so much.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Overall crime down substantially over the past decades is good news!

One thing with statistics is they frequently show big averages. In reality there are often larger differences between adjacent areas.

For most people the crime rates are lower compared to the "overall" crime rates. For others, however, the crime rates are much higher than the published numbers.

Just to illustrate the point, if some people have a 1% percent chance of being robbed and others have a 60% chance of being robbed, nobody actually experiences the "overall" 5% chance.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

  • Posted by brute Florida 9B (My Page) on
    Sun, Sep 22, 13 at 14:43

Remember the days when Mafia wiseguys whacked each other? How did they manage to get the guy they were after without hosing down innocent bystanders?
Geeze, they just don't make gangsters like they used to.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Art...they do the same game with unemployment. It may be 7% average, but for the black and brown man it's more like 25%, and in some major cities, it's near 50%.

A very good article about self sabotage. Written by a black scholar. Mr. Williams knows much more than any opinionated member here. I know he'll be attacked because he's a conservative, but at least read what he has to say. If you disagree, please post a rebuttal.

Here is a link that might be useful: Black-self-sabatage


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Mr. Williams offers no suggestions what so ever, unless its somehow just hoping a return to the good old days of the 1940's, when black families were more intact, will happen out of the blue.

Of course, the poverty rate for black families back in the 40's was somewhere between 85 and 90%. Plus a few other aspects of life back then.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

baby mama, is it important to use derogatory terms for young women?

I have suggested that unwed pregnant women without any means to support a baby should have to live in a dormitory-like setting. No more free individual apartments. Each of them will have to work around the place and attend school, training programs, or work a job. They will be responsible (dirty word, I know) for all the cleaning, cooking, making lunches, laundry, school volunteering, tutoring, etc. It should be a self-sufficient environment. Just this curb in benefits would reduce the number of girls getting pregnant. I'd bet jodi's farm on it.

That's the solution the Irish came up with, called Magdalene Asylums - to house 'fallen women', a term used to imply female sexual promiscuity. Asylums for such girls and women and others considered to be of poor moral character, such as prostitutes, operated throughout Europe and North America for much of the nineteenth and well into the twentieth century.

It didn't work then it won't work now. They were terrible places, and babies were taken forcibly from their mothers and given to 'good' Catholic families in Europe and the US. They were workhouses of the cruelest sort. We may not do welfare well, but we do this even worse. Like the 'reform school' in Florida where they are finding the bodies of hundreds of young boys, the young women in these 'dormitories' were subjected to abuse of all kinds, cruelty, even death.

Lets not go there.

Here is a link that might be useful: Link


 o
RE: Chicago violence

David,

You must have missed his suggestions at the end.

Disgustingly, black politicians, civil rights leaders, liberals and the president are talking nonsense about "having a conversation about race." That's beyond useless. Tell me how a conversation with white people is going to stop black predators from preying on blacks. How is such a conversation going to eliminate the 75 percent illegitimacy rate? What will such a conversation do about the breakdown of the black family (though "breakdown" is not the correct word, as the family doesn't form in the first place)? Only black people can solve our problems.

True. What good is a conversation with you David? You have no idea how to solve the problems in the black neighborhoods. You only have opinions.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

You only have opinions.

Same as you, brush. Same as you.

Only black people can solve our problems.

Then let the white politicians quit grandstanding about laziness, and get the heck out of the way. Listen to the Congressional Black Caucus, and what they have to say about conditions in their districts. Give them the tools -- including social programs -- to help people help themselves.

As far as brush's quote from the article, since when are black politicians and civil rights leaders not part of the black community. If the author doesn't agree with their positions, cut them out of the equation and he doesn't have to deal with dissenting opinions, nor with the reality of contemporary U.S. society.

Seems as if Mr. Williams doesn't trust his own community, nor is willing to examine what U.S. capitalism has done to the middle and working class of all colors.

I agree with David's view of the article; nothing to see but more of blaming the victims.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Wonder why whites are more prone to arson almost 2 to 1 and motor vehicle theft almost 3 to 1 or larceny. Receiving possessing & buying selling stolen goods. Why are these specific white crimes?
Other assaults 3 to 1 what are other assaults?
I have no idea who is a racist or who isn't & that wasn't any of my suggestion which is why I like charts, facts figures;.

2,245 Murders in 1990 in NY 412 last year 2012!
1963 there were 548. The gangs of NY the present day gangs scrutinized on social network sites.
How is NY so different than Chicago?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

David,
You must have missed his suggestions at the end.

Disgustingly, black politicians, civil rights leaders, liberals and the president are talking nonsense about "having a conversation about race." That's beyond useless. Tell me how a conversation with white people is going to stop black predators from preying on blacks. How is such a conversation going to eliminate the 75 percent illegitimacy rate? What will such a conversation do about the breakdown of the black family (though "breakdown" is not the correct word, as the family doesn't form in the first place)? Only black people can solve our problems.

Thats his suggestion? Only black people can solve our problems?

Okeydokey.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

ultimately, yes.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Social problems are ultimately all of our responsibility because we are in this together.

For those who do not understand how racial segregation and discrimination (both of which persist in large measure today) have contributed and still contribute to social problems, read up on U.S. history and edify yourself on the social and racial make-up of our major urban and suburban areas, wealth distribution, the accessibility of jobs that pay a living wage in urban areas (no, not downtown white collar jobs), and get off your partisan high horse.

And please, haven't we had enough of these Herman Cain black conservative attention seekers? I suppose if one believes that absent the Affordable Healthcare Act, one could purchase coverage for pre-existing conditions for $65.00/month, then well, anything might be believable.

Racism by white people is not the issue, yet Republicans want to make it an issue because you know, that is impossible to prove and really, racism has nothing to do with urban blight, gun and gang violence or the myriad of other problems in struggling, poverty stricken, blighted urban areas.
Republicans believe in trickle down economics but tell us, where is the private investment in blighted urban areas?
Republicans like to use racially charged words like "black mamas" but they are mostly against a women's right to choose and against family planning and any social programs that help
women and children survive in these areas.

Ultimately, Republicans only care about themselves and are willing to allow human suffering on a mass scale as long as it does not impact them. Sure, let the blacks fix their own problems, and the Mexican Americans. Let the old die in the streets suffering and sick without any safety net, health insurance or public aid. Eff 'em all, I have mine, and I am armed if you want to try to take it from me.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Well, with Mr. William's clear, comprehensive, thoughtfully articulated, and nuanced pathway for stopping black-on-black violence, I guess all the rest of us armchair sociologists should refrain from commenting.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

politicians, (democrats anyhow) will never get out of the way allowing people to work at advancing their status. its not in their interest. Rather, they will keep those people down by providing benefits to keep the alive and voting for them. Its how they win elections, buying votes thru handouts. People who want to do better already have the tools, they must have the desire to use them. There are all kinds of examples of poor, black, Hispanic or whomever who havre decided they want a better life and WORKED for it.
You can ;lead a horse to water but ya cant make him drink.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

There are all kinds of examples of poor, black, Hispanic or whomever who havre decided they want a better life and WORKED for it.

So are you suggesting that there all sorts of jobs in urban poor areas of Detroit and other major cities? You are wrong if you think that.

How about raising the minimum wage to a living wage for any worker over 25 or for those regardless of age who have a dependent ? Any other ideas (beyond leading the proverbial horse to the water) to get these lazy sloths to work?
How many jobs do you think are available any more now that retail and manufacturing jobs have been reduced dramatically over the past few decades?

You can't brush everything off with oversimplifications and mindless repetition of the same old partisan talking points. Not here, anyway.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

From the "self-sabotage" link:

"Disgustingly, black politicians, civil rights leaders, liberals and the president are talking nonsense about “having a conversation about race.” That’s beyond useless. Tell me how a conversation with white people is going to stop black predators from preying on blacks. How is such a conversation going to eliminate the 75 percent illegitimacy rate? What will such a conversation do about the breakdown of the black family (though “breakdown” is not the correct word, as the family doesn’t form in the first place)? Only black people can solve our problems."

Great piece; it makes perfect sense to me. Here we are, a group of white people, mostly financially comfortable, a portion of which harp at another portion for being "racist," when none of us truly understands being the object of white against non-white racism, and I would venture to guess don't understand non-white vs. white racism, either. It's a complete waste of time; I'll steer clear of this topic from now on.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

My last position was teaching resume writing and interview skills (my whole bkgd is HR) to people on SNAP who were trying to get off and gain employment. No one is born with these skills and for the most part, no one has ever taught many of the people in this program how to go about it. They don't know how to write a resume or what to say and more importantly, what NOT to say on a job interview.

They were predominantly white and black, also several hispanic people who were trying hard to learn English. Some of the people there had hard luck stories but some just had very low tolerance for frustration. For example...my boss at Wendy's told me go learn how to make the new sandwich from a operational book and I didn't understand how to do it so I walked off the job.

I also taught them how to present their weaknesses (a basic job interview question) in a way that will not disqualify them from obtaining employment, i.e, position yourself as best possible. One attendee asked if he should admit that he got fired for cussing at a co-worker. One (white) lady had never worked. Ever. She was no kid and was able bodied.

Most of them obtain some type of employment by the end of the program but is it a living wage? No. You could not hope to support a family on the jobs they were obtaining.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

a portion of which harp at another portion for being "racist,"

No, the harping is from the "I'm not not a racist" crowd.

You Republicans have that one down pretty well.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Great piece; it makes perfect sense to me. Here we are, a group of white people, mostly financially comfortable, a portion of which harp at another portion for being "racist," when none of us truly understands being the object of white against non-white racism, and I would venture to guess don't understand non-white vs. white racism, either. It's a complete waste of time; I'll steer clear of this topic from now on.

Whites know more about solving black people's problems. Especially the recovering racists. Didn't you know that?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"Here we are, a group of white people..."

Whatever would make someone say that? Other races are represented here, too... perhaps not in majority, but represented nonetheless.

And, we come from a wide variety of social and economic backgrounds... which is the focus of this discussion, or should be. Race has very little to do with the massive social and economic problems that exist within our nation, and lead directly or indirectly to the violence we see... as Heri, I believe, said... we are all in this together!

This isn't a black problem, or a white problem, or a latino problem... this is an American problem!

And it's not endemic to one city... it's endemic to them all!

As far as I am aware, every major metropolitan city has poorer areas, neighborhoods that so-called progress swept through and left devastated by the decisions of our elected representatives!

At some underlying level, all of our systems are interconnected... our justice system, our educational system, all of our public systems... and they've been, or are being destroyed by a brand of capitalism lacking ethics and moral obligation.

And we're left with... "oversimplifications and mindless repetition of the same old partisan talking points."

Are we really to believe that poverty is the fault of the poverty stricken, and only blacks can solve inner city problems? If so, then I was seriously mistaken about the makeup of this panel...


 o
RE: Chicago violence

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Sep 23, 13 at 11:29

From the many posts on this forum you would think that poverty, gang violence and drugs only exist in the population for people of color .... guess it is easier to pretend it is just a problem of the "other" people.

None so blind ...


 o
RE: Chicago violence

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Mon, Sep 23, 13 at 12:16

Poverty and violence aren't just a problem for "minorities", and trying to frame it that way just a racist cop-out. We ALL have an obligation to talk about and search for solutions to poverty, homelessness, crime, poor schools, gun violence, hunger.

Poverty in the US:

White 25,865,700 13%
Black 12,876,400 35%
Hispanic 17,134,700 33%
Other 5,442,400 23%
Total 61,319,200 20%

Here is a link that might be useful: Link


 o
RE: Chicago violence

  • Posted by rosie NE Georgia 7A/B (My Page) on
    Mon, Sep 23, 13 at 12:34

New studies of white neighborhoods that have become impoverished over the past three decades or so are showing the same syndromes develop in these neighborhoods as we're used to seeing in poor minority neighborhoods. The same-old/same-old: Drugs, alcohol, gangs, domestic abuse, unemployment, poor school attendance, dispirited people who no longer care for their properties, and so on.

It's a poverty thing. The notion that adversity should strengthen and enoble is a simplistic hypocrisy. A little carefully developed adversity-exposure training ($950 for 11 days and nights, per person) might tone up a person's awareness, with the lessons carefully explained during and after it's all over.

But poverty with no end in sight is entirely different, and prolonged, hopeless adversity has a profoundly degrading effect on most people.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

jodik said:

This isn't a black problem, or a white problem, or a latino problem... this is an American problem! And it's not endemic to one city... it's endemic to them all!...every major metropolitan city has poorer areas, neighborhoods that so-called progress swept through and left devastated by the decisions of our elected representatives! At some underlying level, all of our systems are interconnected... our justice system, our educational system, all of our public systems... and they've been, or are being destroyed by a brand of capitalism lacking ethics and moral obligation.

You have an admirable perspective on these issues that some posters on this thread appear to lack. They post things like "recovering racists", "most of us white people", let the blacks solve their own problems, stop accusing us white people of being racists and other malarkey which only makes them look ridiculous.

It is hard to have a conversation with some folks who have had all the answers programmed in their heads for decades. They simply refuse to reconsider or reevaluate hardened opinions and preconceived notions but instead watch Fox News to make themselves feel Righteous.

All we can do here is to try to make them see the light.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Well, I tend to look at things from the perspective of the "bigger picture", Heri, which is important if we're ever to solve any of our issues and problems.

We can't look at it in terms of race or anything like that... we have to recognize the reality of the overall causes of our issues, and attack them from a legislative angle, I think... which will be impossible unless we can effectively divorce money and industry influence from politics.

We also have to recognize that our government and its monetary and media allies are feeding us a load of propaganda...

We're a global community now... and I think many of our issues have to be looked at and solved from that kind of perspective.

Race is irrelevant to the underlying issues. Our enemy isn't black or brown or white... it's green.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Rosie, your last sentence- if only people could accept the real truth in it.

How many children grow up dreaming of having a wonderful life on welfare, for pete's sake? Some here speak of those on welfare or having snap cards as if they live on easy street. I wonder if any of them ever sit quietly and challenge their ideas about the poor they have embraced for decades?
If it sounds ridiculous premise, then maybe it is a ridiculous premise. Not a soul here would think their life as good, comfortable or secure if they were so poor as to qualify for these benefits.
It would be a life lived on the edge with no room for a child's ear infection or yet another price increase on a simple loaf of bread. Who actively chooses that life? Settles for that life? Decides that life is plenty good enough for them?

Do a very small percentage of those on welfare and snap cards decide it is?
Yes. Those same people lie and cheat their way through life.
That leaves ALL the others who are desperately looking for a way out of poverty when all the while perhaps more than half of their American countrymen look down on them as lazy cheats.

American's Christian attitudes at their finest? Just plain American attitudes, at their finest?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"Then let the white politicians quit grandstanding about laziness, and get the heck out of the way."

Chicago has lots and lots of black politicians. Have had them for years and years. Many are busy defending themselves in court for various criminal behavior. (Just like many white politicians.) Politician is a politician. Race not a factor.

Right, many of the jobs do not pay a living wage. Guess what. Until you are qualified for a better job, you take a lower paying one. And guess what, you live with a roommate or two. You do what you have to do - to survive and to get better jobs.

Except that you can sit around and collect handouts. Then, you don't even look for a job. You just look for more entitlements cause you plopped out a baby or two or three or nine.

Who do you think made up the term "baby mama"? You think I made it up? The baby mamas call themselves that. News flash: not all baby mamas are black.

Yes, other cities have high crime too. What is the difference. Hmmm. I wonder. Maybe the high profile white mayor. Ya think, maybe?

There is no birthcontrol availble in Chicago to welfare recipients. Sure. Whatever you say.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

There is no birthcontrol availble in Chicago to welfare recipients. Sure. Whatever you say.

*

To suggest that illegitimate births happen because women aren't handed birth control to me sounds racist--it assumes blacks are unable to just say no and/or aren't smart and resourceful enough to figure out how not to get pregnant.

I don't think either is the case.

I think until people are made to be responsible THEMSELVES for the product of their decisions, then the rest of us will forever be subsidizing their bad decisions--and we GET MORE OF WHAT WE SUBSIDIZE.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Mon, Sep 23, 13 at 18:35

Who do you think made up the term "baby mama"? The baby mamas call themselves that. News flash: not all baby mamas are black.

No matter who "made up the term" and who uses it, it's still disrespectful, and common. There are plenty of other words that convey your ideas.

There are plenty of words that people us all the time that you probably wouldn't use on this forum.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"Baby Mama" the movie: "Laughter and hearty guffaws abound in this comical look at 37-year-old career woman Kate Holbrook's (30 Rock's Tina Fey) desperate attempts to have a baby."

And here's a website: "beyondbabymamas : conversations with single women of colorbeyondbabymamas.com/‎Cached6 hours ago - Dear Beyond Baby Mamas community ��". I love y'all. There's a lot I wanted to write in this post that will kick off our week-long celebration of ..."

"Urban Dictionary: baby mamawww.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=baby mama‎Cached
SimilarThe mother of your child(ren), whom you did not marry and with whom you are not currently involved."

Get a grip, Mom. You say it's "disrespectful, and common." Maybe so. Tell that to Lily next time she says "panties in a twist" or that someone is a POS.

I've never seen anyone object to that here. You're shooting this particular messenger (October), and it's not pretty.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

You say it's "disrespectful, and common." Maybe so. Tell that to Lily next time she says "panties in a twist"

It's disingenous to cherry pick a single line and one definition of Baby Mama from the Urban Dictionary when there are 7 and some of those explain that people find it offensive, demeaning and it perpetuates a stereotype. But that wouldn't validate what you are trying to claim so you conveniently left them out. All anyone has to do is go to the Urban Dictionary to see the truth and the varying definitions.

Many find the term offensive just like it was deemed when Fox News used it to characterize our First Lady. There have been surveys taken that also back up those claims so if you are going to use it I would be careful since you just might offend someone if you do. Using a comedic form of entertaiment like the movie you cited doesn't validate your claim either.

It is unlike using the slang "panties in a twist" which isn't offensive to anyone in particular. You may not like the phrase personally but don't try to compare apples and oranges, it never works. Trying to equate these two phrases is asinine.

This post was edited by epiphyticlvr on Mon, Sep 23, 13 at 20:42


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"Trying to equate these two phrases is asinine."

I find your frequent use of the word "asinine" to be, well, asisine. Try for something original, why don't you.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Maybe someone will lend a thesaurus.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

So this went from a discussion on violence to . . . ?

After a while some posts tend to degenerate. Caps lock makes a statement more true of course.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

I find your frequent use of the word "asinine" to be, well, asisine.

That's your problem not mine as is using the word asisine. If you don't like my choice of words or how often I choose to use them you are always welcome to scroll on by. Personally I find it an appropriate word for most of your posts which is why you see it so often in my responses. When the the shoe fits... I can think of many other words to adequately characterize your posts but many aren't appropriate for this board.

I guess that's all you had since you didn't address anything else I posted pertaining to you disregarding the other 6 definitions of the phrase or anything else.

More hypocrisy. You have been reprimanding posters on several threads accusing them of personal attacks against those you align with yet it seems that you are an exception to your own rule. Just another example of your do as you say not as you do behavior.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

we GET MORE OF WHAT WE SUBSIDIZE.

That's just wrong even though it appears you have fun saying a silly thing like that.

Some Cons here are showing a good deal of intolerance and a limited, short-sighted perspective on problems which require and deserve more attention and thought. That is just not going to happen in a brain loaded with ideology and programmed to spew out asinine talking points.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste. Turn off the dang Fox box.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

No, I don't believe children brought into this world on welfare hope and dream about staying on it. I believe they are taught to stay on it.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

No one is "taught" to stay on welfare... that's a ridiculous assumption. It's much more likely that opportunity is the catalyst at play, here.

Let's close more public schools in the Chicagoland area, and see how opportunity plays a role...


 o
RE: Chicago violence

I just did some playing with numbers out of curiosity to see what a minimum wage couple with two children working 30 hours each a week would look like financially. All numbers are based costs in my area and 2012 tax law.

The couple would earn approximately $22,000 a year ($1,833 per month). That income would entitle them to pay no income taxes to either the IRS or state. They would pay FICA taxes of about $1,550 a year. That income would entitle them to $5,236 ($436 per month) in EITC and $2,000 ($167 per month) in additional child tax credit. They would also qualify for $632 in SNAP, free lunches and breakfast at school for their children during the school year, Medicaid, help paying their electric bill and a free cell phone, housing assistance of around $700 a month plus other benefits I haven't considered. Total household income including wages and entitlements (refundable tax credits plus housing assistance plus SNAP) per month is around $3,750 or $45,000.

Now, the expenses - Rent $1,200, electricity (remember it is subsidized) $150, water/sewer $50, Cable/phone $100, food $800, car payments $350, car insurance $250, gas $300, Clothes $ 200, Misc $ 200.

This couple is pretty close to breakeven. Any increase in income will reduce benefits/entitlements/tax refund. If one gets an increase in pay, the other reduces hours or quits. Between EITC, Additional child tax credit and housing assistance the family is getting about $15,500 of additional income a year.

These numbers are based on information for several clients that I have gleaned over the years. None of them are particularly interested in working harder or more hours because they know that it would impact their benefits. They are in the "sweet spot" for maximizing benefits and want to stay there. They live in townhouses in decent areas using section 8 vouchers or in newer subsidized housing in the area paying a reduced amount for rent.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

They are in the "sweet spot" for maximizing benefits and want to stay there.

*

Thanks for the facts jlhug.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

And isn't it a shame that people have to balance in a "sweet spot" in order to live any kind of halfway decent life and offer a decent life to their offspring?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Tue, Sep 24, 13 at 10:02

Busting the "entitlement myth" at the link below.

"low-income rental assistance programs " the vast majority of people who are eligible receive no benefits because of program funding limits"

What a waste of a minute of my time :) Now we will see the same misinformation repeated.

Here is a link that might be useful: source of course


 o
RE: Chicago violence

elvis said:

Here we are, a group of white people, mostly financially comfortable, a portion of which harp at another portion for being "racist," when none of us truly understands being the object of white against non-white racism

How do you know how many white people are financially comfortable? Do you know how many white people are no longer financially comfortable after the Great Recession aka the Bush Crash? It sounds like you might be surprised to find out.

A portion are harping about racism? No there are people who are trying to discuss issues without getting bogged down with racism. At the same time, however, they are not shortsighted enough to ignore the fact that race has played a role in segregation, urban decay, urban violence and complicated upward mobility because of the conditions in these neighborhoods (closing or closed schools and businesses, dilapidated housing, vacant buildings, the proliferation of drugs, guns, gangs and violence, etc.).

We want to discuss possible solutions. Instead what we get from GOPers is the same old stubborn ideology and some semi-clever partisan talking points about welfare mamas, "subsidizing" welfare, personal responsibility, lazy sloths on entitlements, and so on. It seems like Republicans who are "pretty well of financially" are fine with problems that do not impact them and can even have some fun tossing about snide remarks about problems they have no clue about.
Yup, you subsidize those welfare people, you get more of 'em on welfare. Told ya! He he he...


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on
Tue, Sep 24, 13 at 9:37

And isn't it a shame that people have to balance in a "sweet spot" in order to live any kind of halfway decent life and offer a decent life to their offspring?

*

It most certainly is.

The Democrats, with help occasionally from the Republicans, have intentionally made that sweet spot.

Gets votes and keeps people where they want them--dependent.

The welfare mentality rewards sloth and punishes hard work.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Now we will see the same misinformation repeated.

Exactly. As your link points out, the number of people eligible for housing subsidies is no where close to the number of people who actually receive them due to lack of funds.

There is currently a minor tragedy being played out in town here, where a 60-something woman who suffered debilitating brain injuries from carbon monoxide poisoning which left her 'a few fries short of a happy meal' is being thrown out of her gvt rent-payed apartment. Because she waters a flower and vegetable garden and the landlord thinks this is excessive. She's a white, spinster ex-librarian, btw, not some "babymomma".

She has no place to go, what with there being a several year waiting list for any other gvt voucher buildings.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Ohio, my example is based on real living and breathing clients some of whom receive Section 8 vouchers. Others live in apartment complexes for low income families built with subsidized money. Either way their actual out of pocket rent ends up being far less than market because it is subsidized either by a voucher or a government program that paid part of the cost of construction. Bottom line to the family is the same. They pay a net of about $500 for rent for a three bedroom apartment.

These people know that if they make more money, it will end up costing them more to rent and they will lose other benefits/entitlements. Their "bottom line" won't get any better but may actually suffer if they make more money. They flat out ask how much they can make to max out their refund every year.

Jodi, I agree. It is a shame that people have to receive public assistance to live. It is a shame that they game the system to max out the public assistance as well.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

From the facts Ohiomom supplied...

"People who are neither elderly nor disabled ��" and do not live in a working household ��" received only 9 percent of the benefits. "

9 percent. Oooooh! We better tighten that belt or we'll reach a whole 10 percent someday!

Good grief! Get off the "stomp the poor" train, will you people?! It's getting old.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Their "bottom line" won't get any better but may actually suffer if they make more money.

Right. Get a 1040 from your employer showing that you made $10 more a year than the poverty level, and your family of 5 loses access to Medicaid.

Tack on a few preconditions for a couple of the family members and its impossible to get insurance - as if you could afford any what with earning $10 over the poverty level.

But you can spend months trying to get the kids on CHIP (as long as there is funding). While the adults policy is now "cross your fingers and pray you don't get sick" and all medical expenses are out of pocket.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

No program promotes sloth. One of the most ridiculous statements to have been written in a HT thread.

Oh, for the good old days of debtors' prisons, flogging and public humiliation . . .

The amount of bashing the poor in this thread should raise the number to 135.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"working households"

Thanks, Jodi for pointing out that just 9% of those who get benefits don't work. My clients fall into the working households category, 18% of the total. They work just enough to max their benefits. They could make more money but choose not to do so because they know it would reduce their benefits.

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. My goal was for people to see why people don't look for full time work because they can do better working part time at a minimum wage job and receive entitlements/benefits.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

You're looking at it from the opposite perspective of why this is necessary... read David's post for more insight.

All it takes is a few dollars too many and you no longer qualify for benefits that are exceedingly necessary... like medical care for your children!

And just how do you think all these people can make up what it costs to get the same required dollar amounts? The answer is... they can't.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

They can't because the system is set up to keep them in it. There are no rewards for getting out. Many would be able to make up the difference if they choose to work full time.

I am using my clients as real life examples of how the system keeps people dependent on the system. One person had a good job and was laid off when the company closed. That person decided not to pursue full time work at a job similar to his prior job because he didn't want to have to go to work every day. He is now working as a dealer exchange driver at $10 an hour but his lifestyle hasn't changed. Another has been offered full time employment at a higher wage several times but turns it down even though he would have more money than his part time pay plus entitlements. He doesn't want to have to move so he stays with the part time work plus entitlements. I have many clients who walk in with 10 or 15 W-2s every year. Many of these jobs are good paying jobs. When I ask, they say they really didn't want to work but were doing so they could continue getting their benefits that were tied to working. I have other clients who only work four or five months a year and earn just enough to max their benefits.

I agree that there people who simply can't make enough to make up the loss in benefits. I think the entitlement programs need to be changed so that the cut off happens more gradually to encourage people to work more.

I also doubt that you will ever agree that there are many who could easily work enough to support themselves but game the system. Eliminating those would free up more money that could be used to help the people who truly deserve it.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

They work just enough to max their benefits.

and yet the Farm supplements are not vilified for doing the same? The lest of thee should get less than the ones with the most?

How about the Federal Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies? The benefit they contribute vs human contribution of cooking, severing and cleaning are vilified as not doing all they can do. Tisk, Tisk shame on those low life people.

Should we require the Oil and Big Farms get the same Tisk, Tisk, cut your funds? We have had enough and do not have enough money to support your life style as you wish from the American Tax dollar.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

If they CHOOSE to work full time? Where are all these full time jobs offering benefits that would equal the kind public assistance allows?

I've been following along, and I can clearly see that a majority of full time manufacturing positions have been moved to other countries in the name of corporate profit. These jobs people keep insisting we obtain are no longer there in any great numbers.

The average worker with a high school diploma and moderate intelligence and skill too often can't find a job that pays enough and offers health insurance... there are tons of temp and part time jobs out there, but not with any benefits... and it's really hard to mesh 2 or 3 of those together into a 40 hour schedule. Have you tried it?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

I have many clients who work multiple jobs. I've done it myself. My current job is only full time during tax season. Off season, it is part time. In the past, I have supplemented it with another job. The other person in my office works two jobs.

This post was edited by jlhug on Tue, Sep 24, 13 at 13:28


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Why doesn't the govt spend resources to train some of the recipients in higher paying fields and then gradually lower their benefits over time?

For example, there is a need for HVAC technicians. Once trained, that is a decent paying field. Some of the folks who might have been part of the manufacturing industry but lost out when jobs moved to China might be able to fill a role like that.

Another need out there with a lack of trained employees is for large machine operators, e.g, caterpillar type machinery. May not be for everyone, once trained, it pays really decently.

Why can't the govt spend more on retraining and making those opportunities available? Those are living wages, not fast food wages.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"Why can't the govt spend more on retraining and making those opportunities available?"

Why, the government does have a department for that. Check out the link.

Here is a link that might be useful: Job Training, Courtesy of Uncle Sam & Co.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

I am using my clients as real life examples of how the system keeps people dependent on the system.

If you know of people (your own clients?) who are scamming the system and breaking the law, you should report them. The system is not the problem, it is those who seek to take unfair advantage of it. Let's not let them abuse the system and spoil it for others including those who desperately need assistance.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Heri, they aren't doing anything illegal to the best of my knowledge. There is no requirement for them to work full time or more than they choose. They are smart enough to have figured out how to legally maximize their benefits.

It is great to offer education and some will take advantage of it. But many more won't.

Edited to add: If I get a even a wiff of illegal activities, they are no longer my clients.

This post was edited by jlhug on Wed, Sep 25, 13 at 6:49


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Edited to move post to another thread

This post was edited by chase on Wed, Sep 25, 13 at 8:33


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Well, we still need a raise in the minimum wage... which hasn't even come close to keeping any kind of pace with cost of living. This, in itself, is often very prohibitive to living without some kind of assistance.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Can we talk about the $5,000,000,000 a year given to farmers as direct and counter-cyclical payments?

Thats the program where if you own a qualified farm, the tax payers just send you a check. Every year.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Hey! We've IDENTIFIED waste at the top and at the bottom. What can we DO about it?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

We can VOTE for those representatives who will do something about it. We can write to our representatives, letting them know exactly how we feel about such waste in subsidy... or, we can join groups or organizations that can lobby or protest...

We do have a voice... it's just drowned out by greed and money...


 o
RE: Chicago violence

So we raise the minimum wage? Median income has dropped from 50,600 in 1989 to 50,400 in 2013. Cost of goods has steadily gone up. Cost of goods will go up as minimum wage goes up...so we do away with the middle class all together? Then who is going to pay the taxes?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

They'll just have to turn on the rich.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"They'll just have to turn on the rich."

Define "rich."


 o
RE: Chicago violence

We've gone that route here before, elvis. The threshold isn't clearly defined - depends on context and who's defining the context. Annual income? Accumulated wealth? And then there are always the "I got my _______ who could ask for anything more" people. So it remains a mystery.

If the lower and middle classes disappear, count on the fact that someone will define the "rich" and make them a little less so.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"If the lower and middle classes disappear, count on the fact that someone will define the "rich" and make them a little less so."

If the "lower & middle classes" disappear, you (for example) might well be among those defined by "someone" as rich, and to be made "a little less so."

I get it, believe me.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

and that's the scary part isn't it. when some sloven gets to define rich, which means anyone with more than him. I mean, whats a million bucks today, not a heck of a lot.
But the lower and middle class aren't going away, there will be adjustments in class as there always has been but they aren't gonna disappear.We should worry more about the monied class going away. Who the heck ya gonna work for then.

Heck we are all subsidized when we shop for food and othjer goods, subsidies keep the economy rolling more than printing worthless dollars as weve been dong for several years now.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"•Posted by nancy_in_venice_ca SS24 z10 CA (My Page) on
Tue, Sep 24, 13 at 11:33

No program promotes sloth. One of the most ridiculous statements to have been written in a HT thread. "

To insist there are - maybe - only a few scammers, is more than ridiculous.

In fact, I suspect we have more than a few sloth/scammers right here in our HT midst. I'd bet jodi's farm on it.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Once again, let me point out that you can't bet something that doesn't belong to you. And in this case, it doesn't even belong to me... so it sort of muddies your premise.

I never bet unless it's sure thing... but I might be convinced to bet a little that the "scammers" are more of the subsidized industry type than the public assistance type...


 o
RE: Chicago violence

It's a joke. Lighten up.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Jodi, your grace in the face of such a rude and judgmental posting is to commended.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

It's become so commonplace to bust on the poor, Chase, that it doesn't even bear getting all upset over it. If someone wants to thinks that the blame for poverty goes to the poverty stricken, or that all social issues begin in single parent homes of particular racial makeup, so be it... it doesn't add to the discussion in any way, nor does it help or do justice to reality. But most of us know that, already. :-)


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Jodi, your grace in the face of such a rude and judgmental posting is to commended.

Agreed. And even more so since this is at least the 2nd time October has made the same comment. And people here say only liberals are mean spirited. I guess they just look the other way when comments like this are made.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

I guess, Jill, that there are those who think they can actually poke holes in the thicker skin of reality, or something. What does one say to those types? Nothing... it's not a worthy endeavor. ;-)


 o
RE: Chicago violence

To insist there are - maybe - only a few scammers . . .

I try to live in the reality-based world, not in a paranoid environment of my own making -- taking anecdotal evidence and extrapolating into a "they're all crooks and they're coming to get us" mentality.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

ff said:

We should worry more about the monied class going away. Who the heck ya gonna work for then.

Walmart.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Which part is rude and which is judgemental?

a) saying there are probably scammers here

b) saying I'd bet jodi's farm on it


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Why wouldn't you bet something that belongs to you? Why is it necessary to drag me into it?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

This is what you posted

"In fact, I suspect we have more than a few sloth/scammers right here in our HT midst. I'd bet jodi's farm on it."

Followed by

"It's a joke. Lighten up."

Why the need to say it was a joke?

It was neither funny nor called for.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Well, chase, I'm truly sorry you don't see the humor.

Jodi - Ever heard the old saying "bet the farm"? Well, you have mentioned "your farm", or "a farm" several times.

Shouldn't have to explain this, really, but . . .

I stand by my accusation though.

You people can't lower the bar any further than you have for the poor. They are slithering around on their bellies to stay under it.

How do you feel when everyone has low expectations of you? Makes you feel real good, doesn't it?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"Jodi - Ever heard the old saying "bet the farm"? Well, you have mentioned "your farm", or "a farm" several times."

That is not what you meant.

"Well, chase, I'm truly sorry you don't see the humor."

There was no humor in it.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Ok Frank. Please, tell me what I meant.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Why? Chase already did.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

You're gonna have to be more specific frank.

Cause I just don't see where chase tells me what I meant.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"In fact, I suspect we have more than a few sloth/scammers right here in our HT midst. I'd bet jodi's farm on it."

Oh, I wonder what you meant.

You are about as subtle as a freight train.

This post was edited by frank_il on Sat, Sep 28, 13 at 20:10


 o
RE: Chicago violence

So Frank. If you are interpreting the above quote to mean that October implied that Jodi's farm is illicit in some way, what are you saying about that? You sound confrontational.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Someone put this out of it's misery. In the future, perhaps October could bet his own ranch or the ranch or a bottle of ranch dressing or...


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Good job, Duluth. Oftentimes an awkwardly put together statement is just that.

I think Frank was looking for a sinister meaning there.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"Good job, Duluth. Oftentimes an awkwardly put together statement is just that.
I think Frank was looking for a sinister meaning there."

Well, apparently October was a little more subtle than I gave her credit. I suppose some people (say a Wisconsinite) are just a little too naive to see what is plainly there. I guess they do not take into account past postings when determining a meaning to a post.

Who knew?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Placed into complete context, I have no choice but to lean toward Frank's musings... innocence is not a word I would attach when overall context is considered...


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"Placed into complete context, I have no choice but to lean toward Frank's musings... innocence is not a word I would attach when overall context is considered..."

Good for you, Jodi. Always look for the worst in people. No choice. Ah, that's right; you're one of them thar victims. Meh.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Elvis, what is implied is not that Jodi's farm is illicit......she doesn't even own a farm! What October said was :

"In fact, I suspect we have more than a few sloth/scammers right here in our HT midst. I'd bet jodi's farm on it."

The implication is that Jodi , along with others who post here, are in the sloth/scammer category. October can deny it as long as she wishes but that is what she said.

So October...if not Jodi who are those here on HT that you suspect of being slothful or a scammer ?

Edited to add....

I often don't agree with Jodi 's perspective on things but I just felt this was such a personal low blow I needed to speak up. I'll say no more.
.

This post was edited by chase on Sun, Sep 29, 13 at 13:14


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Thanks, Chase... I've come to the conclusion that it's not always worth the time or effort to truly address some of the floor level junk thrown around in here... just step over it and consider the source(s).


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Sorry. But you cannot convince me that in three or four generations of baby mamas that none of them could go on to college or job training (all offered free for the taking) or just plain work their way up in a job.

another poster added:

I've pointed this out before.

The clear implication is that blacks are inherently lazy, unworthy, violent and undeserving or that they should be left to their own devices without government assistance. That's not KKK racism but its maybe one or two notches down from it.

Article is same old same old putting the blame on jobs and schools.

Oh sure, what in the world do jobs and education have to do with young black men feeling a sense of hopelessness in a dilapidated ghetto neighborhood, hanging out on street corners and doing drugs instead of working?
There is something beyond racial attitudes that I sense from some who rail against government programs that assist the poor, the minorities and the unfortunate. It is a brand of selfishness that I find offensive.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Thank you, Heri, for telling the truth... for telling it like it is. Poor policy, self interest, prejudices, and avarice have helped to forge the problems we too often see "discussed" here... though discussed isn't really the word, is it?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

"Thank you, Heri, for telling the truth... for "

No, it's not the truth. Doesn't matter how many times you two post the stuff, still not true.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

More October 17 baloney,
"Chicago violence"?
You do a disservice to our great City and metropolitan area.
If you don't like it here, move down South.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

Chicago might have quite the checkered past in crooked politics, but it's certainly not the only city to suffer from urban blight and all that goes with!

Per capita, and by comparison, Chicago doesn't have that high of a murder rate... so... why someone would want to expend time and energy to bash this particular city in continual fashion is a complete mystery.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

why someone would want to expend time and energy to bash this particular city in continual fashion is a complete mystery

Really? Not a mystery to me at all. This particular poster lives in/around this city and doesn't like the racial makeup of the city, and blames everything wrong on that. Pretty clear from their continual posts about the subject.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

It is a recurring theme, Jill...


 o
RE: Chicago violence

In spite of everything, the city does have a good style of pizza.

And two more posts, this thread will be full.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

NOW its two more posts.


 o
RE: Chicago violence

I do like a good pizza!

Are we full yet? Hahahahaha...get it?


 o
RE: Chicago violence

OK, not quite full yet...

I would like to get to a Cubs game at Wrigley Field.

Hoping next summer that becomes a reality.

OK, now we should be full. I hope.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: This thread has reached the upper limit for the number follow-ups allowed (150). If you would like to continue this discussion, please begin a new thread using the form on the main forum page.


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here