Jared Allen rips Detroit

[GG]

i hope you're not suggesting we replace one government program with another in legislating how people should live, is it? and why not take it one step further, anyone applying for a job be subject to drug-testing since drugs, in fact, are illegal. because, after all, taking away one person's rights shouldn't prevent us from taking away another's, because liberty and freedom are mere catch-phrases used to fulfill the void of what's left of a national myth.

 

and i like the logic of your volunteer suggesting. since these people have no money, except that what the government provides them, why not take away the opportunity to do any work and the chance to advance themselves by making them full-time volunteers. this way, we can keep them under thumb for eternity.

 

jw

 

As opposed to having them hang at home watching TV?

 

See, we can match strawman for strawman.

[Delete This Account]

You start with this

 

 

 

and immediately follow with this

 

 

 

And then you wonder why everyone has you pegged as a loony left nut.

 

Since you still value the connection to the commonwealth, you may appreciate this opinion from a rightist rag:

 

It's always the moneychangers, eh?

 

[/color]

 

 

You may want to read up on that correlation causation thingy. Which rich guy is saying that the poor are ripping him off?

because no one who is rich is greedy? so greed is ultimately good, well, there goes my value system.

 

as for my ripping off comment, there's context involved that you might have missed. it was pointed at a poster who suggests he doesn't want his money redistributed to the inner cities, to which i guess, he doesn't mind having his tax dollars redistributed to Wall Street, where there are people far more in need.

 

jw

 

As opposed to having them hang at home watching TV?

 

See, we can match strawman for strawman.

hey, i point out what i perceive to be flaws in LABillz suggestions, and you come back with that? i guess there is a class system developing in this nation because equal suddenly sounds like exceptions. or has that been the dirty secret all along?

 

jw

Edited January 13, 2012 by john wawrow

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

i hope you're not suggesting we replace one government program with another in legislating how people should live, is it? and why not take it one step further, anyone applying for a job be subject to drug-testing since drugs, in fact, are illegal. because, after all, taking away one person's rights shouldn't prevent us from taking away another's, because liberty and freedom are mere catch-phrases used to fulfill the void of what's left of a national myth.

 

and i like the logic of your volunteer suggesting. since these people have no money, except that what the government provides them, why not take away the opportunity to do any work and the chance to advance themselves by making them full-time volunteers. this way, we can keep them under thumb for eternity.

 

jw

 

I am all for individual freedom and if a consenting adult wants to smoke pot in their house who am I to have a problem with it.

 

However.....

 

If someone is on government assistance then 100% they should be drug tested. If they can afford drugs they dont need my tax dollars. And if they are on drugs it will be difficult for them to gain employment as a majority of employers do drug test new hires.

 

And if they are benefiting from a large amount of "govint monies" they should have to contribute something back in return. It would potentially lead to job experience training and employment all while earning their government assistance.

 

It would be amazing to see how quickly people would look for private work if

They knew their free ride on welfare was coming to an end and they were going to be required to volunteer time in an organization or something along those lines.

 

These programs would begin to reverse the entitlement mentality slowly reversing the cycle and empowering people to have more control and independence in their lives. It can be attacked as insensitive which I'm sure it will be but its an honest workable toughlove solution to a problem no one is willing to honestly confront

[GG]

because no one who is rich is greedy?

 

Uhm, no. Just because somebody makes a salary that's above a sainted amount makes them greedy? What if they happened to invent a revolutionary product, and the masses buy it like hotcakes does that make him greedy? The fact that you choose to spend nights on the internet and pay your ISP $40/month, does that make your ISP owner greedy?

 

This has to be the most childish take on enterprise that I've heard in a long time. Your envy trumps the greed card every time. No one should be ashamed of attaining success and making a comfortable living to the standards they choose. Who made you the arbiter of how much is enough?

 

as for my ripping off comment, there's context involved that you might have missed. it was pointed at a poster who suggests he doesn't want his money redistributed to the inner cities, to which i guess, he doesn't mind having his tax dollars redistributed to Wall Street, where there are people far more in need.

 

Hate to be put in a position to defend one of the moron Dave twins, but the biggest difference, if you care to note, is that if he's redistributing tax dollars to Wall Street, he's also getting some benefit in return, like getting a credit card, a mortgage or a car loan. Hard to find a similar benefit to wealth distribution to the disaffected clueless.

jw

 

hey, i point out what i perceive to be flaws in LABillz suggestions, and you come back with that? i guess there is a class system developing in this nation because equal suddenly sounds like exceptions. or has that been the dirty secret all along?

 

jw

 

When hasn't there been a class system in any society in history? What makes America exceptional is that you're not tied to your caste if you're willing to work hard or willing to drop out. Economic mobility goes both ways.

[IDBillzFan]

i hope you're not suggesting we replace one government program with another in legislating how people should live, is it? and why not take it one step further, anyone applying for a job be subject to drug-testing since drugs, in fact, are illegal. because, after all, taking away one person's rights shouldn't prevent us from taking away another's, because liberty and freedom are mere catch-phrases used to fulfill the void of what's left of a national myth.

 

and i like the logic of your volunteer suggesting. since these people have no money, except that what the government provides them, why not take away the opportunity to do any work and the chance to advance themselves by making them full-time volunteers. this way, we can keep them under thumb for eternity.

 

jw

Like I said; you're black and white, all or nothing, on the rocks with a twist of hyperbole. I tried to explain a view as an alternate to yours. I threw in some ideas for still helping while holding people personally accountable.

 

Waste of time.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Like I said; you're black and white, all or nothing, on the rocks with a twist of hyperbole. I tried to explain a view as an alternate to yours. I threw in some ideas for still helping while holding people personally accountable.

 

Waste of time.

Booze.

[DaveinElma]

yes, all inner cities are violent hellholes. this is obtuse. and i'm accused of over-reacting.

you'd rather have your cake and eat it too. keep your money and have the troubles solved as if by magic, when in fact as i've noted the trouble with inner-city poverty is in part because the tax base has been reduced by those wanting to live in the comfort of the suburbs while pooh-poohing what's going on in the city.

 

oh my. how convenient of you.

 

jw

 

Whites didnt leave Detroit merely because they "wanted to live in the comfort of the suburbs". Learn your history. Read about the Detroit riots of 1967.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot

 

Do you realize that black Detroiters had the highest quality of life of all american blacks at the time?

 

By the 1960s, blacks had advanced into many better union and professional jobs. The city had a large and prosperous black middle class; higher-than-normal wages for unskilled black workers because of the auto industry; two black congressmen (half of the black Congressmen at the time); three black judges; two black members on the Detroit Board of Education; a housing commission that was forty percent black; and twelve blacks representing Detroit in the Michigan legislature.[23] Nicholas Hood, the sole black member of the nine-member Detroit Common Council, praised the Cavanagh administration for its willingness to listen to concerns of the inner city. Weeks prior to the riot, Mayor Cavanagh had said that residents did not “need to throw a brick to communicate with City Hall.”[24]

 

Detroit had acquired millions in federal funds through President Johnson’s Great Society programs and invested them almost exclusively into the inner city, where poverty and social problems were concentrated. The Washington Post claimed Detroit’s inner-city schools were undergoing “the country’s leading and most forceful reforms in education.” Housing conditions were not viewed as worse than those of other Northern cities. In 1965, the American Institute of Architects gave Detroit an award for urban redevelopment. The city had mature black neighborhoods such as Conant Gardens. In the early 20th century, waves of new immigrants and migrants had generally settled in areas founded on an ethnic base. As Paul Wrobel writes in Our Way: Family, Parish, and Neighborhood in a Polish-American Community, ethnic communities in Detroit like Poletown, Chaldeantown, Corktown, Mexicantown, and Greektown are ubiquitous.[25] In May 1967, the federal administration ranked housing for blacks in Detroit above that of Philadelphia, New York City, Chicago, and Cleveland.

 

So forgive me for not wanting to demonize the people who saw their city burned to the ground and said "Thats it, I'm gone". You're characterization this as snobbery or racism is very disingenuous.

[Juror#8]

A bit of a touchy subjet Eh?

 

See here's the problem...you feel that if someone doesn't identify as a left leaning liberal they must be a smug cold hearted elitist because they don't think the same as you and only bleeding hearts are capable of such emotions.

 

I am very compassionate for others. I want people to be able to support themselves and have a sense of self worth and self respect with family support and a brighter future. Living in a continous welfare cycle will not accomplish that.

 

You and your anger are misdirected.

 

Apropos of the bolded point above, do you have any data concerning who remains in a continuous welfare cycle?

 

I know that you're not making an assertion with respect to numbers but I'd be interested to know if you have any metrics or are simply relying on anecdotal data.

[Juror#8]

Neither do handouts without full accountability. Which comes back to a truth that many conservatives believe (to paraphrase Dennis Miller): We are always happy to help the helpless (which is why conservatives give more to charities than, you know, the bleeding hearts). The problem is being forced to help the clueless. You will undoubtedly find some grey area between the helpless and clueless, but it's not near as grey as you would think if you just set some very simple guidelines to receive aid. I don't have all the answers, but I think we can all agree on a few.

 

For example, having more children should not increase the amount of money you get from the government. Anyone receiving state or federal funds must test clean of drugs. They must turn in itemized receipts for everything they purchased, easily done with a system that verifies and prints the EBT number on the receipt. They should be put to work in various volunteer locations; soup kitchens, pet shelters, libraries, schools. There are plenty of federal and state needs for volunteers. Let's fill those needs with people who can't find work.Won't that help give them a sense of worth and self respect?

 

And these are nothing more than simple, common sense suggestions. The country gives you help, you give help and accountability in return.

 

But no. We must not question those in need. We must give them what they need, and not question why they need it, and not hold them accountable. Surely if we keep giving them unlimited support without asking questions, they'll all get on their feet one day, right? Right?

 

Look at this secularly, the numbers lean left.

 

Secondly, the only way that I know that this study has been performed is on a "red state" and "blue state" comparison. That's somewhat unscientific.

 

Personally I think that conservatives are equally as compassionate as liberals. Liberals who say that conservatives are heartless are stupid. Conservatives who say that they give more to charity are misleading.

 

Just trying to square that a bit.

[Delete This Account]

Like I said; you're black and white, all or nothing, on the rocks with a twist of hyperbole. I tried to explain a view as an alternate to yours. I threw in some ideas for still helping while holding people personally accountable.

 

Waste of time.

right. when you make a point, i should accept it as fact and not quibble. and when i make a point, it's open for interpretation and name-calling. got it.

 

jw

 

Uhm, no. Just because somebody makes a salary that's above a sainted amount makes them greedy? What if they happened to invent a revolutionary product, and the masses buy it like hotcakes does that make him greedy? The fact that you choose to spend nights on the internet and pay your ISP $40/month, does that make your ISP owner greedy?

 

This has to be the most childish take on enterprise that I've heard in a long time. Your envy trumps the greed card every time. No one should be ashamed of attaining success and making a comfortable living to the standards they choose. Who made you the arbiter of how much is enough?

 

 

 

Hate to be put in a position to defend one of the moron Dave twins, but the biggest difference, if you care to note, is that if he's redistributing tax dollars to Wall Street, he's also getting some benefit in return, like getting a credit card, a mortgage or a car loan. Hard to find a similar benefit to wealth distribution to the disaffected clueless.

 

 

 

When hasn't there been a class system in any society in history? What makes America exceptional is that you're not tied to your caste if you're willing to work hard or willing to drop out. Economic mobility goes both ways.

i don't know if i've ever placed a dollar amount on greed. and i think i've tried to explain myself on whom i consider greedheads: be corporations taking out life-insurance policies on employees, scam artists preying on the weak and elderly, the wall street shysters who turned the housing market into a ponzi scheme.

as for this stuff about getting money in return from Wall Street, why was it that it was more difficult to get a loan immediately following the stimulus?

 

i don't think we'll ever agree.

 

jw

Edited January 13, 2012 by john wawrow

[GG]

Look at this secularly, the numbers lean left.

 

You mean if you throw out charitable religious wackos, liberals give more? Is that your statistical inference?

 

 

 

Secondly, the only way that I know that this study has been performed is on a "red state" and "blue state" comparison. That's somewhat unscientific.

 

 

If you're referring to Brooks' study, red/blue state data sets were among the various data sets. He also parsed incomes.

Read up on the data

[Juror#8]

You mean if you throw out charitable religious wackos individuals giving to their churches (amongst whom Juror#8 is one), liberals give more? Is that your statistical inference?

 

Yes, as amended. If you do a simple Google search, you'll find the same data in support.

 

Not sure how sound the science is, but I've read it enough, and from enough divergent sources, to believe that there is merit to it.

 

I really do feel that there is a fundamental difference between giving to an organization that you have fellowship with and consider yourself amongst the community, and giving to organizations with whom you have absolutely no affiliation and expect absolutely no social contact with subsequently.

 

Big difference.

 

Both are awesome and serve a wonderful purpose. I think that one just evidences a greater sincerity because of the lack of convenience and affiliation.

 

This is from someone who has not donated to private charities.

 

(awaiting the "comfortability" point - and how some people feel more comfortable giving money to familiar faces)

 

And with that in mind, anonymous giving is going to be difficult to account for. I can't imagine that church-orientated charitable donations have as much anonymous giving than does unrelated-type donations just because of their respective contexts.

 

A lot of assumptions here...but I think that they're grounded in common sense.

 

If you're referring to Brooks' study, red/blue state data sets were among the various data sets. He also parsed incomes.

Read up on the data

 

I was careful to say that I wasn't aware of another study. And I wasn't aware of the "Brooks study." I'm definitely interested in reading this though.

 

Apologies for getting off topic. Just making a quick point. Don't want to turn this nuanced point into a political schit storm.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Juror#8

[Adam]

I have no problem with what he said- or what Willis MaGahee said, that had everyone in Buffalo up in arms, either

[Delete This Account]

Whites didnt leave Detroit merely because they "wanted to live in the comfort of the suburbs". Learn your history. Read about the Detroit riots of 1967.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot

 

Do you realize that black Detroiters had the highest quality of life of all american blacks at the time?

 

 

 

So forgive me for not wanting to demonize the people who saw their city burned to the ground and said "Thats it, I'm gone". You're characterization this as snobbery or racism is very disingenuous.

the push to the suburbs had already begun, tracing it well back to Levittown. and it was no different in Detroit.

of course the riots furthered the flight, but it had begun well before that.

since there were no riots in Buffalo, what then do you consider the cause here?

 

jw

[GG]

Yes, as amended. If you do a simple Google search, you'll find the same data in support.

 

Not sure how sound the science is, but I've read it enough, and from enough divergent sources, to believe that there is merit to it.

 

 

That's like saying, if you ignore the 49 points Patriots scored in the last three quarters, Bills won 21-0.

[DaveinElma]

the push to the suburbs had already begun, tracing it well back to Levittown. and it was no different in Detroit.

of course the riots furthered the flight, but it had begun well before that.

since there were no riots in Buffalo, what then do you consider the cause here?

 

jw

 

Increased violent crime and decreasing quality of schools.

[GG]

Both of you are wrong.

 

Suburbanization evolved by the need for the burgeoning post war middle class to find better places to live to raise baby boomers. The cities' infrastructure could not accommodate the population growth and enterprising builders stepped in to meet the demand. This also coincided with the rise of the car culture in the US.

 

To say that people fled the cities to avoid crime in the '50s & 60s is as idiotic as saying that people abandoned their souls by moving to the suburbs.

[DaveinElma]

Both of you are wrong.

 

Suburbanization evolved by the need for the burgeoning post war middle class to find better places to live to raise baby boomers. The cities' infrastructure could not accommodate the population growth and enterprising builders stepped in to meet the demand. This also coincided with the rise of the car culture in the US.

 

To say that people fled the cities to avoid crime in the '50s & 60s is as idiotic as saying that people abandoned their souls by moving to the suburbs.

 

We're not talking about suburbanization-we're talking about white flight.

[Delete This Account]

Both of you are wrong.

 

Suburbanization evolved by the need for the burgeoning post war middle class to find better places to live to raise baby boomers. The cities' infrastructure could not accommodate the population growth and enterprising builders stepped in to meet the demand. This also coincided with the rise of the car culture in the US.

 

To say that people fled the cities to avoid crime in the '50s & 60s is as idiotic as saying that people abandoned their souls by moving to the suburbs.

but how does that explain how soul-less a suburban strip mall might be ... (i keed, i keed).

 

jw

Edited January 13, 2012 by john wawrow

[DC Tom]

We're not talking about suburbanization-we're talking about white flight.

 

No, you're talking about "white flight," you racist prick. They're talking about suburbanization.

 

but how does that explain how soul-less a suburban strip mall might be ... (i keed, i keed).

 

jw

 

That's coincidence. Soullessness moves in later with Walmart.