Baltimore: The Next Ferguson? (1 Viewer)

[FlapJacks]

Don Lemon on CNN last night was doing all

he could to find some evidence of police

misconduct in the live broadcast. The guy

CNN is talking about was the guy in all black

who earlier was part of the group that was throwing

stuff at the police. He walked up and was challenging

the media and this humvee basically rolled up

And the guy was taken into custody peacefully.

What was funny was funny was Lemon saying

"Look they almost ran down that guy." And the

reporter on the scene corrected him and said

They did not almost run him down. They took

him in custody without incident.

That's dumb...they aren't going to do that when the FBI and everybody else is watching....that's why that had the stand down on Monday....too many eyes were watching....

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Good move here. I'd like to see other states follow...

Ohio to set up board to police its police

Republican Gov. John Kasich issued an executive order Wednesday to create a new board that will create new standards for law enforcement in Ohio.

The creation of the board, which will set rules that law enforcement agencies must follow on use of deadly force, among other things, is a move to heal the discord between the state's police officers and the communities they serve.

Kasich moved swiftly with the plan — most of which he said can be implemented by executive order — after a Wednesday meeting with his Ohio Task Force on Community-Police Relations. The recommendations by the task force came after four months of study.

"The governor of this state is not going to look the other way," he said. "We are going to heal our communities…it is not acceptable to have these divisions between our friends in the African-American community and law enforcement."

Tensions between police and Ohioans have been high after the August 2014 shooting death of 22-year-old John Crawford in Dayton and the November shooting death of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland. Crawford and Rice were both African-American.

The 12-member board will first create standards for use of deadly force, as well as hiring and recruiting; six members will be law enforcement, six members will be from the community.

After the board is formed, it will have 90 days to submit its suggested standards.

"We will create the first statewide standards on a number of these things," Kasich said. "We don't want people in the streets, burning buildings and hating each other."

Other proposals that cannot be passed via executive order, but rather approved by the Ohio General Assembly, include a law banning police officers from using racial profiling and providing funding for body cameras.

While "this task force in and of itself cannot solve every single problem," former state Sen. Nina Turner, who is part of the board, said, it can "restore the faith of the community."

 

[The_Man]

Look at all these thugs rioting in Baltimore right now:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDynBuPUkAASV5S.jpg:large

If you look closely, you'll see the crowd marching from the train station to City Hall extends for blocks.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Maryland has one of the most generous welfare systems in the country. A mother of two participating in the state’s seven welfare programs can receive $35,000. Yet nearly one-quarter of Baltimore’s residents live in poverty, up from 10% in 1960.

The federal poverty level for a family of 3 is $20,090. If that mother of two can get $35,000 in welfare, why is she living in poverty?

For the record, $32,570 is the poverty level for a family of 6 - so according to your math, anyone in a family of fewer than 7 people shouldn't be in poverty since there's $35,000 just sitting there waiting for them.

Would like to see a link to the bolded.

 

[tdoss]

now we're talking root cause...although I still think a lot of the root cause is jobs based.

People who believe they have a legitimate economic future, don't resort to rioting and a life of crime.

Who's job is it to instill that belief?

See, I think this gets to the fundamental disconnect in this thread and in many others- the difference between individual accountability and disparities in success (however you want to measure it) across large groups of people.

Lots of people preach individual accountability. It's totally reasonable to reject a particular person or small group of people if they blame their lot in life on discrimination, be it historic or present-day. We all deal with adversity of some kind or another, it's never an excuse for your own personal lot in life. I'm with everyone on that.

However, when you shift the conversation to a macro scale, to disparities in data across large numbers of people, the "individual accountability" stuff is basically useless. When 300 million people start a long race and 30 million of them are carrying 10 pound weights in each hand, they will, on average, finish with slower times than the other 270 million. And it doesn't matter how long you make the race, or even if you let them ditch the weights halfway through the race. When the sample size is that large, that handicap is going to cost them, on average. You can't blame the disparities in the finishing times between the groups overall on individual accountability or something along those lines. That's nonsense. No group of bootstrap-pullers is going to be able to overcome that impediment on average. In individual cases, sure. But not on average.

There's lots of comments about how other minorities have overcome relatively difficult starts in this country to find success. But the thing is, they haven't. Not relative to white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males who form the baseline for success. Why haven't Polish immigrants been as successful as those WASP men? Or Southeast Asian immigrants? Or any other ethnic minority? Every minority, looked at in the aggregate is a failure relative to WASP males in America. Why?

Because they're all starting the race carrying various weights for various lengths of time, that's why. And nobody has carried more weight for longer than blacks. So of course they're going to finish the "race" with slower "times," on average, than the rest of the population. Just as Italian-Americans are going to finish the "race" with slower "times," on average, than WASPs.

That doesn't mean you can't push for more individual and community accountability. Those things are fine. But they're never ever going to change the reality of the situation. Not for blacks, not for Hispanics, not for ugly people, not for any population that starts that race with an impediment.

Let's say that everyone agrees with this. Now what? How do we (society) fix the problem, starting from here?

Widespread acknowledgement would be a good start. That's why I think that article I posted is so important, despite its length. I'm a fairly left-leaning guy who studied history and political science and has an interest in social policy, and (to keep my analogy going) I had absolutely no idea how heavy the weights were that blacks in America had been carrying, or how long they'd been carrying them. I thought, like many people, that their problems were just a vestige of slavery and to a lesser extent the Jim Crow era. That stuff is true obviously, but there's a lot more than that. I'd never heard of redlining before I read about it. I'm guessing many other people haven't either. But you really can't speak on the subject of race in America without understanding it, how recently it was widespread and accepted, and the fact that it's still going on in some form today.

OK. Let's say everyone acknowledges it. Now what?

Beats me, but it would be a great first step and would make the dialogue a lot more productive.

Also I think everyone acknowledging it would actually solve some problems by itself. Police attitudes towards poor black neighborhoods might change if they knew more about why and how those people ended up there. Some of the frustration and anger we see in the black community might dissipate if they saw that outsiders had a better grasp of the hurdles they face. We'd all be on closer lookout for things like discriminatory and predatory lending practices. And probably some other stuff I can't think of right now because I'm tired of thinking about this stuff.

I don't mean to derail this wonderful discourse but are we to believe that the Baltimore PD, who is mostly black and governed by a black mayor...has no idea how these people ended up there?Is it not reasonable to presume that they do, in fact, understand what got them there...they just don't find it as an excuse for lawless behavior?

 

[Soonerman]

Trip has some good ideas.

Groovus has some good ideas.

Icon has some good ideas.

Even though I disagree with some of it, ALL of these ideas are worth discussing. But it doesn't matter. None of it is going to happen. As I mentioned in another thread, this country's spending is controlled by white conservative politicians from rural areas, and that's not going to change no matter who is elected President. They're not going to increase spending in black urban areas. They're not going to let up on the drug war, because they perceive that as being "soft on crime"- if anything, they will push for the opposite- no flat tax or any change to the tax structure either.

Why don't some of the rich blue states enact all the liberal ideas floating around to fix all this stuff? White conservatives are irrelevant in California and Illinois for instance.

And yet, LA and Chiraq are hellholes for the poor.

 

[tdoss]

now we're talking root cause...although I still think a lot of the root cause is jobs based.

People who believe they have a legitimate economic future, don't resort to rioting and a life of crime.

Who's job is it to instill that belief?

See, I think this gets to the fundamental disconnect in this thread and in many others- the difference between individual accountability and disparities in success (however you want to measure it) across large groups of people.

Lots of people preach individual accountability. It's totally reasonable to reject a particular person or small group of people if they blame their lot in life on discrimination, be it historic or present-day. We all deal with adversity of some kind or another, it's never an excuse for your own personal lot in life. I'm with everyone on that.

However, when you shift the conversation to a macro scale, to disparities in data across large numbers of people, the "individual accountability" stuff is basically useless. When 300 million people start a long race and 30 million of them are carrying 10 pound weights in each hand, they will, on average, finish with slower times than the other 270 million. And it doesn't matter how long you make the race, or even if you let them ditch the weights halfway through the race. When the sample size is that large, that handicap is going to cost them, on average. You can't blame the disparities in the finishing times between the groups overall on individual accountability or something along those lines. That's nonsense. No group of bootstrap-pullers is going to be able to overcome that impediment on average. In individual cases, sure. But not on average.

There's lots of comments about how other minorities have overcome relatively difficult starts in this country to find success. But the thing is, they haven't. Not relative to white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males who form the baseline for success. Why haven't Polish immigrants been as successful as those WASP men? Or Southeast Asian immigrants? Or any other ethnic minority? Every minority, looked at in the aggregate is a failure relative to WASP males in America. Why?

Because they're all starting the race carrying various weights for various lengths of time, that's why. And nobody has carried more weight for longer than blacks. So of course they're going to finish the "race" with slower "times," on average, than the rest of the population. Just as Italian-Americans are going to finish the "race" with slower "times," on average, than WASPs.

That doesn't mean you can't push for more individual and community accountability. Those things are fine. But they're never ever going to change the reality of the situation. Not for blacks, not for Hispanics, not for ugly people, not for any population that starts that race with an impediment.

Let's say that everyone agrees with this. Now what? How do we (society) fix the problem, starting from here?

Widespread acknowledgement would be a good start. That's why I think that article I posted is so important, despite its length. I'm a fairly left-leaning guy who studied history and political science and has an interest in social policy, and (to keep my analogy going) I had absolutely no idea how heavy the weights were that blacks in America had been carrying, or how long they'd been carrying them. I thought, like many people, that their problems were just a vestige of slavery and to a lesser extent the Jim Crow era. That stuff is true obviously, but there's a lot more than that. I'd never heard of redlining before I read about it. I'm guessing many other people haven't either. But you really can't speak on the subject of race in America without understanding it, how recently it was widespread and accepted, and the fact that it's still going on in some form today.

No matter what race you are, the following holds true:"William Galston, the former advisor to President Clinton, has found that in order to avoid being poor you have to do three things: (1) graduate from high school, (2) wait until getting married to have children, and (3) wait until age 20 to have children. Only 8% of people who do those three things are poor, compared to 79% for those who do not."

You forgot (4) don't be born poor enough that (1), (2) and (3) become exceptionally unlikely.

How does being poor cause you to drop out, have kids and get married?

I could maybe buy dropping out in order to feed the family...but having kids and getting married young?

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Trip has some good ideas.

Groovus has some good ideas.

Icon has some good ideas.

Even though I disagree with some of it, ALL of these ideas are worth discussing. But it doesn't matter. None of it is going to happen. As I mentioned in another thread, this country's spending is controlled by white conservative politicians from rural areas, and that's not going to change no matter who is elected President. They're not going to increase spending in black urban areas. They're not going to let up on the drug war, because they perceive that as being "soft on crime"- if anything, they will push for the opposite- no flat tax or any change to the tax structure either.

Why don't some of the rich blue states enact all the liberal ideas floating around to fix all this stuff? White conservatives are irrelevant in California and Illinois for instance.

And yet, LA and Chiraq are hellholes for the poor.

And Houston, Louisville, and Atlanta aren't? Those states have plenty of influential honkies.

 

[tdoss]

I see a common theme: no work, no hope, and no future. Most people who have jobs and hope of a good future don't riot and they don't become radicalized.

While this is it still leaves us far, far short of a workable solution or approach to improving things.

I mentioned last night that after the Los Angeles riots of 1992, a rather far seeing Republican named Jack Kemp came up with some very novel ideas about how to bring jobs into the inner city. He called for "Enterprise Zones"- tax writeoffs for corporations who wanted to come in and employ people, along with federal subsidies to attract businesses to these areas. A few of these were tried in parts of South Central Los Angeles and a few other cities as well, and there was some real progress being made. But only for a couple of years; then the money dried up. Nobody's really talked about it since.

I actually did see your earlier post on this. Decent idea, but as you say, it didn't end up working out. How can you sustain something like that? More importantly, it can't just be about making jobs available. It has to be about making ownership and equity possible for black people. That's the key. They need to have a much larger stake in the economic welfare of their communities, not just depending on CVS or whoever else to come in and give them jobs.Personally I think decriminalizing drugs would be some help. It wouldn't come close to solving everything, but reducing the number of black males spending their prime years in prison rather than being available to be fathers to their children would be a good thing. Additionally, deincentivizing underground drug dealing as a vocation would be a good thing as well. I'd like to say the cherry on top would be a resulting lessened prison funding burden, allowing tax money to go to more useful purposes, but the prison industry seems to be very firmly entrenched and pretty corrupt, leaving me little hope they'll give up their funding without a serious struggle.

Decriminalization of drugs doesn't make it legal to sell on the street. They'd still be in violation.

 

[Soonerman]

Trip has some good ideas.

Groovus has some good ideas.

Icon has some good ideas.

Even though I disagree with some of it, ALL of these ideas are worth discussing. But it doesn't matter. None of it is going to happen. As I mentioned in another thread, this country's spending is controlled by white conservative politicians from rural areas, and that's not going to change no matter who is elected President. They're not going to increase spending in black urban areas. They're not going to let up on the drug war, because they perceive that as being "soft on crime"- if anything, they will push for the opposite- no flat tax or any change to the tax structure either.

Why don't some of the rich blue states enact all the liberal ideas floating around to fix all this stuff? White conservatives are irrelevant in California and Illinois for instance.

And yet, LA and Chiraq are hellholes for the poor.

And Houston, Louisville, and Atlanta aren't? Those states have plenty of influential honkies.

Those others have also been governed exclusively by progressive Democrats for decades.

Why don't those wonderful progressive ideas work anywhere?

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Trip has some good ideas.

Groovus has some good ideas.

Icon has some good ideas.

Even though I disagree with some of it, ALL of these ideas are worth discussing. But it doesn't matter. None of it is going to happen. As I mentioned in another thread, this country's spending is controlled by white conservative politicians from rural areas, and that's not going to change no matter who is elected President. They're not going to increase spending in black urban areas. They're not going to let up on the drug war, because they perceive that as being "soft on crime"- if anything, they will push for the opposite- no flat tax or any change to the tax structure either.

Why don't some of the rich blue states enact all the liberal ideas floating around to fix all this stuff? White conservatives are irrelevant in California and Illinois for instance.

And yet, LA and Chiraq are hellholes for the poor.

And Houston, Louisville, and Atlanta aren't? Those states have plenty of influential honkies.

Those others have also been governed exclusively by progressive Democrats for decades.

Why don't those wonderful progressive ideas work anywhere?

Texas has been governed by progressive democrats for decades? Link?

 

[Soonerman]

Trip has some good ideas.

Groovus has some good ideas.

Icon has some good ideas.

Even though I disagree with some of it, ALL of these ideas are worth discussing. But it doesn't matter. None of it is going to happen. As I mentioned in another thread, this country's spending is controlled by white conservative politicians from rural areas, and that's not going to change no matter who is elected President. They're not going to increase spending in black urban areas. They're not going to let up on the drug war, because they perceive that as being "soft on crime"- if anything, they will push for the opposite- no flat tax or any change to the tax structure either.

Why don't some of the rich blue states enact all the liberal ideas floating around to fix all this stuff? White conservatives are irrelevant in California and Illinois for instance.

And yet, LA and Chiraq are hellholes for the poor.

And Houston, Louisville, and Atlanta aren't? Those states have plenty of influential honkies.

Those others have also been governed exclusively by progressive Democrats for decades.

Why don't those wonderful progressive ideas work anywhere?

Texas has been governed by progressive democrats for decades? Link?

Houston most likely has. Most big cities have been governed exclusively for years and years by progressive Democrats.

 

[tdoss]

Trip has some good ideas.

Groovus has some good ideas.

Icon has some good ideas.

Even though I disagree with some of it, ALL of these ideas are worth discussing. But it doesn't matter. None of it is going to happen. As I mentioned in another thread, this country's spending is controlled by white conservative politicians from rural areas, and that's not going to change no matter who is elected President. They're not going to increase spending in black urban areas. They're not going to let up on the drug war, because they perceive that as being "soft on crime"- if anything, they will push for the opposite- no flat tax or any change to the tax structure either.

Why don't some of the rich blue states enact all the liberal ideas floating around to fix all this stuff? White conservatives are irrelevant in California and Illinois for instance.And yet, LA and Chiraq are hellholes for the poor.

And Houston, Louisville, and Atlanta aren't? Those states have plenty of influential honkies.

Those others have also been governed exclusively by progressive Democrats for decades.Why don't those wonderful progressive ideas work anywhere?

Texas has been governed by progressive democrats for decades? Link?

Houston most likely has. Most big cities have been governed exclusively for years and years by progressive Democrats.

Austin has GOT to be, right?

Their freaking motto is, "Keep Austin Weird".

 

[Gr00vus]

I see a common theme: no work, no hope, and no future. Most people who have jobs and hope of a good future don't riot and they don't become radicalized.

While this is it still leaves us far, far short of a workable solution or approach to improving things.

I mentioned last night that after the Los Angeles riots of 1992, a rather far seeing Republican named Jack Kemp came up with some very novel ideas about how to bring jobs into the inner city. He called for "Enterprise Zones"- tax writeoffs for corporations who wanted to come in and employ people, along with federal subsidies to attract businesses to these areas. A few of these were tried in parts of South Central Los Angeles and a few other cities as well, and there was some real progress being made. But only for a couple of years; then the money dried up. Nobody's really talked about it since.

I actually did see your earlier post on this. Decent idea, but as you say, it didn't end up working out. How can you sustain something like that? More importantly, it can't just be about making jobs available. It has to be about making ownership and equity possible for black people. That's the key. They need to have a much larger stake in the economic welfare of their communities, not just depending on CVS or whoever else to come in and give them jobs.Personally I think decriminalizing drugs would be some help. It wouldn't come close to solving everything, but reducing the number of black males spending their prime years in prison rather than being available to be fathers to their children would be a good thing. Additionally, deincentivizing underground drug dealing as a vocation would be a good thing as well. I'd like to say the cherry on top would be a resulting lessened prison funding burden, allowing tax money to go to more useful purposes, but the prison industry seems to be very firmly entrenched and pretty corrupt, leaving me little hope they'll give up their funding without a serious struggle.

Decriminalization of drugs doesn't make it legal to sell on the street. They'd still be in violation.

Not my point. If it's legalized, the underground market pretty much evaporates because you can get what you need at the grocery store or whatever. There will be little to no need for the services of current illegal formulation/production/distribution/protection personnel. They'll need to find other vocations (or work in the industry legitimately), ideally something more constructive. I.e. being a pusher won't pay anymore -> huge reduction in criminal drug activities and drug related criminals.

 

[shadrap]

Maryland has one of the most generous welfare systems in the country. A mother of two participating in the state’s seven welfare programs can receive $35,000. Yet nearly one-quarter of Baltimore’s residents live in poverty, up from 10% in 1960.

The federal poverty level for a family of 3 is $20,090. If that mother of two can get $35,000 in welfare, why is she living in poverty?

For the record, $32,570 is the poverty level for a family of 6 - so according to your math, anyone in a family of fewer than 7 people shouldn't be in poverty since there's $35,000 just sitting there waiting for them.

Would like to see a link to the bolded.

As the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner writes in NRO, “Big government has failed Baltimore. If we learn nothing from what just happened — if we simply go back to throwing money at the same tired old programs — it will be just a matter of time until this happens all over again.”

Mr. Tanner cites examples on the failures put in place by decades of big-government liberalism, both in the city of Baltimore and in the state of Maryland.

Maryland has one of the most generous welfare systems in the country. A mother of two participating in the state’s seven welfare programs can receive $35,000. Yet nearly one-quarter of Baltimore’s residents live in poverty, up from 10% in 1960.

Two-thirds of the births in Baltimore are to unmarried mothers and nearly 60% of households are headed by single parents.

Baltimore’s unemployment rate was 8.4% in February. The national average is 5.5%. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, only seven states and the District of Columbia have a worse business climate than does Maryland. The city’s small businesses face the seventh-largest marginal tax rate in the nation.

Baltimore property tax rate is more than twice the rate of most of the rest of the state. Nationally, it has the ninth worst tax burden out of 50 major American cities.

More than a quarter of Baltimore students fail to graduate from high school. Yet Baltimore ranks #4 among major cities in per-pupil expenditures, spending about 52% above the national average.

Baltimore has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, yet is the fifth most deadly city in America.

From Cato Institute-conservative.

Have at his facts.

 

[tdoss]

I see a common theme: no work, no hope, and no future. Most people who have jobs and hope of a good future don't riot and they don't become radicalized.

While this is it still leaves us far, far short of a workable solution or approach to improving things.

I mentioned last night that after the Los Angeles riots of 1992, a rather far seeing Republican named Jack Kemp came up with some very novel ideas about how to bring jobs into the inner city. He called for "Enterprise Zones"- tax writeoffs for corporations who wanted to come in and employ people, along with federal subsidies to attract businesses to these areas. A few of these were tried in parts of South Central Los Angeles and a few other cities as well, and there was some real progress being made. But only for a couple of years; then the money dried up. Nobody's really talked about it since.

I actually did see your earlier post on this. Decent idea, but as you say, it didn't end up working out. How can you sustain something like that? More importantly, it can't just be about making jobs available. It has to be about making ownership and equity possible for black people. That's the key. They need to have a much larger stake in the economic welfare of their communities, not just depending on CVS or whoever else to come in and give them jobs.Personally I think decriminalizing drugs would be some help. It wouldn't come close to solving everything, but reducing the number of black males spending their prime years in prison rather than being available to be fathers to their children would be a good thing. Additionally, deincentivizing underground drug dealing as a vocation would be a good thing as well. I'd like to say the cherry on top would be a resulting lessened prison funding burden, allowing tax money to go to more useful purposes, but the prison industry seems to be very firmly entrenched and pretty corrupt, leaving me little hope they'll give up their funding without a serious struggle.

Decriminalization of drugs doesn't make it legal to sell on the street. They'd still be in violation.

Not my point. If it's legalized, the underground market pretty much evaporates because you can get what you need at the grocery store or whatever. There will be little to no need for the services of current illegal formulation/production/distribution/protection personnel. They'll need to find other vocations (or work in the industry legitimately), ideally something more constructive. I.e. being a pusher won't pay anymore -> huge reduction in criminal drug activities and drug related criminals.

Ah...interesting...makes you wonder.

 

[Gr00vus]

I see a common theme: no work, no hope, and no future. Most people who have jobs and hope of a good future don't riot and they don't become radicalized.

While this is it still leaves us far, far short of a workable solution or approach to improving things.

I mentioned last night that after the Los Angeles riots of 1992, a rather far seeing Republican named Jack Kemp came up with some very novel ideas about how to bring jobs into the inner city. He called for "Enterprise Zones"- tax writeoffs for corporations who wanted to come in and employ people, along with federal subsidies to attract businesses to these areas. A few of these were tried in parts of South Central Los Angeles and a few other cities as well, and there was some real progress being made. But only for a couple of years; then the money dried up. Nobody's really talked about it since.

I actually did see your earlier post on this. Decent idea, but as you say, it didn't end up working out. How can you sustain something like that? More importantly, it can't just be about making jobs available. It has to be about making ownership and equity possible for black people. That's the key. They need to have a much larger stake in the economic welfare of their communities, not just depending on CVS or whoever else to come in and give them jobs.Personally I think decriminalizing drugs would be some help. It wouldn't come close to solving everything, but reducing the number of black males spending their prime years in prison rather than being available to be fathers to their children would be a good thing. Additionally, deincentivizing underground drug dealing as a vocation would be a good thing as well. I'd like to say the cherry on top would be a resulting lessened prison funding burden, allowing tax money to go to more useful purposes, but the prison industry seems to be very firmly entrenched and pretty corrupt, leaving me little hope they'll give up their funding without a serious struggle.

Decriminalization of drugs doesn't make it legal to sell on the street. They'd still be in violation.

Not my point. If it's legalized, the underground market pretty much evaporates because you can get what you need at the grocery store or whatever. There will be little to no need for the services of current illegal formulation/production/distribution/protection personnel. They'll need to find other vocations (or work in the industry legitimately), ideally something more constructive. I.e. being a pusher won't pay anymore -> huge reduction in criminal drug activities and drug related criminals.

Ah...interesting...makes you wonder.

Yes. The flaw in my proposition is - what do all the people currently working in the illegal drug industry do once those "jobs" are no longer of value? I doubt they'll be the ones running/working in the now legitimate recreational drug companies. What jobs do they move into? Will they all be happy to be relegated to making a real go of it in their Los Pollos Hermanos front businesses?

 

[jonessed]

Maryland has one of the most generous welfare systems in the country. A mother of two participating in the states seven welfare programs can receive $35,000. Yet nearly one-quarter of Baltimores residents live in poverty, up from 10% in 1960.

The federal poverty level for a family of 3 is $20,090. If that mother of two can get $35,000 in welfare, why is she living in poverty?

For the record, $32,570 is the poverty level for a family of 6 - so according to your math, anyone in a family of fewer than 7 people shouldn't be in poverty since there's $35,000 just sitting there waiting for them.

Would like to see a link to the bolded.

It doesn't all count as income.

 

[Mark Davis]

now we're talking root cause...although I still think a lot of the root cause is jobs based.

People who believe they have a legitimate economic future, don't resort to rioting and a life of crime.

Who's job is it to instill that belief?

See, I think this gets to the fundamental disconnect in this thread and in many others- the difference between individual accountability and disparities in success (however you want to measure it) across large groups of people.

Lots of people preach individual accountability. It's totally reasonable to reject a particular person or small group of people if they blame their lot in life on discrimination, be it historic or present-day. We all deal with adversity of some kind or another, it's never an excuse for your own personal lot in life. I'm with everyone on that.

However, when you shift the conversation to a macro scale, to disparities in data across large numbers of people, the "individual accountability" stuff is basically useless. When 300 million people start a long race and 30 million of them are carrying 10 pound weights in each hand, they will, on average, finish with slower times than the other 270 million. And it doesn't matter how long you make the race, or even if you let them ditch the weights halfway through the race. When the sample size is that large, that handicap is going to cost them, on average. You can't blame the disparities in the finishing times between the groups overall on individual accountability or something along those lines. That's nonsense. No group of bootstrap-pullers is going to be able to overcome that impediment on average. In individual cases, sure. But not on average.

There's lots of comments about how other minorities have overcome relatively difficult starts in this country to find success. But the thing is, they haven't. Not relative to white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males who form the baseline for success. Why haven't Polish immigrants been as successful as those WASP men? Or Southeast Asian immigrants? Or any other ethnic minority? Every minority, looked at in the aggregate is a failure relative to WASP males in America. Why?

Because they're all starting the race carrying various weights for various lengths of time, that's why. And nobody has carried more weight for longer than blacks. So of course they're going to finish the "race" with slower "times," on average, than the rest of the population. Just as Italian-Americans are going to finish the "race" with slower "times," on average, than WASPs.

That doesn't mean you can't push for more individual and community accountability. Those things are fine. But they're never ever going to change the reality of the situation. Not for blacks, not for Hispanics, not for ugly people, not for any population that starts that race with an impediment.

Let's say that everyone agrees with this. Now what? How do we (society) fix the problem, starting from here?

Widespread acknowledgement would be a good start. That's why I think that article I posted is so important, despite its length. I'm a fairly left-leaning guy who studied history and political science and has an interest in social policy, and (to keep my analogy going) I had absolutely no idea how heavy the weights were that blacks in America had been carrying, or how long they'd been carrying them. I thought, like many people, that their problems were just a vestige of slavery and to a lesser extent the Jim Crow era. That stuff is true obviously, but there's a lot more than that. I'd never heard of redlining before I read about it. I'm guessing many other people haven't either. But you really can't speak on the subject of race in America without understanding it, how recently it was widespread and accepted, and the fact that it's still going on in some form today.

OK. Let's say everyone acknowledges it. Now what?

Beats me, but it would be a great first step and would make the dialogue a lot more productive.

Also I think everyone acknowledging it would actually solve some problems by itself. Police attitudes towards poor black neighborhoods might change if they knew more about why and how those people ended up there. Some of the frustration and anger we see in the black community might dissipate if they saw that outsiders had a better grasp of the hurdles they face. We'd all be on closer lookout for things like discriminatory and predatory lending practices. And probably some other stuff I can't think of right now because I'm tired of thinking about this stuff.

I would argue that we have as a nation acknowledged it. It is our single biggest expenditure.

But the term “welfare state” does not begin to encompass the totality of America’s commitment of resources to aid the poor. It is more like a vast empire bigger than the entire budgets of almost every other country in the world. America’s welfare empire encompasses close to 200 or more federal/state programs, including 23 low income health programs, 27 low income housing programs, 30 employment and training programs, 34 social services programs, at least 13 food and nutrition programs, and 24 low income child care programs, among others.


Federal and state governments spend a trillion dollars a year just on these means tested welfare programs, which does not include Social and Medicare. That is more than we spend on national defense. It adds up to roughly $17,000 per person in poverty, over $50,000 for a poor family of three. The Census Bureau estimates that our current welfare spending totals four times what would be necessary just to give all of the poor the cash to bring them up to the poverty line, eliminating all poverty in America. A recent book by Charles Murray, In These Hands, further documents that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/06/23/welfare-state-doesnt-adequately-describe-how-much-americas-poor-control-your-wallet/

I haven't researched this on my own but if this is true that is astounding.

 

[Gachi]

The government simply "giving" large amounts of money to the poor is socialism.

Plus we already know how poorly our government runs things. Go to any government-run website and in 5 minutes you'll want to throw your computer across the room. So mismanagement of welfare dollars isn't far fetched at all.

 

[RCon]

This is highly misleading, because you're combining state and federal figures. The federal government spends about 6 times as much on defense than it does on welfare. (And more on corporate subsidies as well.)

Why would that make it misleading? Why wouldn't we compare "dollars spent at all levels of government on X" to "dollars spent at all levels of government on Y"? If anything, not doing that would be misleading.

I don't think it's useful to combine all 50 states spending together on welfare and compare that to how much the federal government spends on defense or anything else. It's not an apples to apples comparison. No instructive conclusions can be drawn from it IMO.

Depends what your goal is. Is the goal to determine what we, as a society, spend on a given thing? If so, then it's ridiculous not to include state and local government spending.

 

[RCon]

Trip has some good ideas.

Groovus has some good ideas.

Icon has some good ideas.

Even though I disagree with some of it, ALL of these ideas are worth discussing. But it doesn't matter. None of it is going to happen. As I mentioned in another thread, this country's spending is controlled by white conservative politicians from rural areas, and that's not going to change no matter who is elected President. They're not going to increase spending in black urban areas. They're not going to let up on the drug war, because they perceive that as being "soft on crime"- if anything, they will push for the opposite- no flat tax or any change to the tax structure either.

What the hell are you talking about? How many states have decriminalized marijuana in the last five years? The drug war has already been won by those in favor of legalization, it's just a matter of coming to terms on the surrender at this point.

 

[TripItUp]

The government simply "giving" large amounts of money to the poor is socialism.

Who is proposing this as a solution?

Also, we redistribute wealth now...there is no such thing as pure capitalism and most agree it's not a good idea.

 

[humpback]

Trip has some good ideas.

Groovus has some good ideas.

Icon has some good ideas.

Even though I disagree with some of it, ALL of these ideas are worth discussing. But it doesn't matter. None of it is going to happen. As I mentioned in another thread, this country's spending is controlled by white conservative politicians from rural areas, and that's not going to change no matter who is elected President. They're not going to increase spending in black urban areas. They're not going to let up on the drug war, because they perceive that as being "soft on crime"- if anything, they will push for the opposite- no flat tax or any change to the tax structure either.

Unreal.

 

[shadrap]

Trip has some good ideas.

Groovus has some good ideas.

Icon has some good ideas.

Even though I disagree with some of it, ALL of these ideas are worth discussing. But it doesn't matter. None of it is going to happen. As I mentioned in another thread, this country's spending is controlled by white conservative politicians from rural areas, and that's not going to change no matter who is elected President. They're not going to increase spending in black urban areas. They're not going to let up on the drug war, because they perceive that as being "soft on crime"- if anything, they will push for the opposite- no flat tax or any change to the tax structure either.

Unreal.

 

[Gr00vus]

So what are the root causes of this mini riot?

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150428/PC16/150429355/big-question-after-charleston-teen-rampage-why-did-they-do-it

The teens came out of a party at the YWCA on Coming Street about 12:30 a.m. and hit the streets.

[hermedwards] Nothing good happens after midnight. [/hermedwards]

 

[matttyl]

now we're talking root cause...although I still think a lot of the root cause is jobs based.

People who believe they have a legitimate economic future, don't resort to rioting and a life of crime.

Who's job is it to instill that belief?

See, I think this gets to the fundamental disconnect in this thread and in many others- the difference between individual accountability and disparities in success (however you want to measure it) across large groups of people.

...

Great post, honestly. Very thought provoking, but not really where I was going with my post. I was still thinking about the black culture and parents needing to instill that belief, even if it is (as you point out in your post) just a belief and not a reality. You can't have any "pull up by the bootstrap" mentality, when you're always being told you're slower than everyone else anyway, but it's ok because here's why....

My experiences with black culture are admittedly very limited, but I've never ever gotten this sense. If anything I've gotten the opposite impression. On more than one Sunday morning walk around the neighborhood I've overheard church sermons and post-service discussions about personal accountability in the black community that would make Rush Limbaugh do a double-take.

You're the one telling them they're slower - or at least you told all of us with your above post.

The "you're" here is second person singular.

 

[Dr Oadi]

See whitey? You get the memo today? You don't spend enough money on urban areas.

It's all your fault.

Racists!

 

[matttyl]

This is highly misleading, because you're combining state and federal figures. The federal government spends about 6 times as much on defense than it does on welfare. (And more on corporate subsidies as well.)

Don't think that's true at all.... link. I guess it depends on what you consider welfare, though.

 

[matttyl]

This is highly misleading, because you're combining state and federal figures. The federal government spends about 6 times as much on defense than it does on welfare. (And more on corporate subsidies as well.)

Why would that make it misleading? Why wouldn't we compare "dollars spent at all levels of government on X" to "dollars spent at all levels of government on Y"? If anything, not doing that would be misleading.

I don't think it's useful to combine all 50 states spending together on welfare and compare that to how much the federal government spends on defense or anything else. It's not an apples to apples comparison. No instructive conclusions can be drawn from it IMO.

So why the #### did you bring it up?!?!

 

[Dr Oadi]

This is highly misleading, because you're combining state and federal figures. The federal government spends about 6 times as much on defense than it does on welfare. (And more on corporate subsidies as well.)

Why would that make it misleading? Why wouldn't we compare "dollars spent at all levels of government on X" to "dollars spent at all levels of government on Y"? If anything, not doing that would be misleading.

I don't think it's useful to combine all 50 states spending together on welfare and compare that to how much the federal government spends on defense or anything else. It's not an apples to apples comparison. No instructive conclusions can be drawn from it IMO.

So why the #### did you bring it up?!?!

It sounds good to say Americans care more about instruments of death than the poor.

 

[Widbil83]

Anybody else watching the "thug is the N word" councilman on CNN? Some black lady just absolutely crushed him. Definitely worth a watch when it pops up.

 

[Hang 10]

This is highly misleading, because you're combining state and federal figures. The federal government spends about 6 times as much on defense than it does on welfare. (And more on corporate subsidies as well.)

Why would that make it misleading? Why wouldn't we compare "dollars spent at all levels of government on X" to "dollars spent at all levels of government on Y"? If anything, not doing that would be misleading.

I don't think it's useful to combine all 50 states spending together on welfare and compare that to how much the federal government spends on defense or anything else. It's not an apples to apples comparison. No instructive conclusions can be drawn from it IMO.

You could add in all the state and local spending on defense if want a apples to apples comparison.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Anybody else watching the "thug is the N word" councilman on CNN? Some black lady just absolutely crushed him. Definitely worth a watch when it pops up.

all I saw was a bunch of talking over each other while I was channel surfing.

 

[Dr Oadi]

This is highly misleading, because you're combining state and federal figures. The federal government spends about 6 times as much on defense than it does on welfare. (And more on corporate subsidies as well.)

Why would that make it misleading? Why wouldn't we compare "dollars spent at all levels of government on X" to "dollars spent at all levels of government on Y"? If anything, not doing that would be misleading.

I don't think it's useful to combine all 50 states spending together on welfare and compare that to how much the federal government spends on defense or anything else. It's not an apples to apples comparison. No instructive conclusions can be drawn from it IMO.

You could add in all the state and local spending on defense if want a apples to apples comparison.

Do we count police funding since they are "militarized" now?

 

[matttyl]

Maryland has one of the most generous welfare systems in the country. A mother of two participating in the state’s seven welfare programs can receive $35,000. Yet nearly one-quarter of Baltimore’s residents live in poverty, up from 10% in 1960.

The federal poverty level for a family of 3 is $20,090. If that mother of two can get $35,000 in welfare, why is she living in poverty?

For the record, $32,570 is the poverty level for a family of 6 - so according to your math, anyone in a family of fewer than 7 people shouldn't be in poverty since there's $35,000 just sitting there waiting for them.

Would like to see a link to the bolded.

No idea how true, but you asked for it..... link

"For example, Maryland has one of the most generous welfare systems in the nation. A mother with two children participating in seven common welfare programs — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid, housing assistance, Supplemental Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), energy assistance (LIHEAP), and free commodities — could receive benefits worth more than $35,000."

 

[Loan Sharks]

The government simply "giving" large amounts of money to the poor is socialism.

Who is proposing this as a solution?

Also, we redistribute wealth now...there is no such thing as pure capitalism and most agree it's not a good idea.

Me, I am proposing this as the solution. Not a cash payout but as a work incentive. This is not a issue of "acknowledging" a problem or helping, this is about money, it always is. Something like a dollar match is the only way to break the cycle and change the incentive. Which of course will never happen in our political system. I wrote one of my senior papers on a topic like this a back in the day and the fact of the matter is if you are poor getting a job is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Let me try to over simplify it.

What would YOU do ?

1. Take $20,000 in basic housing, utilities and food entitlements and not work.

2. Take $25,000 20,000 in basic housing, utilities and food entitlements and hustle selling prepaid phones at a gas station, working a parking lot etc for $5000 for 8 hours a week.

3. Take $30,000 20,000 in basic housing, utilities and food entitlements and sell drugs for $10000 for 8 hours a week.

4. Take $25,000 after taxes working a 40 hour week at Wendy's? Keep in mind you are work full time for an additional 5k a year giving you a hourly wage of something like $2 and hour?

Working 40 hours a week for 2 bucks and hour when I can work less and make more is pretty dumb.

There are only two ways to make the realized wage of getting off of public assistance a good short term decision for people trapped in the system. Reduce the benefit making the wage gain higher by comparison or a massive cash incentive for getting a job with the hope of the work leading to self sufficiency in the long term.

 

[lod01]

So what are the root causes of this mini riot?

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150428/PC16/150429355/big-question-after-charleston-teen-rampage-why-did-they-do-it

911 calls describe terror caused by mob rampage in Charleston

Apr 28, 2015

As many as 60 teens were roaming Charleston streets attacking pedestrians and drivers early Sunday, witnesses told police dispatchers in 911 calls released Tuesday.

All the teens were black, according to witnesses, and all but one of the people attacked were white. Still, it’s unclear if the attacks were racially motivated or sparked by the unrest in Baltimore, which followed the recent shooting death of Walter Scott, a black man, by a white North Charleston police officer.

Investigators haven’t yet determined a motive, according to Charleston Police Department spokesman Charles Francis.

James Johnson, who was at the forefront of local protests after Scott’s shooting death, said he had not heard any explanation for the teens’ behavior.

“The Walter Scott incident is fresh in their minds, and then there’s Baltimore,” he said. “But there’s no telling. It could be just spur of the moment. I’m hoping we can find out. Whatever it is, we’ve got to go to the root of the problem so it doesn’t happen again.”

The teens came out of a party at the YWCA on Coming Street about 12:30 a.m. and hit the streets. Groups not associated with the YWCA rent the facility.

The motto of the YWCA is “Empowering Women and Eliminating Racism.” The organization sponsors the annual local celebration of Martin Luther King Jr., who preached nonviolence.

Garcia Williams, the YWCA’s director, did not return several messages asking if she had learned anything about why the teens broke out in violence after the party or who organized the event. Dot Scott, the leader of the Charleston chapter of the NAACP, said she had not heard anything to explain why the teens went on a rampage but was shocked by it.

“I have no idea whatsoever,” she said. “It just seems unusual that folks would attack people that way. It’s atypical.”

The number of teens on the prowl is bigger than initially estimated, and the 911 calls released Tuesday show some of the terror the mob caused.

A young woman called 911 to report the chaos outside her apartment at Vanderhorst and Coming streets.

“There’s like 50 black kids outside, and they’re getting into a fight,” she told the operator. “Oh, my God, there’s blood everywhere. ... Look at all that blood.”

Another young woman called to say she was standing at the intersection.

“They’re just in the street screaming and yelling,” she said. “I want to say 60 people.”

Terror could be heard in the voices of many of the callers, including a man who called from his car and said he was being blocked by about 50 teens.

“They just smacked my car,” he told the operator. “I’m flooring it in reverse. This is just ridiculous. ... I’m getting the hell out of here, man. They just smacked another car.”

He said a group began beating a man.

“They’ve got a dude down on the ground,” he said. “There’s like five of them punching the dude. ... There’s a guy taunting me. I couldn’t make the green light because he was standing in the intersection taunting me. It’s pretty terrifying, man.”

Officers said they were so overwhelmed by calls they couldn’t handle all of them.

They released several reports that detail attacks:

A pizza delivery man was attacked in his car about 1:15 a.m. on Sumter Street. A group blocked him from crossing Rutledge Avenue. He reported that a male attacker jumped on the hood of his car, and after he opened his door, others began punching him.

The latest happened to a man getting out of a cab on Rutledge Avenue about 2 a.m. He said a large group of males and females under 20 years old approached him and his girlfriend. He was punched several times.

A group beat two men in the face while the victims were walking along Vanderhorst Street about 1 a.m. One teen was arrested Monday in that attack, and more arrests are possible.

Jordan Q. Hall, 17, of Chapel Street, a ninth-grader at Burke High School, faces two counts of second-degree assault and battery by mob.

The felony charge is punishable by three to 25 years in prison. The elevated charges are related to the suspect being part of a mob causing “serious bodily injury,” according to the S.C. Code of Laws.

One man’s nose was broken, causing severe bleeding, according to an incident report.

Another victim was diagnosed with a facial fracture near his left eye and suffered swelling and bruising to his head after Hall repeatedly struck him with closed fists, according to the arrest affidavit. He identified Hall in a six-person photographic lineup.

Judge Linda Lombard said that Hall has a serious criminal history and set his bail at $100,000. He had no family present at the bond hearing.

Just take him out back and put a bullet in the back of his head and save the state a lot of money.

 

[Dr Oadi]

The government simply "giving" large amounts of money to the poor is socialism.

Who is proposing this as a solution?

Also, we redistribute wealth now...there is no such thing as pure capitalism and most agree it's not a good idea.

Me, I am proposing this as the solution. Not a cash payout but as a work incentive. This is not a issue of "acknowledging" a problem or helping, this is about money, it always is. Something like a dollar match is the only way to break the cycle and change the incentive. Which of course will never happen in our political system. I wrote one of my senior papers on a topic like this a back in the day and the fact of the matter is if you are poor getting a job is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Let me try to over simplify it.

What would YOU do ?

1. Take $20,000 in basic housing, utilities and food entitlements and not work.

2. Take $25,000 20,000 in basic housing, utilities and food entitlements and hustle selling prepaid phones at a gas station, working a parking lot etc for $5000 for 8 hours a week.

3. Take $30,000 20,000 in basic housing, utilities and food entitlements and sell drugs for $10000 for 8 hours a week.

4. Take $25,000 after taxes working a 40 hour week at Wendy's? Keep in mind you are work full time for an additional 5k a year giving you a hourly wage of something like $2 and hour?

Working 40 hours a week for 2 bucks and hour when I can work less and make more is pretty dumb.

There are only two ways to make the realized wage of getting off of public assistance a good short term decision for people trapped in the system. Reduce the benefit making the wage gain higher by comparison or a massive cash incentive for getting a job with the hope of the work leading to self sufficiency in the long term.

The debate isn't getting people to work. The debate is giving people the incentive to work. The state of our Nation.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Omg they are arresting white hippie chicks in NY. Getting real!

 

[Da Guru]

So what are the root causes of this mini riot?

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150428/PC16/150429355/big-question-after-charleston-teen-rampage-why-did-they-do-it

911 calls describe terror caused by mob rampage in Charleston

Apr 28, 2015

As many as 60 teens were roaming Charleston streets attacking pedestrians and drivers early Sunday, witnesses told police dispatchers in 911 calls released Tuesday.

All the teens were black, according to witnesses, and all but one of the people attacked were white. Still, it’s unclear if the attacks were racially motivated or sparked by the unrest in Baltimore, which followed the recent shooting death of Walter Scott, a black man, by a white North Charleston police officer.

Investigators haven’t yet determined a motive, according to Charleston Police Department spokesman Charles Francis.

James Johnson, who was at the forefront of local protests after Scott’s shooting death, said he had not heard any explanation for the teens’ behavior.

“The Walter Scott incident is fresh in their minds, and then there’s Baltimore,” he said. “But there’s no telling. It could be just spur of the moment. I’m hoping we can find out. Whatever it is, we’ve got to go to the root of the problem so it doesn’t happen again.”

The teens came out of a party at the YWCA on Coming Street about 12:30 a.m. and hit the streets. Groups not associated with the YWCA rent the facility.

The motto of the YWCA is “Empowering Women and Eliminating Racism.” The organization sponsors the annual local celebration of Martin Luther King Jr., who preached nonviolence.

Garcia Williams, the YWCA’s director, did not return several messages asking if she had learned anything about why the teens broke out in violence after the party or who organized the event. Dot Scott, the leader of the Charleston chapter of the NAACP, said she had not heard anything to explain why the teens went on a rampage but was shocked by it.

“I have no idea whatsoever,” she said. “It just seems unusual that folks would attack people that way. It’s atypical.”

The number of teens on the prowl is bigger than initially estimated, and the 911 calls released Tuesday show some of the terror the mob caused.

A young woman called 911 to report the chaos outside her apartment at Vanderhorst and Coming streets.

“There’s like 50 black kids outside, and they’re getting into a fight,” she told the operator. “Oh, my God, there’s blood everywhere. ... Look at all that blood.”

Another young woman called to say she was standing at the intersection.

“They’re just in the street screaming and yelling,” she said. “I want to say 60 people.”

Terror could be heard in the voices of many of the callers, including a man who called from his car and said he was being blocked by about 50 teens.

“They just smacked my car,” he told the operator. “I’m flooring it in reverse. This is just ridiculous. ... I’m getting the hell out of here, man. They just smacked another car.”

He said a group began beating a man.

“They’ve got a dude down on the ground,” he said. “There’s like five of them punching the dude. ... There’s a guy taunting me. I couldn’t make the green light because he was standing in the intersection taunting me. It’s pretty terrifying, man.”

Officers said they were so overwhelmed by calls they couldn’t handle all of them.

They released several reports that detail attacks:

A pizza delivery man was attacked in his car about 1:15 a.m. on Sumter Street. A group blocked him from crossing Rutledge Avenue. He reported that a male attacker jumped on the hood of his car, and after he opened his door, others began punching him.

The latest happened to a man getting out of a cab on Rutledge Avenue about 2 a.m. He said a large group of males and females under 20 years old approached him and his girlfriend. He was punched several times.

A group beat two men in the face while the victims were walking along Vanderhorst Street about 1 a.m. One teen was arrested Monday in that attack, and more arrests are possible.

Jordan Q. Hall, 17, of Chapel Street, a ninth-grader at Burke High School, faces two counts of second-degree assault and battery by mob.

The felony charge is punishable by three to 25 years in prison. The elevated charges are related to the suspect being part of a mob causing “serious bodily injury,” according to the S.C. Code of Laws.

One man’s nose was broken, causing severe bleeding, according to an incident report.

Another victim was diagnosed with a facial fracture near his left eye and suffered swelling and bruising to his head after Hall repeatedly struck him with closed fists, according to the arrest affidavit. He identified Hall in a six-person photographic lineup.

Judge Linda Lombard said that Hall has a serious criminal history and set his bail at $100,000. He had no family present at the bond hearing.

Just take him out back and put a bullet in the back of his head and save the state a lot of money.

17 in 9th grade?? Wowza...

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Can someone explain to me what, exactly, is the "black culture"?

 

[General Tso]

Omg they are arresting white hippie chicks in NY. Getting real!

I saw that. She looked kinda cute too. There were no hot looking hippies like that when I was in college. Most of them looked like they'd been dragged through a cornfield.

 

[RCon]

This is highly misleading, because you're combining state and federal figures. The federal government spends about 6 times as much on defense than it does on welfare. (And more on corporate subsidies as well.)

Why would that make it misleading? Why wouldn't we compare "dollars spent at all levels of government on X" to "dollars spent at all levels of government on Y"? If anything, not doing that would be misleading.

I don't think it's useful to combine all 50 states spending together on welfare and compare that to how much the federal government spends on defense or anything else. It's not an apples to apples comparison. No instructive conclusions can be drawn from it IMO.

So why the #### did you bring it up?!?!

He didn't. I cut out the much longer post to which he originally replied.

 

[dickey moe]

I don't know enough about welfare to know if it discourages marriage, sorry.

As I understand it in basic terms - it's FAR easier for a single mother to obtain it.

Many economists think the War on poverty act is the single biggest cause for the destruction of the black family. Look it up but there are MANY articles like this excerpt around.

The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

For the next few decades, means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families penalized marriage. A mother generally received far more money from welfare if she was single rather than married. Once she took a husband, her benefits were instantly reduced by roughly 10 to 20 percent. As a Cato Institute study noted, welfare programs for the poor incentivize the very behaviors that are most likely to perpetuate poverty.[2] Another Cato report observes:

“Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits.... But, by removing the economic consequences of out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences ... she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.... Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appalling lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.”
The marriage penalties that are embedded in welfare programs can be particularly severe if a woman on public assistance weds a man who is employed in a low-paying job. As a FamilyScholars.org report puts it: “Whena couple's income nears the limits prescribed by Medicaid, a few extra dollars in income cause thousands of dollars in benefits to be lost. What all of this means is that the two most important routes out of poverty—marriage and work—are heavily taxed under the current U.S. system.”[3]

Yeah, that's pretty much where I am.

If they haven't already, I'd love the guys from "Freakonomics" to take a stab at this issue. Or Nate Silver. I think of them, generally, as non-partisan and non-agenda-having.

+1

 

[Dr Oadi]

So what are the root causes of this mini riot?

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150428/PC16/150429355/big-question-after-charleston-teen-rampage-why-did-they-do-it

911 calls describe terror caused by mob rampage in Charleston

Apr 28, 2015

As many as 60 teens were roaming Charleston streets attacking pedestrians and drivers early Sunday, witnesses told police dispatchers in 911 calls released Tuesday.

All the teens were black, according to witnesses, and all but one of the people attacked were white. Still, its unclear if the attacks were racially motivated or sparked by the unrest in Baltimore, which followed the recent shooting death of Walter Scott, a black man, by a white North Charleston police officer.

Investigators havent yet determined a motive, according to Charleston Police Department spokesman Charles Francis.

James Johnson, who was at the forefront of local protests after Scotts shooting death, said he had not heard any explanation for the teens behavior.

The Walter Scott incident is fresh in their minds, and then theres Baltimore, he said. But theres no telling. It could be just spur of the moment. Im hoping we can find out. Whatever it is, weve got to go to the root of the problem so it doesnt happen again.

The teens came out of a party at the YWCA on Coming Street about 12:30 a.m. and hit the streets. Groups not associated with the YWCA rent the facility.

The motto of the YWCA is Empowering Women and Eliminating Racism. The organization sponsors the annual local celebration of Martin Luther King Jr., who preached nonviolence.

Garcia Williams, the YWCAs director, did not return several messages asking if she had learned anything about why the teens broke out in violence after the party or who organized the event. Dot Scott, the leader of the Charleston chapter of the NAACP, said she had not heard anything to explain why the teens went on a rampage but was shocked by it.

I have no idea whatsoever, she said. It just seems unusual that folks would attack people that way. Its atypical.

The number of teens on the prowl is bigger than initially estimated, and the 911 calls released Tuesday show some of the terror the mob caused.

A young woman called 911 to report the chaos outside her apartment at Vanderhorst and Coming streets.

Theres like 50 black kids outside, and theyre getting into a fight, she told the operator. Oh, my God, theres blood everywhere. ... Look at all that blood.

Another young woman called to say she was standing at the intersection.

Theyre just in the street screaming and yelling, she said. I want to say 60 people.

Terror could be heard in the voices of many of the callers, including a man who called from his car and said he was being blocked by about 50 teens.

They just smacked my car, he told the operator. Im flooring it in reverse. This is just ridiculous. ... Im getting the hell out of here, man. They just smacked another car.

He said a group began beating a man.

Theyve got a dude down on the ground, he said. Theres like five of them punching the dude. ... Theres a guy taunting me. I couldnt make the green light because he was standing in the intersection taunting me. Its pretty terrifying, man.

Officers said they were so overwhelmed by calls they couldnt handle all of them.

They released several reports that detail attacks:

A pizza delivery man was attacked in his car about 1:15 a.m. on Sumter Street. A group blocked him from crossing Rutledge Avenue. He reported that a male attacker jumped on the hood of his car, and after he opened his door, others began punching him.

The latest happened to a man getting out of a cab on Rutledge Avenue about 2 a.m. He said a large group of males and females under 20 years old approached him and his girlfriend. He was punched several times.

A group beat two men in the face while the victims were walking along Vanderhorst Street about 1 a.m. One teen was arrested Monday in that attack, and more arrests are possible.

Jordan Q. Hall, 17, of Chapel Street, a ninth-grader at Burke High School, faces two counts of second-degree assault and battery by mob.

The felony charge is punishable by three to 25 years in prison. The elevated charges are related to the suspect being part of a mob causing serious bodily injury, according to the S.C. Code of Laws.

One mans nose was broken, causing severe bleeding, according to an incident report.

Another victim was diagnosed with a facial fracture near his left eye and suffered swelling and bruising to his head after Hall repeatedly struck him with closed fists, according to the arrest affidavit. He identified Hall in a six-person photographic lineup.

Judge Linda Lombard said that Hall has a serious criminal history and set his bail at $100,000. He had no family present at the bond hearing.

This is interesting in a couple ways. Having not heard anything about this on the news and being I thought all white people in the south carried their guns with them everywhere and wouldn't be calling 911 with terror in their voices.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I work in Maryland. We do a lot of work on apartment complexes. I'd say in every single 6 unit apartment 5 are on government assistance. They don't work. If they did work they wouldn't get their government assistance so they either:

A: Dont work and hustle on the side for cash.

B: Don't work and literally sit around all day.

The amount of people raising kids who sleep on the floor and who's parents smoke dope with them around is alarming. I feel so awful for these kids who don't stand a chance.

Worst conditions I ever saw were this one house where it looked like they took up the carpet and turned it upside down, exposing the backing. I was wrong, it was still laid right side up, it's just ALL the carpet fibers were gone. A plumbing pipe burst above this unit and the kids were just walking around in bare feet. The entire place had never been cleaned once, which is pretty common, but this place was OLD.

There is a huge population of folks who live off government assistance but drive a Benz in somebody else's name, rock a handicapped tag and live in a government funded apartment.

I'm so tired of seeing it.

 

[Hang 10]

I'm not the biggest Stephen A. Smiff fan but boy is he bringing it here! Preach it!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/29/espns_steven_smith_our_ancestors_would_be_ashamed_look_inward.html

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The government simply "giving" large amounts of money to the poor is socialism.

Who is proposing this as a solution?

Also, we redistribute wealth now...there is no such thing as pure capitalism and most agree it's not a good idea.

I guess it might depend on the definition of "large amounts" and the little detail that if I had my way I'd cut a check for every American. But with those qualifiers I am!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Arby the numbers you posted are deeply disturbing. There are different ways to interpret them, IMO:

1. The War on Poverty has made things worse, and therefore we should reconsider and/or reject big government type solutions to these problems.

2. The War on Poverty, despite sounding big, was never properly funded since its inception, the monies were spent unwisely, and Republicans have consistently cut it down over the years rendering it ineffective. Therefore we need to renew our efforts.

3. This has nothing to do with the War on Poverty. Societal factors are at play here which are just too big to overcome no matter what we do.

Which is closest to the truth? I'm asking because honestly I'm not sure.

IMO, all of the above.

1. The "war on poverty" has, in some ways, worsened the situation. It's been said here before, but government assistance programs that are means-tested with significant cutoff points tend to create reverse incentives to work. That is, if a person becomes worse off economically by increasing his income by $500, then there is an incentive to avoid that increase.

2. I'm not really sure what "properly funded" means. "Spent unwisely" is a given.

3. There are definitely societal factors at play, especially if we're defining "societal factors" as "anything other than the war on poverty". That would then include the "war on drugs", which is almost certainly the single biggest factor.

End War on Drugs. Replace welfare with a guaranteed income. Still have the thorny issues of generations of "us vs them" to deal with, but at least we get to a strong base to work from.

(And I don't think I'm arguing with you here with this reply.)