Democrat controlled cities the worst in the country.

[Integrityrespec]

Who Benefits From Democratic Control?, by Walter E.Williams | Creators Syndicate

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Who Benefits From Democratic Control?, by Walter E.Williams | Creators Syndicate

I agree that democratically-controlled cities are worse off that others. At the city level, it's pretty much must extorting more money from the citizens, and then just throwing it in the direction of the problem. Schools suck? Throw money at them, but don't question the curriculum or make the teachers accountable. High crime? Throw money at it.

However, you have to understand that St Louis stats are skewed. The city of St Louis is about 20% of the entire metro area, and laws were passed to exclude the outside counties in the stats (yes...by a democrat).

 

[bluesmoke]

I agree that democratically-controlled cities are worse off that others. At the city level, it's pretty much must extorting more money from the citizens, and then just throwing it in the direction of the problem. Schools suck? Throw money at them, but don't question the curriculum or make the teachers accountable. High crime? Throw money at it.

However, you have to understand that St Louis stats are skewed. The city of St Louis is about 20% of the entire metro area, and laws were passed to exclude the outside counties in the stats (yes...by a democrat).

What about the majority of poor states being red and getting more than their proportionate share of federal outlays? That's throwing money at the entire state.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

What about the majority of poor states being red and getting more than their proportionate share of federal outlays?

Depends on what you define "poor." Honest, hard-working farmers make up a major part of red states. If drought hits, are you just going to...wait...they're usually republican...of course you'll leave 'em out to dry.

 

[TheParser]

1. Let's be fair to Dem-controlled cities, such as my city of Los Angeles.

2. Many of those Dem politicians are good people. They mean well.

a. The problem is that they are very naïve about human nature.

b. They fail to understand that many members of the constituencies that they serve must clean up their act before there can be substantial improvement.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Who Benefits From Democratic Control?, by Walter E.Williams | Creators Syndicate

Is this a "Democrats are bad, therefore Republicans are good" rubbish?

 

[Velvet Elvis]

1. Let's be fair to Dem-controlled cities, such as my city of Los Angeles.

2. Many of those Dem politicians are good people. They mean well.

Really? Who?

a. The problem is that they are very naïve about human nature.

No. They're power-hungry. California is a liberal politician's sandbox. They're taxing their citizens to the point of extortion, yet San Francisco is full of poop (literally) and L.A. is a crime-riddled city, full of street gangs that they cannot control.

b. They fail to understand that many members of the constituencies that they serve must clean up their act before there can be substantial improvement.

Liberal policies are what gave those members of the constituencies "their act."

 

[bongsaway]

I agree that democratically-controlled cities are worse off that others. At the city level, it's pretty much must extorting more money from the citizens, and then just throwing it in the direction of the problem. Schools suck? Throw money at them, but don't question the curriculum or make the teachers accountable. High crime? Throw money at it.

However, you have to understand that St Louis stats are skewed. The city of St Louis is about 20% of the entire metro area, and laws were passed to exclude the outside counties in the stats (yes...by a democrat).

Considering one big city holds more people than four states combined, is it really a surprise that's where most of the firearm killings take place?

 

[TheParser]

s

California is a liberal politician's sandbox. They're taxing their citizens to the point of extortion, yet San Francisco is full of poop (literally) and L.A. is a crime-riddled city, full of street gangs that they cannot control.

1. As an old man (82 years old) and a resident of Los Angeles since the 1940s, I respectfully disagree with your description of the City of the Angels as a "crime-riddled city."

a. The pols, of course, massage the figures when they have the gall to tell us that L.A. is safer today than in the 1950s!!! (I attended a private high school in Hollywood, which was then a quiet, orderly, and clean area. Crime was never even an issue back then.)


b. But L.A. is certainly better than many cities (no need to name them) back East!!!


2. Yes, I agree that some liberal policies make things worse. E.g., schools can no longer suspend students for defiance of their teachers. The 44th president felt that certain students were being unfairly suspended because of their backgrounds. So now a defiant student and the teacher now have a conference in which each one pours out his/her heart regarding the incident. Some liberals really do feel that defiant students can be reasoned with. Is there any wonder that there's a growing teacher shortage?

 

[Geoist]

Depends on what you define "poor." Honest, hard-working farmers make up a major part of red states.

What is this 'major part' you speak of? Asking for numbers/percentages. I seriously doubt most of those poor people are hard-working farmers (most of that industry is being devoured by Big Ag).

If drought hits, are you just going to...wait...they're usually republican...of course you'll leave 'em out to dry.

There's a movement going on in southern/central Illinois to secede from the rest of it because, supposedly, Chicago is such a drain on them. The reality is, without Chicago/suburban money, central/southern Illinois would likely be among the poorest states in the country (talking Deep South Red State poor).

 

[Geoist]

b. But L.A. is certainly better than many cities (no need to name them) back East!!!

If you are referring to Chicago, there are some misconceptions about it. First off, I live in the Chicagoland suburbs and go into the city at least a couple times a month. I feel perfectly safe in 90% of the city.Trump loves to tweet about how Chicago is the murder capital, but the reality is there are 14 cities in the US with 100K population or more with higher murder rates. Yeah, it has the highest actual numbers, but that is because Chicago is a populous city (third most in the USA). Also, most of the violence is in a concentrated area where gangs have been fighting over a power vacuum Chicago PD created:

Many close observers of Chicago’s violence believe that, as well-intentioned as it was, the systematic dismantling of gangs like the Disciples led directly to the violence that is devastating the city’s most dangerous neighborhoods in 2016. Taking out the individuals who ran the city’s drug trade, the theory goes, caused a fracturing of the city’s criminal underworld and produced a vast constellation of new entities that are no less violent, and possibly even more menacing, than their vanquished predecessors.

Is Chicago’s ghastly murder rate the result of its 1990s anti-gang policies?

This is not to say it was necessarily wrong of Chicago PD to take down the ringleaders in the 90s, only that to do so without remedying the problems in the communities can only lead to more, and potentially worse, violence.

 

[Cardinal]

Who Benefits From Democratic Control?, by Walter E.Williams | Creators Syndicate

But right wing extremists are responsible for the most amount of domestic terrorism.

What's the common denominator here?

 

[Cardinal]

Who Benefits From Democratic Control?, by Walter E.Williams | Creators Syndicate

Here's something else that's interesting:

"Nonmedical prescription opioid misuse remains a growing public problem in need of action and is concentrated in areas of US states with large rural populations such as Kentucky, West Virginia, Alaska, and Oklahoma. "

Understanding the Rural–Urban Differences in Nonmedical Prescription Opioid Use and Abuse in the United States

The question here is why are rural areas in Republican states so rife with opioid addiction?

 

[bluesmoke]

Depends on what you define "poor." Honest, hard-working farmers make up a major part of red states. If drought hits, are you just going to...wait...they're usually republican...of course you'll leave 'em out to dry.

It isn’t what I define as poor. It’s what is defined as poor by the government. Where did you get from my post to do with “leave ‘em out to dry”? I asked the question I did of the poster who seems to believe that “blue” cities are being given too much and wasting it. So, what about the red states that are getting more than their proportionate share and still having a homeless and poor population problem? It’s a question of passing judgement against one but not the other of the same condition. IMO, the poorer states should get more Fed money because they need it more. That’s how society is supposed to work.

BTW, there are honest, hard working people of all disciplines in all states. Including the farmers in the blue state of California, which is the largest agricultural state in America, producing about twice as much farm product as #2 Texas.