http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ri...-anger-deep-dysfunction/ar-BBiNmX4?li=BBiKMeP
or as Θ's preacher said............"GOD DAMN AMERICA"
or as Θ's preacher said............"GOD DAMN AMERICA"
Why is Baltimore like so many liberal controlled Cities=Cess-Pools
- Thread starter Dawg
- Start date
Spamature
President
I believe we went over this not long ago. Of the top 50 largest cities, I think the number is 3 (could be wrong ) that are run by Republicans. So don't pretend that somehow Republicans are doing a better job of running large cities. Because as a simple matter of fact, running big cities is not something the people have chosen Republicans to do.
Last edited:
as seen on tv
Senator
stephanie rawlings blake ascended to the mayor's office by default when her predecessor (dixon) was indicted for embezzlement.
SRB was subsequently re-elected with 87% of the vote, despite having no achievements as head of the baltimore city council or mayor.
this is the politics of racial identification, not issues or ideas, at work.
SRB was subsequently re-elected with 87% of the vote, despite having no achievements as head of the baltimore city council or mayor.
this is the politics of racial identification, not issues or ideas, at work.
Arkady
President
We've discussed this repeatedly, but there's an easy answer to this. The majority of all cities are controlled my liberals. So, it's pretty much inevitable that many cess-pool cities will be controlled by liberals, just like it's pretty much inevitable that many of the great cities will be controlled by liberals.
Boston is a good example. It has been controlled entirely by Democrats since 1930, and many of those Democrats have been quite liberal, including Tom Menino, who was mayor from 1993 to 2014. In fact, in the last 110 years, Boston has only had a Republican mayor for six years. Yet, most people would consider Boston a nice city. It has a thriving economy and cultural scene, and relatively low crime (metro Boston has a murder rate of 2.1, which is far below the national average):
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...rime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/6tabledatadecpdf
Since most metropolitan areas globally are dominated by liberal leadership, you won't get far in trying to tie liberal city leadership with either good or bad outcomes. You'd do better to zoom out a bit and look at the wider regions. Cities do best when there is a commitment across the broader region to support the cities to overcome the natural problems of urbanization. When the broader area is liberal, there tends to be a supportive atmosphere towards the cities, and the cities tend to thrive. When the broader area is conservative, you tend to get walled communities that try to keep out the urban problems, rather than to solve them, and you get tight-fisted conservative suburbs that fight to prevent any of their tax dollars being spent on issues affecting "those people."
You can see the impact of that here:
http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime1.aspx
Look at the Best Large and Medium Cities for crime. All ten are in solidly blue states. Now look at the Worst Large and Medium Cities for crime, all ten are in red states. And if you want to find big cities with VERY low crime rates, look to liberal Western European countries.
Arkady
President
Look around the world. A large majority of cities, good and bad, are led by liberals. That's simply because those who live in cities face the challenges of urbanization, for which conservatives offer few decent solutions. So, urban dwellers tend to gravitate towards liberal politicians.
The results there are both good and bad. But take a look at it in purely economic terms. Housing prices can be seen as the "cost of admission" for living in a city. That cost can only rise to a certain point for any given city, before people figure it's not worth it for what's on offer, and choose to live elsewhere. And so you can use housing prices to figure out just how desirable living in a particular city looks to the collective wisdom of the free market.
If we take our cues from the market that way, the desirable big cities include San Francisco and the communities around Silicon Valley, Honolulu, LA and several of its neighboring cities, SD, NYC, Boston, and DC. Those are places where people will shell out many hundreds of thousands of dollars for a shoebox of a living space, because the city has so much going for it. Pretty much all of those highly desirable cities (not just in the US, but throughout the developed world), are led by liberals.
Mr. Friscus
Governor
I'm curious. What solutions, overall, do you think liberals offer on this issue?
connieb
Senator
At least she can speak in a coherent sentence, which is a VAST improvement over Dixon.
I actually thing SRB is a very intelligent woman. But, she has always pandered on race issues "i am one of you" kind of crap.. and she sold our the police to do it this time.
Arkady
President
Exactly right. And Republicans should think about why that is. I think it comes down to the simple fact that the denser the settlement pattern is, the more people need to coordinate their behaviors to live comfortably, and that kind of coordination doesn't fit well with Republican political ideology.
Just to take a very simple example, consider transportation policy. Once you get past a certain settlement density, it becomes unworkable to expect everyone to fend for himself for transit, using private cars. A big, dense city run that way would become a non-stop traffic snarl with everyone choking on the fumes. You need good public transit, intelligent urban planning, pedestrian and bike accommodations, etc. But to do that effectively, you can't leave it to the free market. You need a level of government interference in the economy that Republican politicians typically feel uncomfortable with.
That's why densely-settled countries (Western Europe) tend to be more liberal than sparsely-settled countries, it's why densely-settled regions (the Northeast) tend to be more liberal than sparsely-settled regions, and it's why cities tend to be more liberal than the countryside. People get that conservatism doesn't have a lot of good ideas to offer to cope with the problems inherent in urbanization.
Arkady
President
See the discussion of public transit, above, as an example. Liberals also tend to be more aggressive about policies that counterbalance the tendency towards slum formation -- for example, subsidizing housing for the poor, being willing to spend big bucks on schools in poor neighborhoods to try to improve them so that you don't get an exodus of the middle class, paying for urban restoration and revitalization efforts, etc. There are also liberal policies that tend to push violent crime down, from midnight basketball to gun control.
Mr. Friscus
Governor
Is slum formation most effected by less subsidizing of housing? What causes slums to form? Why do they stay slums? What is the best way to make them more attractive for outsiders?
I'd say there's nothing more important than safe streets. If crime and gang culture is high, which normally unfortunately accompany a "slum", nobody is going to want to live there, no matter how great anything else is.
Ah yes, the ol' "Throw money at it so we can say we tried" solution. Education is minimally effected by the amount of money you throw at it. What's handicapping our schools is the federalization of education in the first place. Meanwhile, the middle class will leave poor neighborhoods for many other reasons than the schools.
Do you think Conservative mayors of cities don't want a good city? Or, don't want to revitalize places that might be below average?
Does gun control push violent crime down? Do those who most likely use guns get them through legal means anyways?
Does midnight basketball push violent crime down? Is midnight basketball a "liberal" policy?
Arkady
President
I assume they want nice cities. They're just the victims of bad ideas. A really stupid politician once said "government is the problem," and to this day many of his cult's members still take that to heart, and it results in even their best efforts turning out badly for other people. And that's particularly true in urban settings, where laissez-faire approaches are least effective.
Yes, the evidence strongly suggests it does.
The illegal channels are well stocked in a way that is simply not the case in areas with tighter gun control. Throw lots of legal guns into the mix, and many will leak out into the black market.... For example being stolen.
Yes and yes.
Mr. Friscus
Governor
In many ways, government IS the problem when it comes to poverty.
- Licensing laws, zoning regulations, minimum wage laws, and many other restrictions raise the cost of being in poverty and make it much more difficult for the poor to enter the labor market and start their own business.
- The Federal Reserve destroys the value of the dollar, harming those with the least amount while subsidizing big banks and big corporations.
- Governments use “eminent domain” laws to force people out of their homes in favor of rich land developers and politically-connected industries.
- Centralize wealth
- Protect the interests of the rich
- Pay lip service to looking out for the little guy.
Sectors of the economy that have far less government intervention and regulation, like computers and electronics, have the exact opposite result as the market drives down prices and increases quality.
Before America was saddled with the debt, dependency, and opportunity costs associated with the welfare state, mutual-aid societies did a far better job of taking care of the poor than government welfare.
- These fraternal organizations were not charities per se, but private associations of individuals.
- Those who chose to join would voluntarily pay membership dues in return for a defined schedule of benefits, which, depending on the society, could include life insurance, permanent disability, sickness and accident, old-age, or funeral benefits.
- because they were private and thus more immune to bureaucracy, the annual fee was usually about a single day’s paycheck.
http://mic.com/articles/3333/how-the-government-has-caused-poverty-and-how-libertarians-can-fix-it
By the way, how is that War on Poverty working out? You know, the one that your ideology says should be succeeding?
Arkady
President
The war on poverty was going incredibly well for the first decade, with poverty rates falling by by about half. Then we effectively abandoned that effort and thing went horribly throught the early 90s. Then Clinton came along with a renewed attention to poverty and the poverty rate again began declining dramatically. Then Bush took office and the poverty rate again soared. The good news is that the poverty rate has again fallen during the last few years. The bad news is that if history is any guide a Republican will soon occupy the Oval Office and things will again get a lot worse. It's hard to win a war on poverty when the Republicans keep abandoning it and instead declaring a war on the poor. But if we had maintained the average rate of declining poverty that we have during Democratic eras also for the periods over the last 50 years with Republican presidents, there'd be no poverty today.In many ways, government IS the problem when it comes to poverty.
A look back in history reveals that more often than not, governments tend to
- Licensing laws, zoning regulations, minimum wage laws, and many other restrictions raise the cost of being in poverty and make it much more difficult for the poor to enter the labor market and start their own business.
- The Federal Reserve destroys the value of the dollar, harming those with the least amount while subsidizing big banks and big corporations.
- Governments use “eminent domain” laws to force people out of their homes in favor of rich land developers and politically-connected industries.
Larger programs like Medicare and Medicaid also show the harmful effects of government intervention on the poor. Despite being implemented with the best intentions, the costs of medical care have skyrocketed while the level of access has either remained stagnant or fallen.
- Centralize wealth
- Protect the interests of the rich
- Pay lip service to looking out for the little guy.
Sectors of the economy that have far less government intervention and regulation, like computers and electronics, have the exact opposite result as the market drives down prices and increases quality.
Before America was saddled with the debt, dependency, and opportunity costs associated with the welfare state, mutual-aid societies did a far better job of taking care of the poor than government welfare.
Libertarians oppose government welfare programs and government intervention into the economy not because we disagree with their intentions (helping the poor), but because the means (taxation) violates the non-aggression principle by initiation of force through taxation. It is a healthy sign that society cares about the poor and less fortunate; there is no virtue, however, in using force in order to achieve a certain set of desired goals or ends.
- These fraternal organizations were not charities per se, but private associations of individuals.
- Those who chose to join would voluntarily pay membership dues in return for a defined schedule of benefits, which, depending on the society, could include life insurance, permanent disability, sickness and accident, old-age, or funeral benefits.
- because they were private and thus more immune to bureaucracy, the annual fee was usually about a single day’s paycheck.
http://mic.com/articles/3333/how-the-government-has-caused-poverty-and-how-libertarians-can-fix-it
By the way, how is that War on Poverty working out? You know, the one that your ideology says should be succeeding?
Mr. Friscus
Governor
Poverty dropped 5%.. but what you fail to leave out is that it had dropped 5% in the past years before the War On Poverty.
Your extremist declarations don't give you much credibility.
No poverty? LOL. You're trolling skills are horrendous. Drop the anti-Conservative character.
I feel sooooooooooooo sorry for your bride................and child............your diatribes never allow you time to spend with them............it's all cool..........she will find someone that wants to spend time with her and the kid doesn't give a shit.......as long as it gets what it wants.........☻what it tell's other kids..........dad is on PJ, I can get anything I want as long as I don't interfere with his stats diatribes.......
Arkady
President
