East Coast Aztec

A year or two of mandatory service for every young adult would be so costly just to screen for violent tendencies, health, and criminal records the trade off with cost would already be a nightmare. Then those that do slip through the cracks (which will likely be magnitudes worse than current screening) now have spent a couple of (very expensive) years on the low-end of the military spectrum where they are trained in weapons and tactics (at least Marines) while still getting kicked around as a boot could result in hell in the streets. The mandatory service could become one of the most deadly policies in our nations history. A nation full of guns, and now they all know how to fight, shoot from long range, and do MOUT. I don't want people who never chose to join and are probably unhappy with it to now be that trained. It can work in other countries that don't have gun rights like we do, but I am very hesitant, and in fact, resistant to that. It doesn't make sense economically, socially, or strategically, while there are likely more productive options available to still serve your community/country. ETA: Military.com Cost for Personnel

As a military volunteer, I don't think it is needed, and I don't think it improves morale, proficiency, and the readiness of the military. The military should not be a daycare program for 18-year olds to learn discipline, that should be done much earlier. Also, I can see bad times in the military as those who chose to enlist will likely not look favorable at those who were forced there. Why not PeaceCorps, JobCorps, AmeriCorps, or community youth programs for cleaning up beaches, forests and parks, rebuilding communities affected by natural disasters, or helping the underserved in communities with food, health and fundraising programs that fit their experience levels? Seems more impactful on the community and doesn't create a bunch of high-cost Americans bound to serve when they may be opposed to military and warfare.

Most public housing was directed at post-war working class, and many were white. The projects in NOLA, Los Angeles, Chicago and NYC were well-integrated or mostly white, and were initially well-funded. But the government is not designed to handle the O&M of skyrise residential, so it fell into decay, and the working class (also as a result of white flight and suburbia) moved out and the cities then filled them with the unemployed, many of which were black. I agree with the overzealous government not being able to properly analyze long-term costs to maintain safety and health in public housing. Your remedy for housing vouchers and food stamps has a flaw in that back in the 80's and 90's they used to give out food stamps, and it was used as barter for things that they weren't designed for. Currently housing vouchers are used, but it doesn't do much to deter bad habits, as you have to live somewhere to receive it, so it would be used for rent regardless. Public housing was intended to be temporary, and the reality of government not going to help the unwilling was in place. It needs to be brought back. I am more than fine subsidizing folks who are working, striving for a better life, and trying to move on up. I am not fine with those that treat government like a parent that spoils you with an allowance even if you didn't do anything to deserve it. We first need to find a way to have enough jobs and a blend of housing stock in the private market for neighborhoods to stand on their own, and then we remove the perpetual welfare (unless a waiver is granted for specific reasons) mindset in government and in the lowest-income communities. This also goes for the rural housing program with USDA.

None of my ideas were political, rather community-based ideas. Although you say a neighborhood doesn't commit crime, individuals do, dismissing the neighborhood as a key to improving individuals doesn't seem like a rational decision. What you are suggesting is that people change behavior. Okay, how do we do that? You are stating objectives, I am suggesting ways to get to the objectives. ETA: I see you made an edit, but still have literally not responded to the topic's question. In fact you have done the opposite and went with the bootstrap comment which is rather simplistic and again doesn't address the OP.

Fans, no fans, don't care. Give me some football. I am usually doing a cookout anyways, so most games I don't hear. Even for the main game, I am usually around folks, so I don't hear much of the game.

50-years ago, women were secretaries at best, but essentially were forced to stay in the house. Wages were commiserate with cost-of-living, which just is not the case anymore. Jobs were stable, especially blue-collar, and the middle-class was respected. It didn't take a degree for most jobs that now need one. The war on drugs didn't exist, and the use of the judicial system to punish the poor was not prevalent. Inner cities still had good schools, and the neighborhood's housing wasn't completely dilapidated. White flight wasn't at its apex, removing wealth from the inner city. Also the government was implicit in the segregation of races, of oppressing minorities and the poor, and their was no social media to show all the bad things that were taking place. The idyllic America was a myth to most, and the economy is completely different and there is no return to that. So if we are trying to stay on topic of how to curb inner city violence, saying a return to the past and bootstrap will not solve current problems. How do we solve current problems in the current context? How do we maintain family nucleus while still allowing women to work, which they need to to cover the cost of living? How do we promote work ethic in neighborhoods where the best job pays $10/hr as a manager at Popeyes, when the entitlements of welfare pays more? Why think about a trade, when you don't have a way into the field because you don't know folks who can get you into the job? How can you move away to a place with better job prospects when you have $100 in your savings? How can a family have any success when they live in high-crime, low jobs, no family elsewhere, no money, and no enticing resume? I ask those questions so as to frame my earlier post. I am not trying to dismiss what you say, because if the environment is there to succeed, then the things you mention are key components to achieve.

Paul Ryan's life no longer makes sense.

Because their twitter feed told them to

It helps individually, but doesn't really speak to how inner-city violence can be curbed. You do all of that, and you probably move out of that area, the inner city violence changes none.

I posted this on another thread You will not stop violence overnight. It takes recognition that people move when they have the ability to do so, and if you lived in a violent area, moving away is safer for your family. That continues the vacuum of little investment in the inner city. Most of the inner city is either public housing or rental properties or dilapidated housing. If we want better inner city neighborhoods, there needs to be stability in those neighborhoods. This is why a certain level of gentrification is necessary. The more homeowners there are is going to entice businesses to be there, for tax dollars to fund schools, community centers, and local neighborhood assets. Police does play a role, and the current conversation is relevant for reforms to police. Neighborhoods need to be confident in the police to come out against criminal activity without fear that there will be retaliation from those criminals with no help from the police, or that they didn't just sign off on bad cops using your words to go after innocent folks in the community, or that they themselves aren't harassed by officers. The key is opportunity in the neighborhoods, and by and large it woefully lacks. A good job is hawing cell phones or working at fast food joint. Good-paying jobs are not going to be there, and banks are still reluctant to lend in those neighborhoods, doing the bare minimum to satisfy the Community Reinvestment Act. Community and vocational colleges in inner cities are typically under-enrolled, have low graduation, and have low placement percentages for graduates. One likely factor is that industries are not there to work with the schools to introduce new technologies, apprenticeships and internships, or jobs when they graduate. Without those pipelines, there is no incentive to attend, and there is much less of a chance for trade jobs for folks in those neighborhoods. No trade job placements, and no pipelines for other folks to enter the industry, which pipelines are one of the most used methods for hiring in most industries. Why do I not directly discuss inner city violence? Because crime and the violence it brings is typically a result of lack of legal options. Because when there is too much time on your hands, and no positive and safe outlets exist, the willingness to find a way to pass time or make money through nefarious activity grows. Because so long as young kids see hardworkers struggling to survive making less than AMI, while the drug dealers are balling and showing their wealth, the kids see the criminals as the examples of success, and as the criminals manipulate kids to do the dirty work, they are quickly in the police system, and its subsequent consequences of getting arrested, losing rights, making it harder to get a job, to compound the dangers of living the criminal life, or just living in those neighborhoods themselves. The key is to create a self-reliant neighborhood, and investment is key. Add quality police and it is a great start to rebuild.

Perhaps, I won't dismiss it. Just like I won't dismiss

We have a ton in Minneapolis too. The guy that accidentally drove through the protest was one. Most under 30 are American-born, so it is confusing to say with absolute certainty where they are from. Really, does it matter, if they are here practicing their stupidity, then it is stupidity in America, period.

Retaliation for dumbasses tearing down other ones?

Which is it? One of them has been convicted of stabbing someone in America too. Would he not have been deported if he was from Russia?

I think it may have been an informal or just a boot soldier who thought bringing it through the chain would have been adequate. The naivety of a 20-year old private is a dream for a platoon or company in covering up a harassment case.