Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

halfmanhalfbronco

Ok, so let's have a meaningful talk about inner city violence.

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It actually is hard, my friend.  Listen, I grew up in poverty.  Raised by a single mom who made $7.00 an hour taking care of my sister and I.  The average cost to move for a single person, bare minimum is 5k.  That may seem like nothing to you.  To my mom, sister and I, 5k may as well have been 5 million.  You simply do not get it.  That is ok.

We get it.  It is completely impossible for anyone to move out of the ghetto.  No how.  No way.

It is insulting the way white people think about folks in the ghetto.  Maybe not every individual or family could do it, but I bet a fair amount could if they put their efforts towards it.  It is hard to leave what you know for the great unknown....especially when all you have been told is that there are white folks with burning crosses and nooses waiting for you when you get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, renoskier said:

Fortunately, a program like you mention already exist and has since 1965, it's called Head Start. The infrastructure is already in place, maybe it just needs to be expanded, and funded, to include older children.

It's surprising that you would suggest a possible "solution" that will obviously be expensive for the taxpayers.

To this point, Oklahoma’s universal pre-K has shown significant results, with students increasing their scores on standardized math exams across the board, increasing enrollment in honors courses, and significant improvement in grade retention (fewer kids held back a grade). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
7 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It actually is hard, my friend.  Listen, I grew up in poverty.  Raised by a single mom who made $7.00 an hour taking care of my sister and I.  The average cost to move for a single person, bare minimum is 5k.  That may seem like nothing to you.  To my mom, sister and I, 5k may as well have been 5 million.  You simply do not get it.  That is ok.

First, you are making some incorrect assumptions about my background.  Apparently, you think your Mom's circumstances are unique, because she was poor?  Big whoop.  Welcome to the club.

Stop making excuses.  People move all the time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

This makes zero sense whatsoever. More military training does not equal less dumb wars.

If everyone’s child has a chance to be in war versus just those who volunteered, the society in general is more thoughtful about which wars we engage.  Now duty in war zone is merely a checkbox in career progression. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I won't argue against the immorality of separating families but I doubt this is a significant factor in causing black on black crime.

I didn’t see black in the title.  I saw inner city violence.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
6 hours ago, youngredbullfan said:

It's pretty incredible that people don't get this. If you were born with capital, you have more options. If you go through life without questioning it, you start assuming everyone was born with capital.

Like, duh, why don't poor people who have to walk 10 miles to get to a grocery store just, like, buy a Beamer? Just solved the problem of food deserts. Boom.

Ha!!!

^^^ Sounds like you are projecting yourself again.   

Some of you obviously have very little exposure to people who aren't wealthy, do you?

The argument that poor people are unable move or relocate is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SalinasSpartan said:

So, what, you think achieving a more equal society is going to be easy? It won’t be. It will require a lot of real, structural change, some of it which would likely make some people uncomfortable; just look at the people throwing a fit over people proposing to cut money from police budgets to reinvest in to struggling communities that need it. I would rather have people be honest and say it’s not a huge priority to them, or that they believe in social Darwinism; that I could respect. It’s at least honest. But the people that claim to want more equality but bitch about doing anything more then tinkering around the edges get no respect from me. 

Not that I agree with all their positions but is it possible they could be right that the breakdown of the family is part of the problem?   And that government programs the don’t encourage/support families to stay together should be remade so they do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
25 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

We get it.  It is completely impossible for anyone to move out of the ghetto.  No how.  No way.

It is insulting the way white people think about folks in the ghetto.  Maybe not every individual or family could do it, but I bet a fair amount could if they put their efforts towards it.  It is hard to leave what you know for the great unknown....especially when all you have been told is that there are white folks with burning crosses and nooses waiting for you when you get there.

The excuses these guys make, that poor people are too unable and inept to move out of a crime filled ghetto is laughable.

I'm starting to wonder if some of these guys have ever been poor, or at least if they know any poor people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

If everyone’s child has a chance to be in war versus just those who volunteered, the society in general is more thoughtful about which wars we engage.  Now duty in war zone is merely a checkbox in career progression. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I didn’t see black in the title.  I saw inner city violence.   

When you look at the data, a vast majority of inner city violent crime is black on black. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife and I both paid our way through college and have teaching degrees.  Very little help from either set of parents.  Got jobs and because we wanted more for ourselves and children we got extra jobs.  My wife worked as a part time janitor at the school and I worked for maintenance and  did all the lawns at the same school.  We also worked as janitors at the district office for over four years.  I’m not saying this for a pat on the back but that if you want things you have to do some crappy things sometimes.  It wasn’t fun...

 

now all that said I realize inner city people don’t have access to extra jobs or good paying jobs all the time BUT.... all the more reason to move and better their circumstances!  Weird concept I’m sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

If everyone’s child has a chance to be in war versus just those who volunteered, the society in general is more thoughtful about which wars we engage.  Now duty in war zone is merely a checkbox in career progression. 

Yeah, doesn’t really work that way. Forcing people to serve in the military isn’t going to change foreign intervention policy. The government as it operates today will still be blood thirsty while wealthy and influential will find a way around having their children serve in a war theater... and the poor and middle class kids will still end up doing the actual fighting. I’ll pass. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

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.

Yes I get your point on proficiency and readiness.   You are correct those areas would be impacted but I’m not sure trading that off for a broad base of the population with military training is a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

When you look at the data, a vast majority of inner city violent crime is black on black. 

Perhaps it is just I live in CA but the Nortenos and Surenos have their own share of violence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Yeah, doesn’t really work that way. Forcing people to serve in the military isn’t going to change foreign intervention policy. The government as it operates today will still be blood thirsty while wealthy and influential will find a way around having their children serve in a war theater... and the poor and middle class kids will still end up doing the actual fighting. I’ll pass. 

I would agree with you if this were in fact allowed to be true.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Perhaps it is just I live in CA but the Nortenos and Surenos have their own share of violence.  

That’s anecdotal. DOJ data shows that African Americans commit more than half the violent crime in the country and a vast majority of the victims are other African Americans. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I would agree with you if this were in fact allowed to be true.   

It’s true under the current system. It was true under the draft. It will continue to be true under your authoritarian proposal.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Yes I get your point on proficiency and readiness.   You are correct those areas would be impacted but I’m not sure trading that off for a broad base of the population with military training is a bad thing.

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

Quote

Total Defense Department per capita costs triple, to $330,342 for active duty and to $100,380 for reserve component members, when non-compensation items such as training, military construction and base support costs are calculated.  They climb by another 15 to 20 percent when military personnel costs covered by other federal departments, including Veterans Affairs, Treasury, Labor and Education, are calculated.  These non-DoD costs for personnel include the GI Bill, VA disability benefits, job training for vets, and a portion of retirement and Medicare obligations paid by Treasury.

A large proportion of total personnel costs is deferred, paid to retirees who can draw an annuity with benefits at 20 years even though most will live, on average, another 40 years, Punaro said.  If this sounds familiar, Punaro also served on the Defense Business Board, another advisory panel to DoD that produced recent reports criticizing military retirement and retiree health benefits as too generous to be sustained for future generations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BYUcougfan said:

Typical white guilt liberal.  This is a two way street.  Handing over more money is not going to fix the problem if the communities don't also make some changes.  Cultural changes.  What is valued.  D.C. spends a ton of money per student and has terrible results.  Raining money is not some miracle cure.

Really, you think so?  Money literally rains down on white kids for generations.  The best schooling, extra curricular activities, private tutors, everything.  When that happens for generations that is called structural racism.  

Let's take a black kid with loving parents and "rain money on them" and give a white kid with loving parents a public housing voucher and some food stamps and see who ends up better.

We have never "rained money" on the poor or minorities.  We are actually pretty stingy if you look across the world.  We take from the poor and give to the rich...class warfare.

Then we get these white people who were born on third base and think they hit a triple acting smugly about how gifted and talented they are because the live in a McMansion since money has literally been "raining down" on them and their family for generations.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
17 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Really, you think so?  Money literally rains down on white kids for generations.  The best schooling, extra curricular activities, private tutors, everything.  When that happens for generations that is called structural racism.  

Let's take a black kid with loving parents and "rain money on them" and give a white kid with loving parents a public housing voucher and some food stamps and see who ends up better.

We have never "rained money" on the poor or minorities.  We are actually pretty stingy if you look across the world.  We take from the poor and give to the rich...class warfare.

Then we get these white people who were born on third base and think they hit a triple acting smugly about how gifted and talented they are because the live in a McMansion.

As stated, a fast, tried and true prescription on how to escape a ghetto, or "structural racism" (like redline areas), and particularly violence, is to move from the failed area, to a better area.  Go to a new State or Country!

Didn't you do that very thing?

You concluded that the United States was a failed country, with oppressive laws, and you immigrated to what you believe is a better Country.  Costa Rica, right?

And I assume since you hate rich people, you aren't self-loathing, and aren't rich, right? (We both dislike rich people).  And yet you found a way to do it... Bravo.

Not sure why you suggest that certain people are not as smart as you, and can't do the same.  It worked for you...why not others?

Plus, that approach might even avoid needing more government welfare thrown at crime ridden areas.  If more people move out, it might create unused property, and open up a prior crime filled ghetto to much needed new development.  (See Detroit).  Then you get mixed income density, instead of all poor people in one area (sometimes called gentrification). That's much more preferable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...