Chicago's population grew by only 82 residents last year, (Worth, Manhattan: buying, professionals)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by BIG CATS

I usually love your posts and agree with them, but that might be the dumbest effing thing Ive read in quite some time. Cmon, man.

I don't agree with his statement but if there's one certainty it's that NY's black "professional" community is much better than Chicago's.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I don't agree with his statement but if there's one certainty it's that NY's black "professional" community is much better than Chicago's.

??? Is that coming from me? I don't remember ever saying anything about NY's black professional community.

[RPreskop]

That is the whole problem with Chicago, it has been under monolithic rule of the Democratic Party for too damned long. It is time for Chicago city hall to be taken over by both moderate republicans and independents. The democrats have ruined Chicago in as much the same way that they ruined most other older northern cities like St Louis, Detroit, and Buffalo. The only thing that the urban democrats know are tax and spend, costly silver bullet redevelopment projects, and endless pandering to both crooked organized labor and the unmotivated urban poor. This is most likely why Chicago is having serious budget problems, the business climate needs improvement, taxes in Illinois are high just like they are in both California and New York. It is time for drastic, major changes in northern urban governance not only in Chicago but also in St. Louis, Detroit, Buffalo and most other older northern cities. One of those drastic, major changes in northern urban governance needs to be the total eviction of the corrupt, incompetent Democratic Party from city hall.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by RPreskop

That is the whole problem with Chicago, it has been under monolithic rule of the Democratic Party for too damned long. It is time for Chicago city hall to be taken over by both moderate republicans and independents. The democrats have ruined Chicago in as much the same way that they ruined most other older northern cities like St Louis, Detroit, and Buffalo. The only thing that the urban democrats know are tax and spend, costly silver bullet redevelopment projects, and endless pandering to both crooked organized labor and the unmotivated urban poor. This is most likely why Chicago is having serious budget problems, the business climate needs improvement, taxes in Illinois are high just like they are in both California and New York. It is time for drastic, major changes in northern urban governance not only in Chicago but also in St. Louis, Detroit, Buffalo and most other older northern cities. One of those drastic, major changes in northern urban governance needs to be the total eviction of the corrupt, incompetent Democratic Party from city hall.

and the prize goes to…….RPreskop for "moderate republicans", the oxymoron-of-the-century.

"unmotivated urban poor" are there no debtors prisons?

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by RPreskop

That is the whole problem with Chicago, it has been under monolithic rule of the Democratic Party for too damned long. It is time for Chicago city hall to be taken over by both moderate republicans and independents. The democrats have ruined Chicago in as much the same way that they ruined most other older northern cities like St Louis, Detroit, and Buffalo. The only thing that the urban democrats know are tax and spend, costly silver bullet redevelopment projects, and endless pandering to both crooked organized labor and the unmotivated urban poor. This is most likely why Chicago is having serious budget problems, the business climate needs improvement, taxes in Illinois are high just like they are in both California and New York. It is time for drastic, major changes in northern urban governance not only in Chicago but also in St. Louis, Detroit, Buffalo and most other older northern cities. One of those drastic, major changes in northern urban governance needs to be the total eviction of the corrupt, incompetent Democratic Party from city hall.

St. Louis is required by law to keep a balanced budget. That's why the city has so little money to play around with. Let's also not pretend like the Republicans that have a supermajority in the Missouri legislature don't mind letting the City of St. Louis languish.

[ColdAilment]

Originally Posted by PerseusVeil

St. Louis is required by law to keep a balanced budget. That's why the city has so little money to play around with. Let's also not pretend like the Republicans that have a supermajority in the Missouri legislature don't mind letting the City of St. Louis languish.

Is that true? It's a shame more cities don't have that.

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by ColdAilment

Is that true? It's a shame more cities don't have that.

It's true.

General Budget Summary. In no event shall the total amount of proposed expenditures for the budget year from any fund exceed the estimated revenues to be actually received plus any unencumbered balance or less any deficit estimated for the beginning of the budget year.

St. Louis City Revised Code Chapter 5.14: BUDGET

St. Louis’ ordinances require a balanced budget, meaning income must equal spending. That has left the city little money to tackle big problems such as major street improvements, technology upgrades and other capital projects.

St. Louis budget tops $1 billion for first time as city looks for more funding : News

St. Louis, unlike Chicago, got a handle on its pension costs, but it's partially come at the cost of there not being as much to spend on the city's aging infrastructure. The above article mentions that.

[TheSunshineKid]

Originally Posted by edsg25

and the prize goes to…….RPreskop for "moderate republicans", the oxymoron-of-the-century.

"unmotivated urban poor" are there no debtors prisons?

What's a "moderate Democrat"?

I get the feeling this board, no matter how old you are, the mention of "Republican" latent bitterness slowly surfaces. It's a bit childish, really, and telling.

[makes no sense at all]

there's not really any empirical evidence that a republican would be a better mayor of Chicago
...since there hasn't been one in 85 years

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by TheSunshineKid

What's a "moderate Democrat"?

I get the feeling this board, no matter how old you are, the mention of "Republican" latent bitterness slowly surfaces. It's a bit childish, really, and telling.

What's a "moderate Democrat"? Well, if noticed Sunshine, I didn't mention the Democrats once in my post. Why? Because I have no desire to defend a party I have little use for. My line about "moderate Republican" stems from the fact that they are so far to the right they're off the charts; any moderate Republican would get chewed up and spit out by the rabid base. As for "moderate Democrats", well, on that score that's where most of them are: right smack in the middle, not standing for anything, having the same ties to big money as the Republicans do. Democrats take moderation to an extreme.

so i don't agree one bit, Sunshine. I am not a Democrat which I find a basically corporate party and not very liberal. I find the Republican party today has become an outlier that reaches for extremes. And frankly I would be hard put to come up with that Republican moderate since the base of the party would show no support for him. the Republican Party today does the bidding for the 1% and has gathered together those who they can entice with social issues to vote for it. In so doing, the inmates took over the institution.

so mine is hardly a left vs. right issue here. I am a liberal and a progressive, but I hardly look at conservatives as my enemy. and frankly i don't see much today that is real conservatism in the GOP. extremism, as noted, is where it is at. And in many ways, I am more than comfortable calling out the Democrats for what they are or can be: Republican Lite

"latent"? Nothing latent about it. We're talking very much about the present and what the party evolved into today. Indeed if you look at the GOP deep enough that latent would be a relevant term, you'd see a party that once had an active liberal component. once the GOP had a wider appeal and the party in the northeast was generally progressive in thought and action.

and as far as bitterness goes, my bitterness is way more directed to the Democrats, a party that has become an embarrassment and I know of no liberal or progressive that would call himself a Democrat.