Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet you made no attempt whatsoever to address the thread topic. Wanna try again? Yes or no, do you believe that high crime ares are high crime due to poverty? It's a simple question.
I believe that questions like this have very complex answers. Yes, in part the areas are high crime due to poverty. It's a very obvious connection and the fact that you fail to see it, or are willfully ignorant because in some bizarre way, you think you score political points, doesn't change that.
There are other reasons that high crime areas are such includes density, poor educational achievement, few intact families and even poor nutrition.
These are complex questions, which need serious people addressing them. Trying to reduce them to a silly (and laughably incorrect) political "gotcha" not only evidences your lack of true concern for the poor-- but your inability to truly analyze the situation.
And? We're talking about poverty here, not low income.
Did people own their homes?
Some did, but most of the homes were little more than shacks.
Did they have savings accounts?
On less than $20k a year? Get serious. We're talking families of 6-8 people living on less than $20k a year.
Did they have job security?
Most didn't have actual jobs. Logging was the largest industry in the area.
Could they live for a month without assistance, if they lost a job?
Without government assistance? Probably. However, they would need the assistance of friends and neighbors - which was readily available.
Are they paying absurd interest rates to some fly by night company, just to pay rent?
Are companies the only entities that charge high rent? News to me.
"Low income" and "impoverished" aren't the same thing - and never mind that we don't know what $20,000 is worth in 2013 dollars...
There are very few areas in the United States where people are truly "impoverished". There are, however, many areas that are low income, and those low income areas are not always bastions of criminality.
Okay, I'll play your tedious little game. How is Wall Street a "high crime" area? Which is more dangerous for a little old black lady to walk through; Wall Street or the Lodge section of Detroit? Specifics please? Thanks
Given that Wall Street and the banks caused the last recession, most likely wiping out the retirement savings of the aforementioned little old black lady, causing the value of her home to plummet, putting most of her grand-children out of work so that some of them now live with her ---- I think Wall St is more dangerous. Like the criminals at the Bank of America, "a hypergluttonous ward of the state whose limitless fraud and criminal conspiracies we'll all be paying for until the end of time."
There are very few areas in the United States where people are truly "impoverished". There are, however, many areas that are low income, and those low income areas are not always bastions of criminality.
There's a lot of poverty in the U.S. In 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty in the United States, including almost 20% of American children.
The constant refrain from the left is that high crime areas are that way because of rampant poverty. But if you flesh that idea out, they're basically saying that poor people are barbaric savages that have no self control. The thing is, back in the day poor people had respect and didn't resort to crime. To say that poor people are criminals because they're poor is very disrespectful and bigoted. Discuss.
What's a neo-prog?
And who were the original progressives?
Funny how you name call.
Most of us are liberals, but nice try at denigrating a group of people.
Sadly, namecalling makes your entire argument look contrived and stupid.
There's a lot of poverty in the U.S. In 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty in the United States, including almost 20% of American children.
Poverty, yes. But impoverished, as implied by the poster I was responding to, no. The distinction that was made between low income and impoverished implies that extreme poverty is the status we are looking at here, and extreme poverty rates are much lower than 16%. The page you linked to gives extreme poverty rates of 1.2%, actually.
I've been using the term Neo Prog for at least 3 years. My definition has been derived from observation and policies of the far left, i.e the mainstream Democratic Party. Far Left Progressive Extremism leads to fascism; it has to by definition.
Well, you sure could have fooled me, I thought it was derived from a dirty toilet. Anyway, neoprogressive doesn't have a true definition pertaining to politics, other than one I posted in huffpo link. You know, you could be cutting edge here, just like sarah palin, Congratulations, Sarah Palin:
who knows, you might even be somebody, someday.
All you need to do is keep coming up with words nobody else knows, and hey, maybe you'll see your name, sophiasmommy in the high lights one day.
The constant refrain from the left is that high crime areas are that way because of rampant poverty. But if you flesh that idea out, they're basically saying that poor people are barbaric savages that have no self control. The thing is, back in the day poor people had respect and didn't resort to crime. To say that poor people are criminals because they're poor is very disrespectful and bigoted. Discuss.
Their concept of such is equal to a child who can not accept the failure of their own actions.
That is they equate failure to the fault of someone else.
While there are circumstances of people being obstructed by others in their ability to choose for themselves, this is not the "norm".
These types are abusers of the rarity of occurrence. They are political and dangerous to free minds. They thrive on those who refuse to do for themselves in order to gain power to dictate to others. These types of people are a cancer and deserve to be exterminated as their actions are the cause of destruction of humankind.
Their concept of such is equal to a child who can not accept the failure of their own actions.
That is they equate failure to the fault of someone else.
While there are circumstances of people being obstructed by others in their ability to choose for themselves, this is not the "norm".
These types are abusers of the rarity of occurrence. They are political and dangerous to free minds. They thrive on those who refuse to do for themselves in order to gain power to dictate to others. These types of people are a cancer and deserve to be exterminated as their actions are the cause of destruction of humankind.
There's a lot of poverty in the U.S. In 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty in the United States, including almost 20% of American children.
Pretty sure he's talking about in comparison to the rest of the world. We're the only nation in the world where most of our "poor" have AC and cable tv and cell phones.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
