north minneapolis (employment, weddings, purchase)

[Veridian]

Originally Posted by mk10063955

The northern part of Minneapolis is very dangerous. My aunt lives up there in a trashy neighborhood. There are drive-by shootings practically every week or so. My aunt has borded up all of her windows and can't even use the front room of her home because of all the gunfire. There are many dangerous gangs up there that fight with each other regularly. The neighborhoods appear on the news at least every week. It is not a good place to live at all.

I guess, since we're going to take a large area with many different communities in it and paint them all with one big brush, I'll one-up you: Hennepin County is dangerous. This guy's aunt lives in Hennepin County, and has "borded" (sic) up her house...there are many dangerous gangs in Hennepin County. It is not a good place to live at all.

Incidently, I don't know if you all know this, but Hennepin County is in Minnesota. Since this guy's aunt lives in Minnesota and has "borded" (sic) up her house, I would go further and say Minnesota is not a good place to live at all.

I would go even further, but the brush was already too wide when it encompassed the entirety of North Minneapolis as one undifferentiated mass.

[Veridian]

Originally Posted by MRNorthSide

Has anyone seen this 2008 study on welfare reform?

Minnesota has been awarded a D-.

Heartland Institute - Article

Do you know much about the Heartland Institute's reputation? Are you aware that they have a polical agenda? Did you present this information as coming from a particular political point of view?

[MRNorthSide]

I wrote a lengthy response to your questions/accusations, but I will just answer your questions with another question: Do you think they are singling out MN? Why?

[Veridian]

I don't know that I made any "accusations"- it is possible that you may not be aware of what the Heartland Institute espouses. It is not a non-partisan organization: a lot of their "studies" use as a standard of measure how closely their subjects hew to free-market conservative orthodoxy. Therefore, a "D-" grade on this study is meaningless- it is grading how conservative Minnesota's policies have been. Overall, Minnesota's policies have not been conservative, so it will get a poor grade.

Look at the criteria used in the study. Many of the criteria of the greatest weight are controversial free-market conservative talking points.

Furthermore, many of the criteria focus on things that may not be related to the individual states' policies. Shifts in demographics are just as likely to account for much of the progress/lack thereof in certain states. In short, it's a poorly done study meant to forward a political agenda, not to inform or to provide empirical data.

I'm merely asking that if someone looks at the study, they ask questions of it. Further, if someone posts "information" culled by an organization with a strong political point of view, they ought to be up-front about it. Do you object to being up-front about the political slant of the study you are citing?

[MRNorthSide]

That's from the MN Department of Human Resources.

Not credible enough for ya?

This was taken from an article by Tom Weber, of Minnesota Public Radio:

"Rep. Marty Seifert, R-Marshall, says more than 310,000 purchases were made outside of Minnesota, using debit cards issued to welfare recipients who live in Minnesota. "

Those purchases add up to ~$10M, $3K of which was spent in Hawaii.

Isn't that's peculiar?!?

[Veridian]

Is that map linked to anything, because it is too small for me to read any of the writing and I have no idea what it is supposed to show.

As far as the welfare money going out of state, are we both agreed about the Heartland Institute study being questionable and are thus moving on to this other issue?

[MRNorthSide]

I am in aggreance with you: the Heartland Institute has had credibility issues in the past; although, the criteria used in this study seems quite relevant.

I thought the current topic was the welfare system in MN?

Originally Posted by knke0402

… if you hang out at the bus depot in DT Minneapolis, watch the people. Seriously, they get off the FROM CHICAGO bus at 9 am, stand in line, collect thier check, and hop onto the TO CHICAGO bus at 6 pm …

Originally Posted by Camden Northsider

... This little scenario is simply untrue and it would be possible to even do such a thing ...

Thoughts?

[Slig]

So the next highest state is Wisconsin, which is equal to .5% of the total amount spent in Minnesota...pretty insignificant.

[Veridian]

Originally Posted by MRNorthSide

I am in aggreance with you: the Heartland Institute has had credibility issues in the past; although, the criteria used in this study seems quite relevant.

I thought the current topic was the welfare system in MN?





Thoughts?

Well, my first thought is this: I disagree that the criteria the Heartland Institute used in this study are valid. I'll go into my critiques if you like.

Second, you're comparing what Camden Northsider was disputing with knke0402 with your map. I don't think the two points are connected. The map does not show that people are showing up on a bus, getting a check, and then leaving the state. The expenditures of Minnesota state welfare money being spent in other states are explainable in many, many other ways- the most obvious of which is that some welfare recipients have perhaps travelled.

Incidently, I think what knke0402 wrote was just ridiculous. Has she/he actually done this? How is he tracking the people getting off the bus in the morning, following them to the welfare office, then getting back on the bus in the evening? Honestly, doesn't that whole scenario seem absurd and far-fetched to you?

I'm not terribly shocked to see MN welfare money being spent in other states. It doesn't really say much. First of all, what does it really mean? Second, is it some sort of aberration? Does a lot more Minnesota welfare money go outside of the state than do the welfare moneys of other states? If we're measuing Minnesota's welfare system, don't we have to take it in context? The "facts" presented in the map are both unclear, and taken in such isolation that they don't amount to much.

I can't help but feel that you're drawing more conclusions from some of these "data" than they merit.

[MRNorthSide]

When you add the "%" sign, you have to multiply by 100. I'm sure you meant .45%

In any case, I think that $10M spent outside of the state is very significant. Slig, do you pay taxes???