Crime in Philadelphia discussion (Milton: eat, vacations, childcare)

[JamesJay64]

Originally Posted by Hermit12

Nice, we've spread to the suburbs:

https://6abc.com/philadelphia-pa-da-...lons/13624952/

"That's why he wrote an open letter citing his concerns centered on the effects of the Driver's Equity Act, which mandates Philadelphia police officers turn a blind eye to minor driving infractions, along with policies enacted by the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office under Larry Krasner."

A LOT of people in stolen cars/out to commit crimes speed, drive recklessly, and commit many moving violations. I don't support the Driver's Equity Bill but the police share at LEAST equal blame if not more for refusing to enforce traffic laws... which they are fully allowed to enforce. They are just choosing not to.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by Hermit12

Nice, we've spread to the suburbs:

https://6abc.com/philadelphia-pa-da-...lons/13624952/

"That's why he wrote an open letter citing his concerns centered on the effects of the Driver's Equity Act, which mandates Philadelphia police officers turn a blind eye to minor driving infractions, along with policies enacted by the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office under Larry Krasner."

That policy is complete madness.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by Hermit12

Nice, we've spread to the suburbs:

https://6abc.com/philadelphia-pa-da-...lons/13624952/

"That's why he wrote an open letter citing his concerns centered on the effects of the Driver's Equity Act, which mandates Philadelphia police officers turn a blind eye to minor driving infractions, along with policies enacted by the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office under Larry Krasner."

Does the Mayor have the authority to veto / discontinue this bill?
I have a feeling Cherelle Parker will be less lenient on this type of stuff.

[MPK21]

Originally Posted by cpomp

Does the Mayor have the authority to veto / discontinue this bill?
I have a feeling Cherelle Parker will be less lenient on this type of stuff.

Will she though? What about the whole ''driving while black'' propaganda that drove this Drivers' Equity lunacy in the 1st place? All those harrowing stories of black council member/s being stopped by Philly cops on multiple occasions.

Then again, Cherelle Parker never said her DUI stop was racist and driving while black. I guess she couldn't since her drunk azz was driving the wrong direction down a one-way street. Parker's pro-cop stance is in conflict with her DUI arrest, conviction, and lost appeal given that she still maintains that the cops lied.

Typical though a white mayor would sign this bill in the first place. lol

[Hermit12]

Originally Posted by JamesJay64

A LOT of people in stolen cars/out to commit crimes speed, drive recklessly, and commit many moving violations. I don't support the Driver's Equity Bill but the police share at LEAST equal blame if not more for refusing to enforce traffic laws... which they are fully allowed to enforce. They are just choosing not to.

Do you have any kind of proof that the police aren't enforcing traffic laws?

[MPK21]

More solutions to decreasing crime: ''lifting'' people out of poverty complements of The Peoples' Republic of Philadelphia:

From the Inquirer 8/11/23

"Philadelphia has announced a new guaranteed income study designed to determine to what extent additional financial aid increases economic mobility for families in need.

The study by the Office of Community Empowerment and Opportunity (CEO) is aimed at parents that have received “temporary assistance for needy families” (TANF) from the state for more than five years. Its design: Over a year, 50 recipients of extended TANF will be granted an additional $500 per month, while 250 other recipients will receive an additional $50. The first payments were issued June 17.

CEO expects the study to reveal ways to make financial assistance more equal, and especially to guarantee public funding is distributed regardless of race and gender. More than every other Black child in the U.S. is living in one of the 18 states with the lowest benefits, according to CEO.

“States’ withdrawal of funding from cash assistance has harshly affected Black families,” CEO wrote in a statement, as states “with larger shares of Black residents tend to spend smaller shares of their TANF funds on basic assistance.”

The new pilot study is meant to pave the way for funding that provides families extra income without being attached to any restrictions. It is part of a series of antipoverty experiments Philly has launched recently. With a poverty rate of about 23%, Philadelphia is the poorest U.S. big city.

In July 2022, the city started one of its first guaranteed income programs, focusing on the housing situation of low-income residents. To make up for increasing everyday costs, the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation and the city distributed an average of $890 per month to 300 households that had been randomly selected from Philadelphia Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher and public housing waitlists.

The most recent program is yet another effort to address poverty in Philadelphia. In early 2020, City Council announced its plan to lift 100,000 residents out of poverty by 2024.
"
Published Aug. 11, 2023

[Muinteoir]

Originally Posted by MPK21

Typical though a white mayor would sign this bill in the first place. lol

So what is it? Is it wrong to make oversimplified generalizations about any race? Is it wrong to make suggestions about someone's competence or character based upon their race? If it is not wrong, are the leftists justified in making sweeping generalizations about white people? If it is wrong, why did you bring up Kenney's race?

[selhars]

OMG...I saw this guaranteed income -- IMO crap -- and almost posted it myself.

And I admit that viscerally I was PO'd.
But then I thought, is it any different from any other welfare/redistribute wealth program.

And, then I thought...don't all public assistance programs redistribute -- if not wealth -- then at least redistribute money -- to a certain extent.

And given that I'm not against helping people in need....I guess it's only the extent and type of help that we all debate??

I DO wish people who get public assistance were vetted more. There shouldn't be any lottery or random assistance.

Do I think more people are deserving of help? Uh, yeah.
If that makes me judgemental, so be it.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by selhars

OMG...I saw this guaranteed income -- IMO crap -- and almost posted it myself.

And I admit that viscerally I was PO'd.
But then I thought, is it any different from any other welfare/redistribute wealth program.

And, then I thought...don't all public assistance programs redistribute -- if not wealth -- then at least redistribute money -- to a certain extent.

And given that I'm not against helping people in need....I guess it's only the extent and type of help that we all debate??

I DO wish people who get public assistance were vetted more. There shouldn't be any lottery or random assistance.

Do I think more people are deserving of help? Uh, yeah.
If that makes me judgemental, so be it.

The idea remains controversial, as should be clear from what we see here.

I do think that too much accumulation of wealth at the top of the socioeconomic structure will ultimately prove corrosive to society (I likened this to termites eating away at the frame of a house recently), and if that's the case, then some sort of redistribution of wealth becomes a necessary safety valve.

But does this mean direct transfer of wealth from the wealthy to the poor? I have toyed with the idea of offering households and individuals whose income and/or assets put them in the top 5 percent of all Americans a direct tax credit for "adopting" a low-income family by providing them enough income (or in-kind equivalents, like food or housing) to raise them above 125 percent of the poverty line, with an additional credit for every such family they adopt. But I don't think that will be well received, either.

The reason why is that critics of a guaranteed basic income, however funded, argue that it will discourage recipients from working to better their situation. However, we can't determine whether the critics are right or not unless we conduct some experiments. And those experiments will of necessity consist of giving some people a guaranteed basic income and monitoring them against a control group of similarly situated would-be recipients who don't get one.

It sounds like this is what the city plans to do. I understand that something similar is already underway in California.

[selhars]

We have decades and decades of giving people welfare, food stamps, rent discounts (Section 8), etc. I bet some people have gotten all three.

That's plenty of history to look back on and assess how that has worked to reduce poverty -- and more to the point of this thread -- crime.

(Mmm, ever heard of advocates crying the blues the a mom/grandmom on Section 8 shouldn't get evicted because a family member who lives in that same house sells drugs out of that same house? Redistributing money sure doesn't stop that crime. And if a person sells drugs, why wouldn't they also commit crime against strangers, or shoplift, or loot a store?)

Now, here people go a gain with the universal basic income.

What the hell am I working for then? TO take more of what I work for and give it to someone else?
(I know, I know. That's just the frustration talking.)