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.
It isn't about a "foreign transplant with no desire to become Americanized" and never has been...it has ALWAYS been about foreign transplants, and really anyone and everyone who has come to this country, who is refused access to mainstram American and the ability to become Americanized...hence the creation of the first ghetto filled with the Irish. They came to this country to work, and be accepted..but there was no acceptance to be had and they were segregated into ghettos...and that process has repeated itself with just about every immigrant group, particularly those of color.
How many times can you reach out your hand, only to be slapped away, before you stop reaching out? That's the immigrant experience.
Secondly, are you saying we were better off as a society prior to the safety nets we have today? If so, look to the countries which are the most educated, most sucessful, largest/strongest economies, etc...and what do they have in common? Strong social safety nets (aka public assistance), as well as sound legal systems and worker protections (Europe). Now look to those who are the least successful, most illiterate, dysfunctional, violent (India just off the top of my head)...they have the least social safety nets, minimally effective legal systems and zero worker protections. If you think removing safety nets solves anything, or makes us a better society, you are gravely mistaken, and those people who did live prior to all the current social safety nets will tell you how difficult life was...and why our government instituted these programs in the first place.
I will agree with your 3rd paragraph however.
As for your last paragraph, I don't believe you are unclean, it was the WASPs who did. FYI, that "liberalism and its lies" you despise so much is the reason why your mom can get a college degree, why blacks and whites can marry without being jailed, and why you can get a job despite having an "Unamerican" (suspect) name like O'Connor, Lombardi, Rodriguez, Papadopoulos, or Patel.
It isn't about a "foreign transplant with no desire to become Americanized" and never has been...it has ALWAYS been about foreign transplants, and really anyone and everyone who has come to this country, who is refused access to mainstram American and the ability to become Americanized...hence the creation of the first ghetto filled with the Irish. They came to this country to work, and be accepted..but there was no acceptance to be had and they were segregated into ghettos...and that process has repeated itself with just about every immigrant group, particularly those of color.
How many times can you reach out your hand, only to be slapped away, before you stop reaching out? That's the immigrant experience.
Secondly, are you saying we were better off as a society prior to the safety nets we have today? If so, look to the countries which are the most educated, most sucessful, largest/strongest economies, etc...and what do they have in common? Strong social safety nets (aka public assistance), as well as sound legal systems and worker protections (Europe). Now look to those who are the least successful, most illiterate, dysfunctional, violent (India just off the top of my head)...they have the least social safety nets, minimally effective legal systems and zero worker protections. If you think removing safety nets solves anything, or makes us a better society, you are gravely mistaken, and those people who did live prior to all the current social safety nets will tell you how difficult life was...and why our government instituted these programs in the first place.
I will agree with your 3rd paragraph however.
As for your last paragraph, I don't believe you are unclean, it was the WASPs who did. FYI, that "liberalism and its lies" you despise so much is the reason why your mom can get a college degree, why blacks and whites can marry without being jailed, and why you can get a job despite having an "Unamerican" (suspect) name like O'Connor, Lombardi, Rodriguez, Papadopoulos, or Patel.
Your thesis on public assistance on how good widespread social nets are in Europe is illogical. Why? Look at Greece. Look at Spain. Look at Ireland. Look at France. Finished looking? Good. Why are they all going broke? Lavish public assistance programs have placed them in bankrupty. France just changed it tax code to 50% of ones income going to the state. How sustainable is Socialism? It only works when you can spend other peoples money. That is why Greece is a mess, Spains unemployment at 25%+, etc.
Germany is the exception. Why?, they went through a total revision of the creeping welfare state that emerged in the 2000s. The cut back on social programs, etc. and lo and behold, they are thriving. Despite the Euro problem and loans to others in the EU.
You can't ignore the fact our fiscal house is totally unsustainable and will collapse if we don't cut back on social spending and big ticket defense spending.
That was an obvious answer from you...and has nothing to do with their strong social safety nets and everything to do with their victimization in the massive fraud perpetrated by the financial institutions/securities industry. This fraud took down the global economy...and those European countries particularly tied to the housing bubble and the financial fraud were the most succeptible..which is why Germany was AOK. Not because they revised their social programs..they are still very generous, and worker protections are still solid. (Sorry Wal-Mart, you had to leave Germany!)
You are making up facts (as usual) to support your flawed arguments. The European countries are struggling, as is America, NOT because of social programs, but due 100% to fraud by the finance industry which came to a head in 2008...bye bye Lehman Brothers...bye bye every other American investment bank...I am sure social programs took those companies down too right?
Everything you see since that time is trying to salvage their economy (and our own), which includes cuts in spending in social programs, city workers, etc..all to bridge the gap 100% caused by mortgage fraud.
I will say that our fiscal house is unsustainable, but AGAIN, not because of social safety nets, but because of Bush's tax cuts, Bush's 2 unfunded decade long wars, Bush's unfunded expansion of prescription Medicare, and the mortgage fraud by the finance/securities industry, causing the global recession and all the issues across the globe you see today.
Social safety nets is a deflection from the truth..and I won't allow you to spew the Fox News nonsense uncontested here.
Ireland and Spain were running budget surpluses before the financial crisis, then their gov'ts stepped in to bail out their troubled banks and now they are in a hole.
Some other changes happened in NYC in the 60s and 70s. The City lost a million jobs, and the industrial sector was wiped out . Shipping was eventually moved over to Port Elizabeth, NJ, for the most part. Mayor John Lindsay responded with easy welfare and substantially increased easy welfare. Both Mayors Wagner and Lindsay built a lot of housing projects in the 60s and 70s.
Now of course, before all this NYC was never crime free. No such place exists. However, things were done that attracted people who were on welfare to come to NYC. I had relatives who worked for the welfare office ,and they spoke of people coming to NYC to get on welfare because up until the 90s, it was EASIER to get on WELFARE in NYC than many other places. National Welfare reformed, signed by Bill Clinton, plus subsequent cuts by Giuliani, Cuomo, and Bloomberg have cut a lot of this out. Its a big part of why crime is down big time compared to the 80s and early 90s.
Some other changes happened in NYC in the 60s and 70s. The City lost a million jobs, and the industrial sector was wiped out . Shipping was eventually moved over to Port Elizabeth, NJ, for the most part. Mayor John Lindsay responded with easy welfare and substantially increased easy welfare. Both Mayors Wagner and Lindsay built a lot of housing projects in the 60s and 70s.
Now of course, before all this NYC was never crime free. No such place exists. However, things were done that attracted people who were on welfare to come to NYC. I had relatives who worked for the welfare office ,and they spoke of people coming to NYC to get on welfare because up until the 90s, it was EASIER to get on WELFARE in NYC than many other places. National Welfare reformed, signed by Bill Clinton, plus subsequent cuts by Giuliani, Cuomo, and Bloomberg have cut a lot of this out. Its a big part of why crime is down big time compared to the 80s and early 90s.
Some other changes happened in NYC in the 60s and 70s. The City lost a million jobs, and the industrial sector was wiped out . Shipping was eventually moved over to Port Elizabeth, NJ, for the most part. Mayor John Lindsay responded with easy welfare and substantially increased easy welfare. Both Mayors Wagner and Lindsay built a lot of housing projects in the 60s and 70s.
Now of course, before all this NYC was never crime free. No such place exists. However, things were done that attracted people who were on welfare to come to NYC. I had relatives who worked for the welfare office ,and they spoke of people coming to NYC to get on welfare because up until the 90s, it was EASIER to get on WELFARE in NYC than many other places. National Welfare reformed, signed by Bill Clinton, plus subsequent cuts by Giuliani, Cuomo, and Bloomberg have cut a lot of this out. Its a big part of why crime is down big time compared to the 80s and early 90s.
That may be part of it. But you can't forget that the roaring economy of the 90's helped out also. As more jobs beame available less people were on welfare.
But this is besides the point. As for the Bronx, in the 70's, at lease in the neighborhood where I grew up, the Jews were usually the more affluent (living on the Concourse) and the Irish/Italians were less so living in ghettos off the Concourse.
That may be part of it. But you can't forget that the roaring economy of the 90's helped out also. As more jobs beame available less people were on welfare.
But this is besides the point. As for the Bronx, in the 70's, at lease in the neighborhood where I grew up, the Jews were usually the more affluent (living on the Concourse) and the Irish/Italians were less so living in ghettos off the Concourse.
That's true too about the economy of the 90s. Not just in NYC, but nationally, there were more jobs available. Some of the poor found work in NYC, others moved elsewhere and got work.
LOL I just searched for photos of the bronx on the web . . . WOW
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.
