Where do you see Philly in 5 years?

[Angus215]

Originally Posted by AshbyQuin

Krasner nor BLM were around when the city averaged 400 homicides a year in the 90s. That "progressives are ruining our big cities " narrative is played out.

And they also weren't around when homicides declined over the next 25 years to 277 annually by 2016, the year Kenney became mayor. "Coincidentally", however, both Kenney and Krasner WERE around when homicides increased every subsequent year, reaching 561 last year. Just a coincidence that homicides doubled over the same 5 year period that we had a soft-on-crime progressive liberal mayor and a Soros-backed DA who refuses to prosecute crimes, I suppose.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by Angus215

And they also weren't around when homicides declined over the next 25 years to 277 annually by 2016, the year Kenney became mayor. "Coincidentally", however, both Kenney and Krasner WERE around when homicides increased every subsequent year, reaching 561 last year. Just a coincidence that homicides doubled over the same 5 year period that we had a soft-on-crime progressive liberal mayor and a Soros-backed DA who refuses to prosecute crimes, I suppose.

Again, you're citing national trends.

[AshbyQuin]

Originally Posted by Angus215

And they also weren't around when homicides declined over the next 25 years to 277 annually by 2016, the year Kenney became mayor. "Coincidentally", however, both Kenney and Krasner WERE around when homicides increased every subsequent year, reaching 561 last year. Just a coincidence that homicides doubled over the same 5 year period that we had a soft-on-crime progressive liberal mayor and a Soros-backed DA who refuses to prosecute crimes, I suppose.

.

The city was the safest during Nutter, a democrat. The city was also at its worse under a Democrat Mayor in Kenney, it’s called nuance.

This whole “Democrats: Bad , Republicans: Good” mantra is getting old. There’s good and bad people on both sides. . Vote on policy and principal instead of party loyalty.

[Angus215]

Originally Posted by AshbyQuin

.

The city was the safest during Nutter, a democrat. The city was also at its worse under a Democrat Mayor in Kenney, it’s called nuance.

This whole “Democrats: Bad , Republicans: Good” mantra is getting old. There’s good and bad people on both sides. . Vote on policy and principal instead of party loyalty.

It's not all Democrats, it's progressive liberals specifically, and they are a grave threat to our society. Nutter wasn't a progressive liberal. Kenney and Krasner are. Same type of people caused similar devastation to other major cities including NYC, Chicago, DC, LA, San Fran, and Seattle.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by Angus215

It's not all Democrats, it's progressive liberals specifically, and they are a grave threat to our society. Nutter wasn't a progressive liberal. Kenney and Krasner are. Same type of people caused similar devastation to other major cities including NYC, Chicago, DC, LA, San Fran, and Seattle.

I consider myself a left-of-center Democrat, though I often describe my politics as "left-libertarian," a term that tends to confound both (though there really is such a thing, and I fall on the capitalist side of the capitalist/socialist divide).

I understand this distinction quite well, as do many other Democrats. However, I will probably vote for the progressive candidate in the Senate primary week after next because I think he focuses on the economy and the welfare of the Forgotten better than anyone else running. He also doesn't strike me as the virtue-signaling type, though knowing his background, you could say his entire political career is a form of virtue-signaling.

[lpranger467]

Totally agree, I'm a moderate Republican and I would never blame Democrats as a group, however the Democratic party has allowed the far left (progressive) wing of their party to gain too much power to the point that it has had negative effects on nearly all major cities (primarily those governed by the far left like Portland, Seattle, Philly, LA a dn San Fran.

Originally Posted by Angus215

It's not all Democrats, it's progressive liberals specifically, and they are a grave threat to our society. Nutter wasn't a progressive liberal. Kenney and Krasner are. Same type of people caused similar devastation to other major cities including NYC, Chicago, DC, LA, San Fran, and Seattle.

[Muinteoir]

I was looking at some crime statistics for highly developed countries with robust social safety nets, high(er) standards of living for working class people, free postsecondary education, free universal healthcare, etc., and I was not shocked to find them to have much lower crime rates than the US. I also could not find a correlation or causation between left/right wing heads of government and crime fluctuation in these countries, because despite which party holds power, the bulk of these social programs withstand. It's almost as if reducing/eliminating destitution is a sustainable crime prevention strategy.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by Muinteoir

I was looking at some crime statistics for highly developed countries with robust social safety nets, high(er) standards of living for working class people, free postsecondary education, free universal healthcare, etc., and I was not shocked to find them to have much lower crime rates than the US. I also could not find a correlation or causation between left/right wing heads of government and crime fluctuation in these countries, because despite which party holds power, the bulk of these social programs withstand. It's almost as if reducing/eliminating destitution is a sustainable crime prevention strategy.

Well said.

When many inner-city neighborhoods have been so obviously neglected and deprived of social and financial investment for decades, it should be a mystery to no one how or why the social fabric begins to tear and turn into tatters.

Violent crimes and other illicit activity (i.e., drug use) are acts of human desperation. You want to solve it? Eliminate desperation. It's literally that simple.

[Angus215]

Originally Posted by Muinteoir

I was looking at some crime statistics for highly developed countries with robust social safety nets, high(er) standards of living for working class people, free postsecondary education, free universal healthcare, etc., and I was not shocked to find them to have much lower crime rates than the US. I also could not find a correlation or causation between left/right wing heads of government and crime fluctuation in these countries, because despite which party holds power, the bulk of these social programs withstand. It's almost as if reducing/eliminating destitution is a sustainable crime prevention strategy.

The US has a higher GDP per capita than any country in Europe other than Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway, and Switzerland, all of which are extremely small countries. While wealth can be redistributed through socialist policies, it tends to reduce wealth for society as a whole, with communism being the extreme example. What you end up with is distributed poverty, as you have in North Korea, China, and Russia, with a small elite controlling most of the wealth.

Western Europe has very different demographics and urban cultures than we have here in the US. Throwing money at the urban crime and poverty problem does not work, as we have seen over and over again with failed social engineering projects. Until the culture changes, which government alone cannot solve, the best solution is law enforcement in order to keep the non-criminals as safe as possible.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by Angus215

The US has a higher GDP per capita than any country in Europe other than Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway, and Switzerland, all of which are extremely small countries. While wealth can be redistributed through socialist policies, it tends to reduce wealth for society as a whole, with communism being the extreme example. What you end up with is distributed poverty, as you have in North Korea, China, and Russia, with a small elite controlling most of the wealth.

You're referring to extreme examples. You can still fund certain proven social programs more robustly and still not end up as a "communist" or even an advanced socialist country. There is a middle ground.

Originally Posted by Angus215

Western Europe has very different demographics and urban cultures than we have here in the US. Throwing money at the urban crime and poverty problem does not work, as we have seen over and over again with failed social engineering projects. Until the culture changes, which government alone cannot solve, the best solution is law enforcement in order to keep the non-criminals as safe as possible.

It's not an either-or situation. It's true that social programs/government intervention has not always proven to reduce poverty. But it would be ludicrous to deny the systemic disinvestment in many inner-city neighborhoods, largely driven by the absence of the private sector, such as critical bank lending to minority businesses. Even without robust social welfare programs, there's a lot that can be done policy-wise to encourage more investment in these areas.

This is the constant push-pull we face when we have conversations about addressing crime and urban poverty, and normally no one can get beyond the predictable liberal/conservative talking points.

We need individual accountability to the law, but you also need communities that encourage and foster meaningful opportunities for young people and a stable living environment for families financially. You can't deny one or the other for the social good or the social order.