IL fiscal crisis (to live in, assess, statistics)

[timberline742]

Of course there are some shootings in every part of the city. That's true with every real city. You have that many people and there will be crime. It's not "higher concentrations in some hoods", it's almost all of them in two areas. Areas most people that aren't living in abject poverty or engaged in criminal activity every go to. The downtown section is remarkably violent crime free, as is most of the city. It's really only the West and South sides with any issues. There isn't a reason to go there, again, unless you're so mired in poverty you can't get out, or you're looking to be involved with criminal activity (associated with poverty, drugs, prostitution, etc).


I can't think of a place with people that doesn't have crime. Places without people also have generally pretty darn poor economies as well. Which is the topic of the thread.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by damba

Is this your educated assessment of the actual situation(?)

So what is your educated assessment? Wait let me answer for you- it's all of Society's fault that these folks hate each other.

[InnovativeAmerican]

Originally Posted by TRlaura

If you look at the map where the shooting occurred, they are scattered all over the entire city although higher concentrations in some hoods. If you look at this website it will show you the ethnicity of the shootings, now up to 1829 for 2018.
https://heyjackass.com/

Just remind yourself why "some hoods" exist in major U.S. cities, including Chicago. Racially restrictive covenants, redlining, blockbusting, etc., were enforced to ensure those "hoods" remain intact today.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by InnovativeAmerican

Just remind yourself why "some hoods" exist in major U.S. cities, including Chicago. Racially restrictive covenants, redlining, blockbusting, etc., were enforced to ensure those "hoods" remain intact today.

I've been doing more reading on how the Federal Government through the FHA really really is so very responsible for the prevention of black families in the 50/60s/70s and beyond from creating generational wealth due to their policies... and the very real impact is has on communities of color today. It's eye opening and horrifying. Something that was supposed to help people and communities was systematically used to oppress black communities and promote white communities. Disgusting.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I've been doing more reading on how the Federal Government through the FHA really really is so very responsible for the prevention of black families in the 50/60s/70s and beyond from creating generational wealth due to their policies... and the very real impact is has on communities of color today. It's eye opening and horrifying. Something that was supposed to help people and communities was systematically used to oppress black communities and promote white communities. Disgusting.

So you are now seeing why gov't is never really a solution.

The human is not a perfect being and power corrupts. Why people continue to look to and allow gov't to take control over a "problem" is mind boggling. Hundreds of years of experience shows limited gov't is best, but we continue to allow charlatans to take over.

Gov't policies are established not to "help" but to insert a level of control. In the case of 1960's Democrats; the goal was to brainwash minorities that voting for D will bring about a better life. Read some of the disgusting quotes from LBJ and what he thought about minorities. Yet he and his ilk are the same group that instituted the great welfare and public housing scams of those decades. It's all about power and brainwashing people into voting D. Terrible.

[augiedogie]

While the taxes may be similar in both states, the financial situation of the two states are on opposite ends of the spectrum. WIS state finances and pension funds are in good shape. ILL. can't pay its bills, Chicago finances are a mess also, all their pension funds are terribly underfunded and taxes will have to be raised in I'll. TO meet pension obligations.

[explorearkansas]

Originally Posted by augiedogie

TO meet pension obligations.

I can already hear the death rattle from my home state. The body politic does nothing but line their pockets. Like in Detroit, they will flee when they can't thicken the linings any further.

[InnovativeAmerican]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I've been doing more reading on how the Federal Government through the FHA really really is so very responsible for the prevention of black families in the 50/60s/70s and beyond from creating generational wealth due to their policies... and the very real impact is has on communities of color today. It's eye opening and horrifying. Something that was supposed to help people and communities was systematically used to oppress black communities and promote white communities. Disgusting.

Yep, and the construction of expressways in Chicago and other U.S. cities in the 1940's and thereafter was a byproduct of environmental racism, which also facilitated racial segregation.

Good thing you choose to educate yourself. I am just at my wits end with the veiled racism on this forum.

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

So you are now seeing why gov't is never really a solution.

The human is not a perfect being and power corrupts. Why people continue to look to and allow gov't to take control over a "problem" is mind boggling. Hundreds of years of experience shows limited gov't is best, but we continue to allow charlatans to take over.

Government has always been a part of solutions. Sometimes its role has been great and all-encompassing, as in the case of monarchy- or church-controlled societies; sometimes its role has been less intrusive, as in the United States model.

But even in the latter case, government has had an important role--usually an indispensable role. I can't think of one era in United States history when government didn't have a major public or backroom role in shaping policy. The various wars against Indians, resettlement projects, westward expansion/colonization ("Manifest Destiny") initiatives, slavery, Civil War, reconstruction, Jim Crow, industrialization, banking reforms, monetary policy, robber barons, Prohibition, suffrage, the World Wars, etc., etc.--all were underwritten and supported in some way by the government.

I agree that there's something attractive about "limited government," but when you dig more deeply, that's often a gateway for corruption, like what we saw during the unregulated Gilded Age (late 1800s and early 1900s) and during the 1920s.

The problem is that most individuals and businesses, by definition, operate primarily out of self-interest. There are few mechanisms for checking that self-interest and ensuring that society is working well for a majority of groups and individuals with significant differences. This is where government has an important role, I believe. The government, for all its many faults, has done a pretty good job with public education, environmental protection, and a bunch of other things that serve the common good, but are not necessarily commercially profitable or personally expedient.

Gov't policies are established not to "help" but to insert a level of control.

It depends on the perspective of the many people affected. A policy that is onerous for one person is helpful for another.

In the case of 1960's Democrats; the goal was to brainwash minorities that voting for D will bring about a better life. Read some of the disgusting quotes from LBJ and what he thought about minorities. Yet he and his ilk are the same group that instituted the great welfare and public housing scams of those decades. It's all about power and brainwashing people into voting D. Terrible.

The push for welfare and public housing developed independently from specific politicians. People such as LBJ may have corrupted these ideas and co-opted them for nefarious purposes, but it doesn't mean that the ideas themselves are bad.

Same goes for capitalism. Some politicians, such as Reagan, exploited capitalist ideals (and other national mythologies) in order to brainwash wealthy whites (and wealthy white wannabes) into believing that the free market can solve all of our problems. As we have seen since that era, that was not true.

Ultimately, what really works is an honest, balanced approach between government and non-government entities. There are some things that government does really well, and there are some things it should keep a distance from.

[damba]

Originally Posted by Empidonax

Government has always been a part of solutions. Sometimes its role has been great and all-encompassing, as in the case of monarchy- or church-controlled societies; sometimes its role has been less intrusive, as in the United States model.

But even in the latter case, government has had an important role--usually an indispensable role. I can't think of one era in United States history when government didn't have a major public or backroom role in shaping policy. The various wars against Indians, resettlement projects, westward expansion/colonization ("Manifest Destiny") initiatives, slavery, Civil War, reconstruction, Jim Crow, industrialization, banking reforms, monetary policy, robber barons, Prohibition, suffrage, the World Wars, etc., etc.--all were underwritten and supported in some way by the government.

I agree that there's something attractive about "limited government," but when you dig more deeply, that's often a gateway for corruption, like what we saw during the unregulated Gilded Age (late 1800s and early 1900s) and during the 1920s.

The problem is that most individuals and businesses, by definition, operate primarily out of self-interest. There are few mechanisms for checking that self-interest and ensuring that society is working well for a majority of groups and individuals with significant differences. This is where government has an important role, I believe. The government, for all its many faults, has done a pretty good job with public education, environmental protection, and a bunch of other things that serve the common good, but are not necessarily commercially profitable or personally expedient.



It depends on the perspective of the many people affected. A policy that is onerous for one person is helpful for another.



The push for welfare and public housing developed independently from specific politicians. People such as LBJ may have corrupted these ideas and co-opted them for nefarious purposes, but it doesn't mean that the ideas themselves are bad.

Same goes for capitalism. Some politicians, such as Reagan, exploited capitalist ideals (and other national mythologies) in order to brainwash wealthy whites (and wealthy white wannabes) into believing that the free market can solve all of our problems. As we have seen since that era, that was not true.

Ultimately, what really works is an honest, balanced approach between government and non-government entities. There are some things that government does really well, and there are some things it should keep a distance from.

An excellent post with ideas that I hope help educate instead of divide.