Cops Tell Black Communities to Police Themselves!!!!

In the real world, I don't see any political prospects on the horizon willing to cut the more expensive corporate welfare or the meager stipend of welfare recipients. Just what party or political figure would do either? And you did not mention the working poor with children. should we just let them be homeless and starve under overpasses? Crime would certainly increase and so would antipathy for the US abroad.

Note also that many of the unemployable are locked out of the job market due to felony convictions… even after they have paid for their crimes. Do we just keep them in prison forever or just liquidate them? Others are just plain insane… and the profit driven mental institutions don't want them either if they aren't rich!

Thousands have sought refuge at the abortion clinics but conservatives don't want that either. Yet, you complain when the poor have kids they can't support without TANF. What political group do you have in mind that would put a stop to this? I don't know of any!
 
Gee with love like this I cant see why they don't want to go in to their hoods.




So the majority of Blacks who have nothing to do with BLM have to suffer because White people with power deem it so? That democratic Plantation is starting to look like the old southern conservative plantation. <sarcasm>

It doesnt take a majority to kill a cop.

No, all it takes is a jury of 12. But it is rarely done even when deserved.

A police officer has a far greater chance of being killed by a black male then the other way around.... That is just a fact. You don't want cops to bother you? Stop breaking the law
 
In the real world, I don't see any political prospects on the horizon willing to cut the more expensive corporate welfare or the meager stipend of welfare recipients. Just what party or political figure would do either? And you did not mention the working poor with children. should we just let them be homeless and starve under overpasses? Crime would certainly increase and so would antipathy for the US abroad.

Note also that many of the unemployable are locked out of the job market due to felony convictions… even after they have paid for their crimes. Do we just keep them in prison forever or just liquidate them? Others are just plain insane… and the profit driven mental institutions don't want them either if they aren't rich!

Thousands have sought refuge at the abortion clinics but conservatives don't want that either. Yet, you complain when the poor have kids they can't support without TANF. What political group do you have in mind that would put a stop to this? I don't know of any!

Again we kicked thousands off welfare and food stamps in the 1990s. Actually we kicked MILLIONS off welfare and food stamps.

We changed the rules, so fewer people qualified, and MILLIONS were booted off the public dole.

Where was the mass starvation? Where was the mass homelessness?

Stop lying. It didn't happen. People simply got to work, and it was explicitly because we kicked people off welfare, and forced them to work for a living, that grew our economy in the 1990s. Shockingly, when more people are producing, the GDP goes up, and it benefits everyone.

Yes we should greatly reduce, or even eliminate most of welfare.

You idiots on the left constantly point to Nordic countries with their welfare system, well...... most nordic countries, if you don't work, you don't eat. In fact, there is no welfare or food stamps at all. Zero. There is only unemployment insurance. You ONLY get unemployment comp, if you have worked no less than 12 full months. And then when you do get unemployment comp, you only get it for exactly 12 full months. After that, YOU DIE. You either work, or you starve.

You want to implement Nordic "welfare" here, by all means. Every single person that has worked less than 12 months, should be cut off from food stamps and welfare, and WIC and everything else, immediately. And all those who did, you get 12 months, and you are cut off.

Let's do it. Bernie Sanders claim to support that, let's do it.
 
Gee with love like this I cant see why they don't want to go in to their hoods.




So the majority of Blacks who have nothing to do with BLM have to suffer because White people with power deem it so? That democratic Plantation is starting to look like the old southern conservative plantation. <sarcasm>

It doesnt take a majority to kill a cop.

No, all it takes is a jury of 12. But it is rarely done even when deserved.

A police officer has a far greater chance of being killed by a black male then the other way around.... That is just a fact. You don't want cops to bother you? Stop breaking the law

Gee with love like this I cant see why they don't want to go in to their hoods.




So the majority of Blacks who have nothing to do with BLM have to suffer because White people with power deem it so? That democratic Plantation is starting to look like the old southern conservative plantation. <sarcasm>

It doesnt take a majority to kill a cop.

No, all it takes is a jury of 12. But it is rarely done even when deserved.

A police officer has a far greater chance of being killed by a black male then the other way around.... That is just a fact. You don't want cops to bother you? Stop breaking the law

1. I don't know that to be true. If it IS a fact you should be able to link to the study that supports it.

2. Depending on your location, if you are Black you don't have to break the law for cops to "bother" you.
 
In the real world, I don't see any political prospects on the horizon willing to cut the more expensive corporate welfare or the meager stipend of welfare recipients. Just what party or political figure would do either? And you did not mention the working poor with children. should we just let them be homeless and starve under overpasses? Crime would certainly increase and so would antipathy for the US abroad.

Note also that many of the unemployable are locked out of the job market due to felony convictions… even after they have paid for their crimes. Do we just keep them in prison forever or just liquidate them? Others are just plain insane… and the profit driven mental institutions don't want them either if they aren't rich!

Thousands have sought refuge at the abortion clinics but conservatives don't want that either. Yet, you complain when the poor have kids they can't support without TANF. What political group do you have in mind that would put a stop to this? I don't know of any!

Again we kicked thousands off welfare and food stamps in the 1990s. Actually we kicked MILLIONS off welfare and food stamps.

We changed the rules, so fewer people qualified, and MILLIONS were booted off the public dole.

Where was the mass starvation? Where was the mass homelessness?

Stop lying. It didn't happen. People simply got to work, and it was explicitly because we kicked people off welfare, and forced them to work for a living, that grew our economy in the 1990s. Shockingly, when more people are producing, the GDP goes up, and it benefits everyone.

Yes we should greatly reduce, or even eliminate most of welfare.

You idiots on the left constantly point to Nordic countries with their welfare system, well...... most nordic countries, if you don't work, you don't eat. In fact, there is no welfare or food stamps at all. Zero. There is only unemployment insurance. You ONLY get unemployment comp, if you have worked no less than 12 full months. And then when you do get unemployment comp, you only get it for exactly 12 full months. After that, YOU DIE. You either work, or you starve.

You want to implement Nordic "welfare" here, by all means. Every single person that has worked less than 12 months, should be cut off from food stamps and welfare, and WIC and everything else, immediately. And all those who did, you get 12 months, and you are cut off.

Let's do it. Bernie Sanders claim to support that, let's do it.

After reviewing the post I think you are responding to,#381, I didn't say any of those things you say I am lying about. I asked a question
that you apparently mistook as a statement. Questions and statements based on convictions are not the same. You do, understand that, don't you?

I wonder,now, if your claim that millions of people were kicked off welfare during the Clinton Administration has and validity.
 
They reap what they sow...

You talking about the community or the police ?

You really think that being unprofessional and "punishing" the community by not doing your job is a way to gain the community trust and respect ???

Is it about being unprofessional or a community that wants to coddle and make excuses for criminals' behavior? If black lives matter, where are the mentors and men from among them who are sick of seeing THEIR young people turning to drugs, gangs, and crime? Is it easier to blame the cops than face criminal statistics? When will the real men begin to stand up for themselves, face some responsibility and accountability for their kids?
You guys sit around the pool hall or some other male bonding place taking bits and pieces of media driven hate and making it worse.
You don't question your sources or consider that most Black fathers take care of their kids even if they might not be married to the mothers at the time of birth. You just take the propaganda delivered to you on a silver platter and run with it because that is exactly what you want to hear. Many of you probably never have any kind of interaction with a Black person except in a work environment. That makes what Rush, Bill O'Reilly or Hannity say the hate monger's gospel. You are well indoctrinated...

This is not propoganda, and I frankly don't care if my view happens to be shared by O'Reilly and Hannity or not. It's rather hypocritical to concern yourself with cops that are going after those who commit the crime, and not look to those men who should be policing their own kids rather than abandoning the mom to raise them on their own because they are a bunch of lazy asses who don't care. You want me to believe black lives matter? ... than concern yourself with those kids within your own continuity and reach out to them instead of showing a blind eye to it. Man up and reach out and actually concern yourself with those youth in your own backyard and neighborhoods, stop making excuses to look for someone else to blame for what you are not willing to do.


The CDC has completed and disseminated a report that more than 72% of Black children are born out of wedlock.
And, as expected, those who hate Blacks are all over it. Assumptions abound ;and, the lowest social conditions of the 25% of Blacks who are poor are attributed to the entire community as a whole. The statistics do not tell the whole story.

The most important issue here is the false notion that Back fathers are absent and have abandoned the mothers of their children.
Yet, one study at least has found that notion to be spurious. In general Black fathers do take responsibility and support their children. Many cohabit with the mothers and are even more available than many White married fathers.

Obviously you have made up your mind that Black children are all mired in poverty with only a welfare mother to look after them.
You are wrong! There are some, but everyplace I have gone in these United States, I have found that to be the exception rather than the rule. But even so, some single mothers are also employed and capable of taking care of their children without having to resort to welfare. And they usually have children fathered by men with jobs too.


Further, the black birthrate has been declining for years.

"Unwed Black mothers" seems to be the major weapon in your pejorative arsenal which some ambiguous author has launched with extreme prejudice. What they forgot to mention was that many Blacks marry AFTER the child is born. Or they cohabit.

If fathers have indeed taken responsibility and have not abandoned their role to those mothers that have the surfer the burden of raising their children, care to explain the crime rate, drug use, and gang warfare that is in those inner cities? It goes without saying, if they are THAT active in their children's lives, the murder rate from among the black community wouldn't be so high, and drug gangs would not flourish in these poor neighborhood. Your explanation doesn't fit in with those statistics.
 
We just buried cops here in Louisiana, none of whom had shot anyone. They were ambushed and assassinated. Here are the words of one:

“Please don’t let hate infect your heart. This city MUST and WILL get better. I’m working in these streets so any protesters, officers, friends, family, or whoever, if you see me and need a hug or want to say a prayer I got you.”
Yeah, that was the Black cop. You wouldn't hear a White Lousiana cop saying that!
You are too stupid to understand how racist that statement is.

No wonder you think Fox is such a problem.

Well, gee, I guess the truth hurts you. The cop who said it WAS BLACK. And no southern White cop has been seen on national TV saying that!

There's not truth except you have to be pretty ignorant to make a statement like that, which actually comes from the same racist point of view that you accuse the cops as being. If you judge law enforcement first by their color rather than their rhetoric then you an active participant of the same hatred.

WTF?BWHAHAHAHAH!

Maybe you should consider your own perception of racism before you make a blanket unproven statement with regard to cops. Some just aren't willing to accept that truth.
 
Good for the cops.

In poor New York neighborhoods, residents ask: Where are the police?
"In recent years, Marcy has had a group of very reliable visitors: the police, who patrol on foot and in cars as part of a controversial "broken windows" strategy that focuses on cracking down on small crimes to prevent bigger ones. Until three weeks ago, they had been an ever-present, highly visible presence in Marcy Houses.

Now, the police have all but disappeared, raising safety concerns among some residents while pleasing others who view the police strategy as oppressive. A reporter saw only one police car on a visit on Thursday.
The shooting of two police officers in their patrol car a block away from the development on Dec. 20 has widened a rift between the police unions and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who they accuse of making anti-police statements and fuelling a hostile environment for police, allegations he denies.

Police department data shows the number of arrests and court summonses has plunged across the city since the shooting. But it is in higher crime areas like Marcy Houses, and neighborhoods such as Mott Haven in the Bronx, that the lower police profile may be of most concern."

:0) Then they should give up their badges and jobs and get the fuck out of black communities. Black officers will fill the void.
their badge doesn't say for hire in black neighborhoods only. There is other work they'd be doing, they'll work for their money. and they have removed themselves from those neighborhoods. The neighborhood doesn't want them. Why else would they kill them?

IF cops are refusing to work in black communities, then they aren't doing the jobs they are paid to do .. and IF those cops can't do their jobs without murdering innocent people, then they shouldn't be on the police force in the first place.

A win-win for everybody.

A community that's violent towards cops, with the threat of ambush, are not going to patrol that area but may decide to only report under heavy assistance. The governor of a state could also decide to set "conditions" if they feel the lives of those cops serving are under constant threat. Of black lives matter, most communities should be involved in policing themselves as well as being vigilant informants and mentors of the youth if they want to see improvement. Communities share a responsibility for the crime and violence that are occurring in their neighborhoods, anything less is just a series of excuses
The gangs in Chicago have taken over city hall via the legal process. Perhaps other Black neighborhoods should learn from them.Then the police WORK FOR THE GANGS like they did when the Mafia went legit!

You suckers certainly aren't going to help them! A man has to do what a man has to do!

Gangs and Politicians in Chicago: An Unholy Alliance

Everyone must have their conspiracy theories. Before you start blaming cops, perhaps there needs to be a concern of accepting responsibility and getting involved over the crime in one's own neighborhood. If cops are as bad as you say, what's keeping you from becoming an active participant in reducing crime where you live?
 
You talking about the community or the police ?

You really think that being unprofessional and "punishing" the community by not doing your job is a way to gain the community trust and respect ???

Is it about being unprofessional or a community that wants to coddle and make excuses for criminals' behavior? If black lives matter, where are the mentors and men from among them who are sick of seeing THEIR young people turning to drugs, gangs, and crime? Is it easier to blame the cops than face criminal statistics? When will the real men begin to stand up for themselves, face some responsibility and accountability for their kids?
You guys sit around the pool hall or some other male bonding place taking bits and pieces of media driven hate and making it worse.
You don't question your sources or consider that most Black fathers take care of their kids even if they might not be married to the mothers at the time of birth. You just take the propaganda delivered to you on a silver platter and run with it because that is exactly what you want to hear. Many of you probably never have any kind of interaction with a Black person except in a work environment. That makes what Rush, Bill O'Reilly or Hannity say the hate monger's gospel. You are well indoctrinated...

This is not propoganda, and I frankly don't care if my view happens to be shared by O'Reilly and Hannity or not. It's rather hypocritical to concern yourself with cops that are going after those who commit the crime, and not look to those men who should be policing their own kids rather than abandoning the mom to raise them on their own because they are a bunch of lazy asses who don't care. You want me to believe black lives matter? ... than concern yourself with those kids within your own continuity and reach out to them instead of showing a blind eye to it. Man up and reach out and actually concern yourself with those youth in your own backyard and neighborhoods, stop making excuses to look for someone else to blame for what you are not willing to do.


The CDC has completed and disseminated a report that more than 72% of Black children are born out of wedlock.
And, as expected, those who hate Blacks are all over it. Assumptions abound ;and, the lowest social conditions of the 25% of Blacks who are poor are attributed to the entire community as a whole. The statistics do not tell the whole story.

The most important issue here is the false notion that Back fathers are absent and have abandoned the mothers of their children.
Yet, one study at least has found that notion to be spurious. In general Black fathers do take responsibility and support their children. Many cohabit with the mothers and are even more available than many White married fathers.

Obviously you have made up your mind that Black children are all mired in poverty with only a welfare mother to look after them.
You are wrong! There are some, but everyplace I have gone in these United States, I have found that to be the exception rather than the rule. But even so, some single mothers are also employed and capable of taking care of their children without having to resort to welfare. And they usually have children fathered by men with jobs too.


Further, the black birthrate has been declining for years.

"Unwed Black mothers" seems to be the major weapon in your pejorative arsenal which some ambiguous author has launched with extreme prejudice. What they forgot to mention was that many Blacks marry AFTER the child is born. Or they cohabit.

If fathers have indeed taken responsibility and have not abandoned their role to those mothers that have the surfer the burden of raising their children, care to explain the crime rate, drug use, and gang warfare that is in those inner cities? It goes without saying, if they are THAT active in their children's lives, the murder rate from among the black community wouldn't be so high, and drug gangs would not flourish in these poor neighborhood. Your explanation doesn't fit in with those statistics.
There are so many variables with which to address your superficial knowledge regarding the state of Black affairs that I hardly know where to begin. First of all we need to separate fact from fiction and eliminate statistical embellishments that make it seem that murder is rampant among the Black population. Since you seem focused on Urban areas I will present the FBI UCR showing arrests for murder in metropolitan areas for the year 2014. 674 Blacks were arrested for murder or negligent homicide. That number seems quite small considering the high concentration of Blacks in major metro areas. I didi not find any data on the percentage of Blacks living in the metropolitan county population but 58,220,680 people of all races live in those counties. Now, the obvious question is just what does 674 arrests for murder or negligent homicide portend? I want to stay on this Black on Black homicide rate until we can decide if if represents all that the media has purported it to be. Agreed?
Screen Shot 2016-06-02 at 1.20.05 AM.png



That isn't the national offender murder rate. The chart is just a reflection of the metropolitan areas which you think are hubs of illicit drug transactions and violence.
 
Yeah, that was the Black cop. You wouldn't hear a White Lousiana cop saying that!
You are too stupid to understand how racist that statement is.

No wonder you think Fox is such a problem.

Well, gee, I guess the truth hurts you. The cop who said it WAS BLACK. And no southern White cop has been seen on national TV saying that!

There's not truth except you have to be pretty ignorant to make a statement like that, which actually comes from the same racist point of view that you accuse the cops as being. If you judge law enforcement first by their color rather than their rhetoric then you an active participant of the same hatred.

WTF?BWHAHAHAHAH!

Maybe you should consider your own perception of racism before you make a blanket unproven statement with regard to cops. Some just aren't willing to accept that truth.
What unproven statement is that?
 
:0) Then they should give up their badges and jobs and get the fuck out of black communities. Black officers will fill the void.
their badge doesn't say for hire in black neighborhoods only. There is other work they'd be doing, they'll work for their money. and they have removed themselves from those neighborhoods. The neighborhood doesn't want them. Why else would they kill them?

IF cops are refusing to work in black communities, then they aren't doing the jobs they are paid to do .. and IF those cops can't do their jobs without murdering innocent people, then they shouldn't be on the police force in the first place.

A win-win for everybody.

A community that's violent towards cops, with the threat of ambush, are not going to patrol that area but may decide to only report under heavy assistance. The governor of a state could also decide to set "conditions" if they feel the lives of those cops serving are under constant threat. Of black lives matter, most communities should be involved in policing themselves as well as being vigilant informants and mentors of the youth if they want to see improvement. Communities share a responsibility for the crime and violence that are occurring in their neighborhoods, anything less is just a series of excuses
The gangs in Chicago have taken over city hall via the legal process. Perhaps other Black neighborhoods should learn from them.Then the police WORK FOR THE GANGS like they did when the Mafia went legit!

You suckers certainly aren't going to help them! A man has to do what a man has to do!

Gangs and Politicians in Chicago: An Unholy Alliance

Everyone must have their conspiracy theories. Before you start blaming cops, perhaps there needs to be a concern of accepting responsibility and getting involved over the crime in one's own neighborhood. If cops are as bad as you say, what's keeping you from becoming an active participant in reducing crime where you live?
Why don't you read that link I provided. The Black Chicago gangsters ARE becoming legit and getting elected to office just like the Mafia did decades ago.. Stop being so boorish and pay attention.
 
their badge doesn't say for hire in black neighborhoods only. There is other work they'd be doing, they'll work for their money. and they have removed themselves from those neighborhoods. The neighborhood doesn't want them. Why else would they kill them?

IF cops are refusing to work in black communities, then they aren't doing the jobs they are paid to do .. and IF those cops can't do their jobs without murdering innocent people, then they shouldn't be on the police force in the first place.

A win-win for everybody.

Their jobs are to let thug blacks put them at an undue risk because they're doing their job?

If black thugs like Michael Brown don't want what they deserve, stop doing things to earn it.
Are you a late bloomer? A lot has happened since Michael Brown was killed. Not only have black thugs been killed since then, innocent Blacks who were doing nothing wrong have been killed or shot for no damn good reason. Like he attendant who was lying on the fucking GROUND with his hands in the air while he was trying to save an autistic WHITE man with a toy truck in his hand sitting nearby from being killed by responding cops.

You mean like Freddy Gray? Court says otherwise.

If a police officer does something like the situation with the autistic kid, they should be punished. That's the difference between the two of us. I'm able to distinguish between when it's justified and when it's not. You, on the other hand, automatically find police officers guilty when the person shot is black.
Yeah, you are damn right, LIKE FREDDIE GRAY! That travesty of justice happened right before our eyes. Those cops got a way with murder and that damn Stepin Fetchit Black judge was hand picked to get them off. A jury should have been the ONLY option for murder charge, especially against cops. But the shooting of the unarmed man on the ground wasn't anything like the Freddie Gray case. You just had to revive that blatant miscarriage of justice because it makes you feel better.

Yes I'm familiar with that case, where Marlyn Mosby fabricated a four page series of events for the lead detective on the case to read in open court in order to create not establish guilt. Then when cross examined, the lead detective couldn't testify or collaborate any of it, due to the fact that it contradicted what the coroner and actual evidence revealed. There was no video showing high speed reckless driving that could have played in Freddie Grey's death, and when the gag order was lifted Mosby never stated what evidence was indeed factual to the case and thrown out. This was an individual looking to use her personal feelings to contaminate a case, tainted a new set of prosecutors into the same collaborated story to create an atmosphere of guilt where none was found through key evidence. In other words, we don't run on a judicial system where a group of individuals are guilty 'til proven innocent.
 
Last edited:
IF cops are refusing to work in black communities, then they aren't doing the jobs they are paid to do .. and IF those cops can't do their jobs without murdering innocent people, then they shouldn't be on the police force in the first place.

A win-win for everybody.

Their jobs are to let thug blacks put them at an undue risk because they're doing their job?

If black thugs like Michael Brown don't want what they deserve, stop doing things to earn it.
Are you a late bloomer? A lot has happened since Michael Brown was killed. Not only have black thugs been killed since then, innocent Blacks who were doing nothing wrong have been killed or shot for no damn good reason. Like he attendant who was lying on the fucking GROUND with his hands in the air while he was trying to save an autistic WHITE man with a toy truck in his hand sitting nearby from being killed by responding cops.

You mean like Freddy Gray? Court says otherwise.

If a police officer does something like the situation with the autistic kid, they should be punished. That's the difference between the two of us. I'm able to distinguish between when it's justified and when it's not. You, on the other hand, automatically find police officers guilty when the person shot is black.
Yeah, you are damn right, LIKE FREDDIE GRAY! That travesty of justice happened right before our eyes. Those cops got a way with murder and that damn Stepin Fetchit Black judge was hand picked to get them off. A jury should have been the ONLY option for murder charge, especially against cops. But the shooting of the unarmed man on the ground wasn't anything like the Freddie Gray case. You just had to revive that blatant miscarriage of justice because it makes you feel better.

Yes I'm familiar with that case, where Marlyn Mosby fabricated a four page series of events for the lead detective on the case to read in open court in order to create not establish guilt. Then when cross examined, the lead detective couldn't testify or collaborate any of it, due to the fact that it contradicted what the coroner and actual evidence revealed. There was no video showing high speed reckless driving that could have played in Freddie Grey's death, and when the gag order was lifted Mosby never stated what evidence was indeed factual to the case and thrown out. This was an individual looking to use her personal feelings to contaminate a case, tainted a new set of prosecutors into the same collaborated story to create an atmosphere of guilt where none was found through key evidence. In other words, we don't run on a judicial system where a group of individuals are guilty 'til proven innocent.

Do you have links? It is hard to believe a prosecutor would risk her career by fabricating evidence to convict a squad of cops. A civilian, yes, but cops, NO. You also failed to mention that the Grand Jury found probable cause. That fact does give some relief to the culpability of the prosecution. But,as an expert witness, It was plain to me the prosecutor formed her case on the wrong set of events.
Freddie Gray was already injured, possibly a broken neck, BEFORE he was placed into the van. It is just those little things I saw during and after he was subdued by a heavyset officer putting his knee on Freddie's spinal column near his neck. When he was shackled and lifted into the van Gray was already dying. His listless body was already paralyzed as evidenced by his dangling extremities.
 
In the real world, I don't see any political prospects on the horizon willing to cut the more expensive corporate welfare or the meager stipend of welfare recipients. Just what party or political figure would do either? And you did not mention the working poor with children. should we just let them be homeless and starve under overpasses? Crime would certainly increase and so would antipathy for the US abroad.

Note also that many of the unemployable are locked out of the job market due to felony convictions… even after they have paid for their crimes. Do we just keep them in prison forever or just liquidate them? Others are just plain insane… and the profit driven mental institutions don't want them either if they aren't rich!

Thousands have sought refuge at the abortion clinics but conservatives don't want that either. Yet, you complain when the poor have kids they can't support without TANF. What political group do you have in mind that would put a stop to this? I don't know of any!

Again we kicked thousands off welfare and food stamps in the 1990s. Actually we kicked MILLIONS off welfare and food stamps.

We changed the rules, so fewer people qualified, and MILLIONS were booted off the public dole.

Where was the mass starvation? Where was the mass homelessness?

Stop lying. It didn't happen. People simply got to work, and it was explicitly because we kicked people off welfare, and forced them to work for a living, that grew our economy in the 1990s. Shockingly, when more people are producing, the GDP goes up, and it benefits everyone.

Yes we should greatly reduce, or even eliminate most of welfare.

You idiots on the left constantly point to Nordic countries with their welfare system, well...... most nordic countries, if you don't work, you don't eat. In fact, there is no welfare or food stamps at all. Zero. There is only unemployment insurance. You ONLY get unemployment comp, if you have worked no less than 12 full months. And then when you do get unemployment comp, you only get it for exactly 12 full months. After that, YOU DIE. You either work, or you starve.

You want to implement Nordic "welfare" here, by all means. Every single person that has worked less than 12 months, should be cut off from food stamps and welfare, and WIC and everything else, immediately. And all those who did, you get 12 months, and you are cut off.

Let's do it. Bernie Sanders claim to support that, let's do it.

After reviewing the post I think you are responding to,#381, I didn't say any of those things you say I am lying about. I asked a question
that you apparently mistook as a statement. Questions and statements based on convictions are not the same. You do, understand that, don't you?

I wonder,now, if your claim that millions of people were kicked off welfare during the Clinton Administration has and validity.

You said :

should we just let them be homeless and starve under overpasses? Crime would certainly increase and so would antipathy for the US abroad.
The implication of asking "Should we let them be homeless and starve" and "Crime would certainly increase" implies that cutting welfare would cause such events. Fact is, we did this, and it didn't result in any of your implied results.

You wonder if it happened? So you have absolutely no knowledge of historical events, but make grand predictions about what would happen?

FYI:

FoodStampParticipationYear.jpg

1458767374.png

ib3710_chart1_750.gif


Now as you can see of from the caseload data from multiple welfare programs, all data shows very clearly that in 1994 to 1995, all enrollment began to fall. The welfare reform package was passed in 1995, because the Republicans came into power in 1994.

Moreover, you can also see that caseloads were increasing from 1991 to 1994, which is interesting because the Bush Sr recession ended in 1991.

And I assume I don't need to show that crime decreased, not increased between 1995 to 2002?
 
Last edited:
In the real world, I don't see any political prospects on the horizon willing to cut the more expensive corporate welfare or the meager stipend of welfare recipients. Just what party or political figure would do either? And you did not mention the working poor with children. should we just let them be homeless and starve under overpasses? Crime would certainly increase and so would antipathy for the US abroad.

Note also that many of the unemployable are locked out of the job market due to felony convictions… even after they have paid for their crimes. Do we just keep them in prison forever or just liquidate them? Others are just plain insane… and the profit driven mental institutions don't want them either if they aren't rich!

Thousands have sought refuge at the abortion clinics but conservatives don't want that either. Yet, you complain when the poor have kids they can't support without TANF. What political group do you have in mind that would put a stop to this? I don't know of any!

Again we kicked thousands off welfare and food stamps in the 1990s. Actually we kicked MILLIONS off welfare and food stamps.

We changed the rules, so fewer people qualified, and MILLIONS were booted off the public dole.

Where was the mass starvation? Where was the mass homelessness?

Stop lying. It didn't happen. People simply got to work, and it was explicitly because we kicked people off welfare, and forced them to work for a living, that grew our economy in the 1990s. Shockingly, when more people are producing, the GDP goes up, and it benefits everyone.

Yes we should greatly reduce, or even eliminate most of welfare.

You idiots on the left constantly point to Nordic countries with their welfare system, well...... most nordic countries, if you don't work, you don't eat. In fact, there is no welfare or food stamps at all. Zero. There is only unemployment insurance. You ONLY get unemployment comp, if you have worked no less than 12 full months. And then when you do get unemployment comp, you only get it for exactly 12 full months. After that, YOU DIE. You either work, or you starve.

You want to implement Nordic "welfare" here, by all means. Every single person that has worked less than 12 months, should be cut off from food stamps and welfare, and WIC and everything else, immediately. And all those who did, you get 12 months, and you are cut off.

Let's do it. Bernie Sanders claim to support that, let's do it.

After reviewing the post I think you are responding to,#381, I didn't say any of those things you say I am lying about. I asked a question
that you apparently mistook as a statement. Questions and statements based on convictions are not the same. You do, understand that, don't you?

I wonder,now, if your claim that millions of people were kicked off welfare during the Clinton Administration has and validity.

You said :

should we just let them be homeless and starve under overpasses? Crime would certainly increase and so would antipathy for the US abroad.
The implication of asking "Should we let them be homeless and starve" and "Crime would certainly increase" implies that cutting welfare would cause such events. Fact is, we did this, and it didn't result in any of your implied results.

You wonder if it happened? So you have absolutely no knowledge of historical events, but make grand predictions about what would happen?

FYI:

View attachment 83913
View attachment 83914
View attachment 83919

Now as you can see of from the caseload data from multiple welfare programs, all data shows very clearly that in 1994 to 1995, all enrollment began to fall. The welfare reform package was passed in 1995, because the Republicans came into power in 1994.

Moreover, you can also see that caseloads were increasing from 1991 to 1994, which is interesting because the Bush Sr recession ended in 1991.

And I assume I don't need to show that crime decreased, not increased between 1995 to 2002?
You do make a compelling case, I will have to take some time to analyze all the data …will respond in due time.
However, my quick response would be that Clinton's signing of the Omnibus Crime bill of 1994, or whatever other name it was called, may have played a major part in the crime rate drop as well as other not so visible factors. That bill was introduced in the House by a Democrat BTW. An d Clinton has expressed regrets, saying it was a mistake.
 
In the real world, I don't see any political prospects on the horizon willing to cut the more expensive corporate welfare or the meager stipend of welfare recipients. Just what party or political figure would do either? And you did not mention the working poor with children. should we just let them be homeless and starve under overpasses? Crime would certainly increase and so would antipathy for the US abroad.

Note also that many of the unemployable are locked out of the job market due to felony convictions… even after they have paid for their crimes. Do we just keep them in prison forever or just liquidate them? Others are just plain insane… and the profit driven mental institutions don't want them either if they aren't rich!

Thousands have sought refuge at the abortion clinics but conservatives don't want that either. Yet, you complain when the poor have kids they can't support without TANF. What political group do you have in mind that would put a stop to this? I don't know of any!

Again we kicked thousands off welfare and food stamps in the 1990s. Actually we kicked MILLIONS off welfare and food stamps.

We changed the rules, so fewer people qualified, and MILLIONS were booted off the public dole.

Where was the mass starvation? Where was the mass homelessness?

Stop lying. It didn't happen. People simply got to work, and it was explicitly because we kicked people off welfare, and forced them to work for a living, that grew our economy in the 1990s. Shockingly, when more people are producing, the GDP goes up, and it benefits everyone.

Yes we should greatly reduce, or even eliminate most of welfare.

You idiots on the left constantly point to Nordic countries with their welfare system, well...... most nordic countries, if you don't work, you don't eat. In fact, there is no welfare or food stamps at all. Zero. There is only unemployment insurance. You ONLY get unemployment comp, if you have worked no less than 12 full months. And then when you do get unemployment comp, you only get it for exactly 12 full months. After that, YOU DIE. You either work, or you starve.

You want to implement Nordic "welfare" here, by all means. Every single person that has worked less than 12 months, should be cut off from food stamps and welfare, and WIC and everything else, immediately. And all those who did, you get 12 months, and you are cut off.

Let's do it. Bernie Sanders claim to support that, let's do it.

After reviewing the post I think you are responding to,#381, I didn't say any of those things you say I am lying about. I asked a question
that you apparently mistook as a statement. Questions and statements based on convictions are not the same. You do, understand that, don't you?

I wonder,now, if your claim that millions of people were kicked off welfare during the Clinton Administration has and validity.

You said :

should we just let them be homeless and starve under overpasses? Crime would certainly increase and so would antipathy for the US abroad.
The implication of asking "Should we let them be homeless and starve" and "Crime would certainly increase" implies that cutting welfare would cause such events. Fact is, we did this, and it didn't result in any of your implied results.

You wonder if it happened? So you have absolutely no knowledge of historical events, but make grand predictions about what would happen?

FYI:

View attachment 83913
View attachment 83914
View attachment 83919

Now as you can see of from the caseload data from multiple welfare programs, all data shows very clearly that in 1994 to 1995, all enrollment began to fall. The welfare reform package was passed in 1995, because the Republicans came into power in 1994.

Moreover, you can also see that caseloads were increasing from 1991 to 1994, which is interesting because the Bush Sr recession ended in 1991.

And I assume I don't need to show that crime decreased, not increased between 1995 to 2002?
You do make a compelling case, I will have to take some time to analyze all the data …will respond in due time.
However, my quick response would be that Clinton's signing of the Omnibus Crime bill of 1994, or whatever other name it was called, may have played a major part in the crime rate drop as well as other not so visible factors. That bill was introduced in the House by a Democrat BTW. An d Clinton has expressed regrets, saying it was a mistake.

First, that doesn't change anything. Regardless of what other factors may have played a part, you claimed that cutting welfare would cause a spike in crime.

It didn't.

You are effectively saying more enforcement of the law, reduces crime. Well there's a shocker.

Second, I doubt that the 1994 legislation had that much of an effect. It was mostly symbolic. The real work was at the State and Local level, which made dealing with crime a priority.


These are the major aspects of the bill.

The assault weapons ban did nothing. Nearly all the banned weapons were back on sale, with minor modifications. The magazine limit, made absolutly no difference whatsoever, because most criminals used the stock mag, which generally holds 8 rounds. It was rare even before they were illegal, to see a 12 round mag.

Federal Death Penalty is nifty, but largely irrelevant since most criminals are caught and punished under state level law. States handle 30 million criminal cases a year. The Feds handle about a million at best.

Obviously eliminating federal funding for prison education, isn't the reason for a drop in crime.

The violence against women act, didn't do anything either. Establishing a hotline, doesn't prevent crime. Providing shelters doesn't prevent crime either. Both are only useful after a crime is committed, and it's hard to say if calling 911 is less effective than calling the hotline. Most battered womens shelters already existed. Sure a few dollars from the government is peachy, but the Lutheran Women's shelter existed long before 1994.

Driver privacy didn't do anything.

Lastly, Cops. Now whether the COPS program has been effective or not, is hard to determine. The best I've seen is a very minor help. Others say it was worthless.

The entire program has only spend $14 Billion. Now that's since 1994. 22 years later, it's spent $14 Billion total. That works out to be about $600 Million a year. That sounds like a ton, until you realize just how many cities there are in the US.

So just for giggles, I decided to look the Columbus Ohio Budget, just to see if I could find any evidence of COPS, since supposedly the program is still active.

And I did. Don't laugh.....

Screen Shot 2016-08-02 at 2.43.03 AM.png


That's not a misprint, and I'm not cropping out (in millions) from the PDF. That's exactly $48 dollars.... in 2012. That's how effective COPS is.

So, I highly doubt any aspect of the Clinton crime bill had any really significant effect.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top