USS Monitor wrote:Greater USA wrote:
He's a self-proclaimed socialist! You think most Americans would actually go for that? There's a reason why Obama has been trying to run away from that term since 2008. It just doesn't work.
I find it bizarre that many liberals point out that crime is at an all-time low, but talk endlessly about the need to fix the inner cities and poor neighborhoods. Do you know what these areas need? They need better law enforcement to go after gangs and drugs. Moms and dads in "the hood" are either scared to death for their kids, or are so neglectful that their kids have no choice but to seek belonging in a gang. And values are also part of the conversation. The single greatest cause of poverty in America is being in an unstable single-parent household. Maybe if parents actually stayed together for the sake of their children, things would be better.
There's more. Poor areas need businesses to create jobs and spurred economic activity. They need the chance to send their kids to better schools. And they need opportunity. Kids who are able to train to become plumbers, carpenters, and craftsmen will be able to find jobs that provide health insurance and other basics. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
Not all poor people live in areas where they have to spend every day in fear for their safety. My neighborhood has a lot of poor people, but it's safe to walk around and so on. Poverty definitely needs to be addressed separately from law enforcement because there are places like Maine that have real problems with poverty, even though it is one of the safest places in the US.
To be sure, my post focuses squarely on high-crime urban areas (of which there are many). My point about school choice and more jobs still stands with all areas though.










