Riot Following Laker Win

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Entitlement Nanny State my friend. If I was in the car I would run the scum over.[/quote]

It has nothing to do with that. It’s fucked up excited people getting into a groupthink mentality and following the crowd in doing whatever they do. Then there’s some criminals who capitalize on that feeling and actually steal shit as well.

It would have happened whether the country was led by socialists or laissez-faire capitalists.

Nanny state entitlement…christ, you fucking people are ridiculous with this shit. [/quote]

Why does it seem to happen more in cities that are traditional entitlement cities than any where else? When you are handed something for free, money food stamps, and do not have to work for it, you are less likely to understand the meaning of ownership. The dude was sitting in his car and they busted his windshield? This stuff happens all the time in LA. New Orleans during Katrina. Lets go loot some shit because they have more than I do. Get off your rocker and start using your brain. [/quote]

I would say its because they’re poor, not because the government gives them food stamps. [/quote]

But in many cases the government giving them food stamps results in more poverty which then requires food stamps which results in poverty and awawheeeeeeee we go again and again and again.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
– Benjamin Franklin [/quote]

I’d love to have a discussion about this with someone who isn’t you.

83

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’d love to have a discussion about this with someone who isn’t you. [/quote]

If you’re gonna be that clever there’s no way I can outduel ye.

[/quote]

I don’t want to duel with you. I don’t want to argue with you or talk to you. When I first started coming back to these forums, I tried to get you to lighten up, but that hasn’t seemed to change anything. You’ve proven yourself to be an asshole, and I, frankly, don’t want to deal with it. Please just leave me alone.

85

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
At first I was going to point out how tortured your explanations look, Maddox. But my guess is neither you nor Push will admit you have no idea how rioting happens, other than that ‘some places are just bad places’.

So… cool. Whatever.[/quote]

I can see your points, I guess I really do not have a clue why it happens, but my thoughts are observations I have seen. Riots happen in places usually stricken with poverty, and an idea that something is owed to people. Higher probablility of both in traditional Entitlement societies. New Orleans during Katrina there was rampant looting. People grabbing 10 pairs of $150 shoes all the same size, and then stating they needed them for their family. People grabbing flat screen tvs because they needed one. The idea that you have to work hard has left certain societies, and I have no clue why. Maybe it is the absence of a Father, or maybe the absence of the Church and God, I have to throw that in there, or maybe it is just ignorance. I guess we will never know, but continuing to give money to people that do not know how to take care of it is not the way to do it. There needs to be accountability in our society. [/quote]

Did these societies ever have this mentality, in your view? [/quote]

I think they did. Maybe prior to the Government handing out entitlements? I am religious, and I have asked several old timers about what life was like at the church prior to welfare? This is not a study just random chat. They all pretty much said, the church was the center of society. The Church helped people directly by helping them get a job, or work around the church and pay them for their work. Their was a thought back then, that if you do not work you do not eat. Another thought would be, beggars can not be choosers. I want people to work for money. It might be a meanial job like sweeping a side walk, but it is work. I wish people would have to do something to get their welfare check. Pick any task, maybe typing up a letter, making a phone call from their house, anything is better than just the task of walking to the mail box. Now adays the checks are direct deposited.

This always reminds me of the parable of the Ant and the Grasshopper.

86

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Entitlement Nanny State my friend. If I was in the car I would run the scum over.[/quote]

It has nothing to do with that. It’s fucked up excited people getting into a groupthink mentality and following the crowd in doing whatever they do. Then there’s some criminals who capitalize on that feeling and actually steal shit as well.

It would have happened whether the country was led by socialists or laissez-faire capitalists.

Nanny state entitlement…christ, you fucking people are ridiculous with this shit. [/quote]

Why does it seem to happen more in cities that are traditional entitlement cities than any where else? When you are handed something for free, money food stamps, and do not have to work for it, you are less likely to understand the meaning of ownership. The dude was sitting in his car and they busted his windshield? This stuff happens all the time in LA. New Orleans during Katrina. Lets go loot some shit because they have more than I do. Get off your rocker and start using your brain. [/quote]

I would say its because they’re poor, not because the government gives them food stamps. [/quote]

But in many cases the government giving them food stamps results in more poverty which then requires food stamps which results in poverty and awawheeeeeeee we go again and again and again.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
– Benjamin Franklin [/quote]

I’d love to have a discussion about this with someone who isn’t you. [/quote]

I’m your Huckleberry.

Push’s quote from Benjamin Franklin is a good one. I personally want to help the poor, but I want the poor to also help themselves out. Here in the States it just seems like there is a mentality of I am owed something.

I went to India a few years back on a mission trip. The mission we were helping out tried to help people make a living for themselves. One of the programs was teaching widowed women a semstress business. What they do is teach the widows how to sew with a sewing machine, and when the class is done they give them a sewing machine and a micro loan to get them started. The micro loan must be paid back to the group, and they are asked once they are doing well to support another widow that has signed up for the class. There is a sense of community and helping out others and not yourself.

87

I would rather the governement suppliment work, then say here is your money. For example: right now if you make enough money to be above the poverty line you get nothing from the government. I say the governemnt should have a sliding scale. If you work at McDonalds and make minimum wage you will make about $15k well if you stayed at home all day you would get $15k from the government.

There needs to be an inscentive to go to work. I say we give the person working at McDonalds half of the money they would have gotten from staying at home. So they get $15k from McD and $7.5k from the government. If they loose their job from McD because of stealing, using drugs, showing up drunk they loose the entire government check. There needs to be accountability, and an incentive to work.

By the person working they get more money, but the government reduces welfare payments by 50%. The amount given by the government would be a sliding scale, to a point where a person can get off of it once they reach a certain income.

88

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Well the good news about Detroit you couldn’t tell that the riots were there, the place looks the same, abandoned buildings and burnt out cars are a normal sight there. If you left the day before, they had riots all night and you came back the next day, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.[/quote]
Boy if this isn’t the tragic truth. However we have had 4 NHL championships in 12 years and a million plus people along Woodward and down into Hart Plaza each time and zero violence. Even in 97 when it was Hockeytown’s first in 44 years. People can make of that what they will.

89

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I would rather the governement suppliment work, then say here is your money. For example: right now if you make enough money to be above the poverty line you get nothing from the government. I say the governemnt should have a sliding scale. If you work at McDonalds and make minimum wage you will make about $15k well if you stayed at home all day you would get $15k from the government.

There needs to be an inscentive to go to work. I say we give the person working at McDonalds half of the money they would have gotten from staying at home. So they get $15k from McD and $7.5k from the government. If they loose their job from McD because of stealing, using drugs, showing up drunk they loose the entire government check. There needs to be accountability, and an incentive to work.

By the person working they get more money, but the government reduces welfare payments by 50%. The amount given by the government would be a sliding scale, to a point where a person can get off of it once they reach a certain income. [/quote]

This isn’t a bad idea at all.

You have to look at the whole of the situation, the welfare trap, etc.

One of my ideas is to somehow incentivize companies to open stores/branches in those areas where people are in need of jobs. Perhaps splitting the current welfare resources between both our ideas would be effective; though it would cost the same, initially, it would create a cycle leading to growth instead of enslavement.

I get that welfare isn’t a solution to the problem – but I also can’t stand the ivory tower mentality of those who think it would be best to just suddenly end every government program as such, “for the good of the poor”. Reminds me of that article, “advice to young men from an old man”; the people that advocate pulling the plug on welfare simply want to pay less in taxes. This isn’t wrong in itself, but pretending it’s some act of kindness for the poor is laughable and dishonest.

90

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

One of my ideas is to somehow incentivize companies to open stores/branches in those areas where people are in need of jobs. [/quote]

Sorry to take out the rest of your post, but this really hit me. Wal-Mart has tried this time an time again, and all the people of those areas can say is, “Wal-Mart you do not pay enough.” “You have to allow us to unionize.” Wal-Mart is not even asking for a government hand out to move into those places.

We have to ween the baby of the tit. It just seems the baby cries too much so we keep whipping the tit out to calm them down. Sometimes a baby has to figure out what it needs to do to solve the issue with out the parents help. It is called growing up.

91

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I would rather the governement suppliment work, then say here is your money. For example: right now if you make enough money to be above the poverty line you get nothing from the government. I say the governemnt should have a sliding scale. If you work at McDonalds and make minimum wage you will make about $15k well if you stayed at home all day you would get $15k from the government.

There needs to be an inscentive to go to work. I say we give the person working at McDonalds half of the money they would have gotten from staying at home. So they get $15k from McD and $7.5k from the government. If they loose their job from McD because of stealing, using drugs, showing up drunk they loose the entire government check. There needs to be accountability, and an incentive to work.

By the person working they get more money, but the government reduces welfare payments by 50%. The amount given by the government would be a sliding scale, to a point where a person can get off of it once they reach a certain income. [/quote]

This exists, and is called the ‘Earned Income Tax Credit’.

Expansions to this was considered one of the hallmarks to the congress of '94’s ‘Welfare to Work’ policy.

92

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I would rather the governement suppliment work, then say here is your money. For example: right now if you make enough money to be above the poverty line you get nothing from the government. I say the governemnt should have a sliding scale. If you work at McDonalds and make minimum wage you will make about $15k well if you stayed at home all day you would get $15k from the government.

There needs to be an inscentive to go to work. I say we give the person working at McDonalds half of the money they would have gotten from staying at home. So they get $15k from McD and $7.5k from the government. If they loose their job from McD because of stealing, using drugs, showing up drunk they loose the entire government check. There needs to be accountability, and an incentive to work.

By the person working they get more money, but the government reduces welfare payments by 50%. The amount given by the government would be a sliding scale, to a point where a person can get off of it once they reach a certain income. [/quote]

This exists, and is called the ‘Earned Income Tax Credit’.

Expansions to this was considered one of the hallmarks to the congress of '94’s ‘Welfare to Work’ policy.[/quote]

The person needs to have children to receive any substantial amount of money for the earned income credit.

Also, people receiving the EIC can still receive welfare, food stamps, etc.

The EIC is a collosal failure, IMO. I prepared taxes in for 2 years in an area where 70% of the people received it. Most people don’t understand why they are receiving a 5K check from the government (they simply believe it is their “tax refund”) and still consider themselves taxpayers, despite 0 federal withholdings.

Edit - sorry for the slight hijack.

93

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I would rather the governement suppliment work, then say here is your money. For example: right now if you make enough money to be above the poverty line you get nothing from the government. I say the governemnt should have a sliding scale. If you work at McDonalds and make minimum wage you will make about $15k well if you stayed at home all day you would get $15k from the government.

There needs to be an inscentive to go to work. I say we give the person working at McDonalds half of the money they would have gotten from staying at home. So they get $15k from McD and $7.5k from the government. If they loose their job from McD because of stealing, using drugs, showing up drunk they loose the entire government check. There needs to be accountability, and an incentive to work.

By the person working they get more money, but the government reduces welfare payments by 50%. The amount given by the government would be a sliding scale, to a point where a person can get off of it once they reach a certain income. [/quote]

This exists, and is called the ‘Earned Income Tax Credit’.

Expansions to this was considered one of the hallmarks to the congress of '94’s ‘Welfare to Work’ policy.[/quote]

Doesn’t the EIC phase out at $20k? I have never been able to collect under the EIC so I am a ignorant on it. The EIC only pertains to people who work, and does not affect people on welfare. Instead of giving a lump sum once a year do it every month like they do wil welfare payments. I am just throwing out ideas.

94

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I would rather the governement suppliment work, then say here is your money. For example: right now if you make enough money to be above the poverty line you get nothing from the government. I say the governemnt should have a sliding scale. If you work at McDonalds and make minimum wage you will make about $15k well if you stayed at home all day you would get $15k from the government.

There needs to be an inscentive to go to work. I say we give the person working at McDonalds half of the money they would have gotten from staying at home. So they get $15k from McD and $7.5k from the government. If they loose their job from McD because of stealing, using drugs, showing up drunk they loose the entire government check. There needs to be accountability, and an incentive to work.

By the person working they get more money, but the government reduces welfare payments by 50%. The amount given by the government would be a sliding scale, to a point where a person can get off of it once they reach a certain income. [/quote]

This exists, and is called the ‘Earned Income Tax Credit’.

Expansions to this was considered one of the hallmarks to the congress of '94’s ‘Welfare to Work’ policy.[/quote]

Doesn’t the EIC phase out at $20k? I have never been able to collect under the EIC so I am a ignorant on it. The EIC only pertains to people who work, and does not affect people on welfare. Instead of giving a lump sum once a year do it every month like they do wil welfare payments. I am just throwing out ideas.[/quote]

For those with no children, it phases out around 13k. More children, different top limits.

Yes it only pertains to work, but theoretically it incentivizes working up to a certain point by increasing in dollar-figures the more a person works, then slowly weaning them off the work-subsidy instead of a sudden cutoff.

It’s actual incentivization is up for argument. See LankEy’s post.

There is a program to deliver part of an expected EIC payout every month instead of one lump-sum at the end of the year. When you fill out your W-4, there is a box you can check. To be eligable, you have to a) be eligable for the EIC and b) expect to receive a refund in the current tax year (the one you’d be receiving the EIC advance in).

95

The Lakers win a championship - not exactly their first, at any rate - and hell breaks loose.

A thousand year flood hits Nashville, Tennessee in May - lives are lost, properties are devastated (millions in damages), massive power outages occur, etc. - no looting, no rioting. Just random strangers rescuing each other and bending over backwards to give material support to the victims (their fellow neighbors).

It’s culture. People and their priorities matter. Be smart where you pick to live.

96

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Lakers win a championship - not exactly their first, at any rate - and hell breaks loose.

A thousand year flood hits Nashville, Tennessee in May - lives are lost, properties are devastated (millions in damages), massive power outages occur, etc. - no looting, no rioting. Just random strangers rescuing each other and bending over backwards to give material support to the victims (their fellow neighbors).

It’s culture. People and their priorities matter. Be smart where you pick to live.[/quote]

This.
I have intended to introduce this topic in a thread for several weeks.

I live in Nashville. Not one thread was written on this tragedy. I barely saw it touched upon on the national news.

Yet, this very flood ranks as the largest non-hurricane natural disaster in the history of our nation. How many of you folks are even aware?

I could not be prouder of my city. Before the rains had stopped, citizens were organizing in any way they could to help their neighbor. It never occurred to us that it was the job of government and that we should wait around and whine. It was as if most people realized that the government would just get in the way.

A great proportion of the response was organized and orchestrated by the churches. It was a beautiful thing. For at least the first two weeks, there were a minimum of 1500 volunteers show up at my one church alone every single morning to receive orders and destinations where help was needed the most. Armies of volunteers helped clean up, strip whole houses of sheet rock, carpet etc., and clean and disinfect for the start of rebuilding.

There was NO rioting and no looting. There was no need for it. Before victims could even get over their shock, they had friends, neighbors and strangers at their side and hard at work.

Did the President show up? No. I do not think he would have wanted the rest of the country see how effective people can be without Big Brother.

So yes, you are correct in saying it is all about the culture. In LA it is about a culture of Entitlement without effort. In Nashville it is about a culture of self sufficiency nurtured in good old Judeo-Christian beliefs and backed by honest, non forced charity and good will for your fellow man.

97

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Lakers win a championship - not exactly their first, at any rate - and hell breaks loose.

A thousand year flood hits Nashville, Tennessee in May - lives are lost, properties are devastated (millions in damages), massive power outages occur, etc. - no looting, no rioting. Just random strangers rescuing each other and bending over backwards to give material support to the victims (their fellow neighbors).

It’s culture. People and their priorities matter. Be smart where you pick to live.[/quote]
Really. When contrasted like this it’s like 2 different countries.

98

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

One of my ideas is to somehow incentivize companies to open stores/branches in those areas where people are in need of jobs. [/quote]

Sorry to take out the rest of your post, but this really hit me. Wal-Mart has tried this time an time again, and all the people of those areas can say is, “Wal-Mart you do not pay enough.” “You have to allow us to unionize.” Wal-Mart is not even asking for a government hand out to move into those places.

We have to ween the baby of the tit. It just seems the baby cries too much so we keep whipping the tit out to calm them down. Sometimes a baby has to figure out what it needs to do to solve the issue with out the parents help. It is called growing up.[/quote]

Exactly the ivory tower philosophy I was talking about.

People on government assistance are lazy good for nothing babies. Just take away the support and a robust economy will magically appear around them. Crime rates will drop, viable employment opprotunities will rain down from the sky.

Because everybody on welfare walks by tons of “Help wanted” signs every day, they have the means to travel to work and have their children looked after, they could easily get up and get a great job…

they’re just babies milking the tit.

Right?

99

I remember a while back there was a video of a huge black guy beating up a white guy in a pizza store. A good number of the guys on this site piped up about how they would have stepped in, what they would have done.

It’s funny how people not directly in a situation would act so bravely, and tirelessly, and be unaffected by struggle. Yet we see time and time again that the vast majority of people aren’t heroes - they’re normal people.

So anybody who wants to fantasize that they’d pull themselves up by their own bootstraps out of the ghetto, put in twice the effort for half the return that those more advantaged get, for years and years just to someday get to (maybe) upper middle class…

have fun in dream land.

100

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Lakers win a championship - not exactly their first, at any rate - and hell breaks loose.

A thousand year flood hits Nashville, Tennessee in May - lives are lost, properties are devastated (millions in damages), massive power outages occur, etc. - no looting, no rioting. Just random strangers rescuing each other and bending over backwards to give material support to the victims (their fellow neighbors).

It’s culture. People and their priorities matter. Be smart where you pick to live.[/quote]

This.
I have intended to introduce this topic in a thread for several weeks.

I live in Nashville. Not one thread was written on this tragedy. I barely saw it touched upon on the national news.

Yet, this very flood ranks as the largest non-hurricane natural disaster in the history of our nation. How many of you folks are even aware?

I could not be prouder of my city. Before the rains had stopped, citizens were organizing in any way they could to help their neighbor. It never occurred to us that it was the job of government and that we should wait around and whine. It was as if most people realized that the government would just get in the way.

A great proportion of the response was organized and orchestrated by the churches. It was a beautiful thing. For at least the first two weeks, there were a minimum of 1500 volunteers show up at my one church alone every single morning to receive orders and destinations where help was needed the most. Armies of volunteers helped clean up, strip whole houses of sheet rock, carpet etc., and clean and disinfect for the start of rebuilding.

There was NO rioting and no looting. There was no need for it. Before victims could even get over their shock, they had friends, neighbors and strangers at their side and hard at work.

Did the President show up? No. I do not think he would have wanted the rest of the country see how effective people can be without Big Brother.

So yes, you are correct in saying it is all about the culture. In LA it is about a culture of Entitlement without effort. In Nashville it is about a culture of self sufficiency nurtured in good old Judeo-Christian beliefs and backed by honest, non forced charity and good will for your fellow man. [/quote]

True. But social change doesn’t come from everyone, all together, up and deciding to “be better people”.