Are we talking about economic numbers or are we talking about crime? Cause it seems like that's a change of subject. On the subject of crime, I don't know what's going on in that Georgia county, but there's been plenty of cases of crime having significant decreases in recent years. In fact, I remember reading news stories about how the conventional wisdom about crime increasing during economic recessions was being proven wrong in many areas because crime was decreasing.
Obama - What is your opinion so far on his Presidency
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Are we talking about economic numbers or are we talking about crime? Cause it seems like that's a change of subject. On the subject of crime, I don't know what's going on in that Georgia county, but there's been plenty of cases of crime having significant decreases in recent years. In fact, I remember reading news stories about how the conventional wisdom about crime increasing during economic recessions was being proven wrong in many areas because crime was decreasing.
Most would agree that crime rates are a reflection of the economic climate. Especially crimes like robbery and theft. If everyone has a good job and can pay their bills crime will be quite low. When people are struggling to feed their kids they will resort to whatever means are neccessary.
I don't think most would agree with that. Like I said, it was especially proven false during this recent recession with significant decreases in crime.
"[C]riminologists disagree about the connection between a sour economy and spikes in crime and whether aggressive policing strategies introduced in the last decade can prevent a sustained rise in crime.
"'There's no iron law linking [the economy and crime],' said UCLA criminal justice professor Eric Monkkonen. 'This recession could see a crime wave or could not see a crime wave. It could promote crime, but it could be 15 years from now.'"
Hmmm, so if you din't have your job and your home and any assistance would you steal food for your kids??? Answer truthfully!
I still see him as a babe in the woods being shot at by many as he runs wing shot across the field. BUT... he is trying hard to get it right. He isn't from a financial or political powerhouse back ground like other politicians and they don't let him forget it for a minute. He does have a good education, a wonder speaking talent and also is quick to think on his feet. His wife is sure getting into a very proactive role as First lady. She does attract an audience and she does like to work with those less fortunate. It is still too early to ask a question like this and expect many answers.
I'd steal, or get a job, whichever comes first. And I think the stats confirm the unpredictable nature of crime rates. Sometimes, crime declines during times of recession.
Hence, why I think ironsides was changing the topic, even in mid post. The post was about economic numbers, and then he provided an article about crime rates in Georgia.
Not changing the topic, in fact they are related.
People lose jobs, families still have to eat, some resort to stealing in poor economic times. Guess what I am trying to say is that economic situations can and will cause crimes both for the poor and the rich. Tifton Georgia is just a microcosm of what is happening. Violent crimes other than robbery seem to be going down, they are not related to the economy in most cases.
We shall see what his polls are in the next few months after his speech today 19 May 2001. The Mid-East will soon erupt into something totally out of our hands.
"I don't know what you mean by "encouraged to do so", but the usual target of this kind of criticism (the Community Reinvestment Act, the 1977 law meant to reduce discrimination against low income and middle class borrowers, and the Act's many amendments since 1977) has been completely exonerated. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke put it: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."
Don't know?????
That piece of Clinton-signed legislation not only encouraged, but actually PROMPTED perennial losers to attempt to be losers no more.
However, life is NOT a liberal dreamland. Losers are losers and they proved it and brought the country down to be the highest users of food stamps and the highest unemployment rate since the mid-1930s.
Don't know?????
That piece of Clinton-signed legislation not only encouraged, but actually PROMPTED perennial losers to attempt to be losers no more.
However, life is NOT a liberal dreamland. Losers are losers and they proved it and brought the country down to be the highest users of food stamps and the highest unemployment rate since the mid-1930s.
YJ - if i recall correctly - you posed an answer to a question but you also brought race into the equation - that in itself nullifies what you have to say about Obama
Sorry, you lost any semblance of credibility when you started quoting Ben Bernake. If you want to believe anything from this guy I got some potential waterfront property for sale and yes, the moon is made of green cheese.
What Clinton was trying to do was a noble effort, unfortunately it opened up home mortgages for everyone no matter their income. It just got out of hand and almost bankrupted the whole banking system. President Obama showed that he was/is not in control by giving Bernanke, Geithner and others responsible jobs in his administration.
The policy is not much different than Bush the Lesser - Land Swaps - Read into what he states - To many people are making to much out of really SFA -
His position on the Middle east was support the regimes - now it is democracy - sounds Bushish 2 to me.
Part of the Palestinian - Israeli peace plan prior to Nutanyou the nut bar, always included a land swap for parts of the West Bank - less than 5 % the land swap is what drives them. The Capital , right of return and the failure of Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. The last is a new wrinkle
I don't think Israel would object to some Palestinians right to return if it included a real peace treaty. A real peace treaty with them would have to be more than a signature on a piece of paper, it would probably also have to include 5-10 years of peace to become permanent. The last you mentioned is because of Hamas and its charter.