Local carnage covered up by Wall Street woes

Christian C wrote:

Ms. Trice, thank you for writing this. As rich tycoons get a bailout courtesy of the American taxpayer, poor families are losing, and I promise you, you're not the only one who's angry about it.
To "Full Circle": Don't assume the National Guard is the answer for you, or people in high-crime neighborhoods, or anyone else. Let me share the insight I picked up after being enlisted in the National Guard for the better part of the '90s:
First of all, the military's primary mission isn't to maintain order, it's to kill enemy soldiers. The bulk of the Army's training is directed toward this mission--kill them, before they kill us. Aim the National Guard at a stateside target, and you'll see the effects of this training: you will have turned a high-crime area into a war zone. You'd wind up with more gun deaths, not less. If you want a force whose primary mission is to deal with Americans in a manner consistent with civil law, you need police, not soldiers.
Second, military personnel come disproportionately from poor neighborhoods, and you're assuming those same personnel would then march on their own friends and families and treat them like enemies? My old unit, the now-defunct 202nd Air Defense Artillery, was designated as the rapid-response team in the event of a riot in Chicago. While President Clinton never activated National Guard troops for combat, the Bulls won plenty of championships, so the risk of getting deployed for riot-control was certainly present. This was our biggest fear, because we knew we'd be marching into our own neighborhoods.
A common knee-jerk American reaction to any problem is to deploy guns and bombs, but that won't solve this problem, it'll just get a lot of people killed.

I disagree, the approach should be go home to home and rip these people out, one by one. No one said declare an all out war in the streets. You go and collect them. If they will not go peacefully, you will have to exert force. Look, these neighborhoods are already warzones, and before you go attacking me, saying "what do you know about it, being up in Vernon Hills." I work here, but live in Cicero. I know all too well about what is going on in our neighborhoods. We need a "surge" to purge all that is bad, and then we put up safeguards to ensure that they do not form again.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well, that is exactly what our leaders are doing in Chicago. We need a new approach. We need to get rid of aldermen/women who are in business or even sleeping w/ gangbangers (thank you Ms. Troutman for proving the public's suspicions). We need a clean slate now.

John wrote:

It isint the goverments job to "Bail-out" the cities from gang bangers. It is the mayors and the goveners job to aproach these LOCAL crime issues. This isint a federal problem, our buddies locally have failed us. Almost every single alderman has failed us, the mayor has failed us, the govener has failed us. We need to vote these people out of office, elect officals who will make a difference, and stop this idea that it is somehow the goverments job to make all of this better.

Not true. The Chicago City Council has done an excellent job on these and other important issues. Texting while driving...banned. Phone calls while driving...banned. Texting while walking...soon to be banned. They did flip flop on Fois Gras. That concerned me.$400 million budget gap...non-issue. One federal investigation after another...non-issue. Wrought iron fence and planter contracts for all their friends...non-issue. I do have one question though; how can my Alderman, Bob Fioretti, own a law firm that makes ALL of it's money by sueing the city for civil rights violations, and then he votes on these same settlements in the city council? Everything will be okay though, the TIF's will save us.

"Todd Stroger is a good progressive Democrat and will bring a new era of reform to Cook County Government."

Barack Obama

Ike wrote:

<quoted text>
Not true. The Chicago City Council has done an excellent job on these and other important issues. Texting while driving...banned. Phone calls while driving...banned. Texting while walking...soon to be banned. They did flip flop on Fois Gras. That concerned me.$400 million budget gap...non-issue. One federal investigation after another...non-issue. Wrought iron fence and planter contracts for all their friends...non-issue. I do have one question though; how can my Alderman, Bob Fioretti, own a law firm that makes ALL of it's money by sueing the city for civil rights violations, and then he votes on these same settlements in the city council? Everything will be okay though, the TIF's will save us.

If the inner city scumbags wernt so ignorant as to realize these people dont care about them at all and voted for someone else then it would stop. Guess what? it wont happen. Their is a whole cycle of damnation within the inner city nothing short of a complete purge or martial law will solve.

It comes down to personal responsibility. I moved out of Chicago because now they're shooting at people on PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

Well guess what? Those same criminals moved to MN too! A child was shot on public transportation.

The police can't be everywhere...and with the fiscal cuts hitting every state in the country, I'll update my conceal and carry card. That way I have at least a chance.

Jamison wrote:

The first thing the community organizers and activists can do is to quit blaming the police, the schools and everyone else and place it exactly where it belongs: On the perpetrators and their parents. Poverty is not an excuse; Many of us were born in poverty, but did not shoot, rob and rape, and instead went to school, worked hard and pushed ourselves ahead in life. No handouts, no freebies, no excuses. What can be done to stop people from conceiving babies they neither can afford nor wish to properly support? I don't know, but I do know that's where you start.

Hey, Dawn, I think this man has an answer...well at least a starting point.

Dawn, as regrettable as it sounds, until the African American stands up and becomes out raged and does something about it, noone else will. I think it's fair to say that a majority of gunshot victims are from African American communities. It's the pull your selves up by your own boot straps mentallity. Unfortunately, if it doesn't occur in anothers neighborhood, they don't care. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.

Y'all need to get together in your own community and put an end to it, noone will do it for you, Barack or the old guy.

It is up to the parents. You can say 'it takes a village' all you want, you can volunteer & march & try as hard as you want, it is & was always up to the parents. We need mothers AND fathers to stay on top of their kids. They need the energy & willpower & stamina to keep their kids out of gangs. No one can give it to them. Preachers may preach that to them, mentors can advise that to them, but it is like an alcoholic...the parents need to parent EVERY DAY, every hour.
Know where your kids are, take them to church, ground them during school time, force them to do homework, take away their cell phones & video games, STAY involved. Keep them OFF the streets. This does not start when the kid is a teen & tempted by the thug life, this starts when the kids are small. KEEP THEM close. Train them up in the way you want them to grow. MAKE THE EFFORT, don't be lazy, don't be self-centered, PUT your kids first.

Obama's 95% Illusion

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

WASHINGTON (CNN)-- Since Barack Obama incessantly makes the case that a John McCain administration would equate to another Bush term, it's worth looking at just how much Sen. Obama himself is in agreement with the unpopular president.

Does that mean that he, too, would be a repeat of President Bush? If one were to apply his logic, maybe so.

Here are 20 reasons why:

1. Abstinence: Bush expanded community-based abstinence education during his term, including a $28 million budget increase for 2009 in an effort to "Teach both abstinence and contraception to teens." Obama concurred in April when he said: "We want to make sure that, even as we are teaching responsible sexuality and we are teaching abstinence to children, that we are also making sure that they've got enough understanding about contraception."

2. Affirmative action: Bush said of the 2003 University of Michigan affirmative action case: "I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education. But the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed" -- because it depended solely on race. Bush has said other factors, such as socioeconomic status, should be considered, which would include poor white students.

Obama now agrees with that view. "Inside Higher Ed" referred in May to "Obama's suggestion that he may be ready to change the focus of affirmative action policies in higher education -- away from race to economic class.... In his debate in Philadelphia with Hillary Clinton, he said in response to a question, that his own privileged daughters do not deserve affirmative action preferences, and that working-class students of all colors do."

3. Budgets: Obama voted for Bush's budgets, which included 19 spending bills.

4. Capital punishment: Like Bush, Obama supports capital punishment. He spoke out in opposition to the recent Supreme Court decision that denied the death penalty for child rapists. And in his 2006 memoir, Obama said, "I believe there are some crimes -- mass murder, the rape and murder of a child -- so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

5. Education: Obama supports charter schools, as does Bush, and merit pay for teachers, and he voted in favor of supporting the president's 21st Century Community Learning Centers.

6. Economics: Obama told reporters that he agreed with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Bush's bailout package, then voted for the $700 billion plan. And despite routinely criticizing "the Bush tax cuts," Obama is now offering tax cuts of his own (although only for the 95 percent of taxpayers earning less than $250,000 a year). What a concept!

7. Energy: In signing the $12.3 billion Energy Policy Act of 2005, Bush said it "promotes dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for America's future." Obama voted for the energy plan and called it a "first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil."

WASHINGTON (CNN)-- Since Barack Obama incessantly makes the case that a John McCain administration would equate to another Bush term, it's worth looking at just how much Sen. Obama himself is in agreement with the unpopular president.
8. Faith-based initiatives/fatherhood: Bush is well known for his commitment to the faith-based community -- with initiatives for the poor and on fatherhood -- and he expanded the ability to allow faith-based providers a seat at the funding table. Obama, who has railed against Bush's efforts, has still found a way to embrace them, saying he would "expand" faith-based initiatives. He used his Father's Day speech to echo the president's Fatherhood Initiative.
9. FISA: Of the Senate bill passage that rewrote intelligence laws to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's wiretapping program, Bush said: "This vital intelligence bill will allow our national security professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists outside the United States, while respecting the liberties of the American people."
Obama, who supported it, after opposing FISA last year, said: "Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people." Almost identical, huh? Are we sure they don't share the same speechwriter? But Obama did take heat for his change of heart, as The Washington Post reported that: "The Illinois senator's reversal on the issue has angered liberal groups." Guess you can't please everyone.
10. Gay marriage: Both Obama and Bush agree that marriage is and should remain between one man and one woman. As far back as 2004, Obama said: "Gays ... should not marry." And in a 2007 Senate debate, he said: "I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states.... Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."
11. Global AIDS: Obama has said the U.S. must "lead the global fight against the AIDS virus." And earlier this year, he encouraged lawmakers to "Use whatever works with AIDS, including teaching abstinence." Obama has given Bush kudos for his efforts to combat global AIDS and the record amount of funding ($15 billion over 5 years) the president has earmarked for the fight. Obama said in September, "I think President Bush -- and many of you here today -- have shown real leadership in the fight against HIV/AIDS."
12. Health care: While they don't share similar views on universal health care coverage, Bush and Obama agree that the problem with health care is "about affordability" and there is a need to address minority health concerns with more coverage and targeting. That is why Bush expanded community health care centers, covering the uninsured and targeting urban areas, to the tune of $1.5 billion for 1,200 centers "coast to coast."
13. Middle-class tax cuts: While he hasn't voted for such cuts, Obama is pushing his biggest economic initiative yet: tax cuts for the middle class. "We've got to help the middle class," Obama said Tuesday. Perhaps unbeknownst to him, Bush has already been there, done that. In signing the 2001 Tax Cut Bill, Bush said: "Tax relief is an achievement for families struggling to enter the middle class. For hard-working lower-income families, we have cut the bottom rate of federal income tax from 15 percent to 10 percent. We doubled the per-child tax credit to $1,000, and made it refundable.... Tax relief is an achievement for middle-class families squeezed by high energy prices and credit card debt."

14. Minority homeownership: Obama adopted the Congressional Black Caucus principles "to increase minority homeownership" as it is "one of the best wealth-creation vehicles for minority families." These principles were developed as part of Bush's vision to expand minority homeownership to 5.5 million new homeowners by 2010. "Across our nation, every citizen, regardless of race, creed, color or place of birth, should have the opportunity to become a homeowner," Bush said.

Similar comparisons can be drawn for their positions on small businesses and on businesses owned by women and minorities.

15. National security: Obama voted yes on preauthorizing the much ballyhooed Patriot Act, sought by the Bush administration.

16. Offshore drilling: Bush has consistently pushed for drilling offshore, while Obama, who until recently opposed it, now says he's for it. In Nashville, Tennessee, he told an audience: "We're going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling."

17. Racial profiling: Obama's campaign literature states that he will call for a ban on racial profiling, even though Bush issued a directive that banned racial profiling in 2001. In his order, Bush said to the attorney general: "I hereby direct you to review the use by federal law enforcement authorities of race as a factor in conducting stops, searches and other investigative procedures.... I further direct that you report back to me with your findings and recommendations for the improvement of the just and equal administration of our nation's laws."

18. Religion: It is widely known that Obama is a person of faith. He has said: "I am a proud Christian who believes deeply in Jesus Christ." Bush, who shares the same faith, has been just as much, if not more vocal, about his faith. He once told The Washington Times that he doesn't "see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord."

19. Supreme Court ruling on gun ban: Despite his past endorsements of some gun control measures, Obama's reaction to the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutional right of individuals to own handguns mirrors the administration's. Obama now says: "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms."

20. Welfare reform: An Obama ad this summer said he "passed a law to move people from welfare to work" and "slashed the rolls by 80 percent" (though all states had to as a result of the Clinton administration's mandate). Obama said in 2004: "Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency." In 2003, Bush successfully called on Congress to reauthorize and expand on welfare reform efforts, "to make welfare even more focused on the well being of children and supportive of families."

So, although he has been ranked as the most liberal senator by the National Journal and obviously hasn't voted with Bush as often as Sen. McCain has -- based on his voting "record" -- Obama's "rhetoric" still sounds a lot like, well, Bush. McCain might want to take that into account the next time Obama talks about another Bush term.

By the way I don't like George Bush and I am voting for McCain. I posted the above commentary to show you that most politicians are very much alike and "we" don't like them but occasionally need them

The people who call for an end to this violence could never stomach the solution, because it can't be solved by putting a few more cops on the street or banning guns.

The solution is condemning the moral and ethical beliefs of our entire nation. It requires a nuclear family, it requires teaching the youth to respect life, to give up their obsession with physical wealth and status. It requires them to work hard to achieve a better life.

No one is willing to do this because doing so would require the entire nation reevaluating it's own beliefs.

What the heck was a 15 yr. old doing with a gun in the first place?
Where are his parents?? Oh, wait probably too busy smoking crack!! What a shame, I hope he gets LIFE in prison so he can think about what he did the rest of his life. No wait it costs an average of about $30,000 /yr to keep him in prison. So, may I suggest something else?? Let the victims family shoot the suspect, it wont bring the victim back but at least they will be even!!

Christian C wrote:

Ms. Trice, thank you for writing this. As rich tycoons get a bailout courtesy of the American taxpayer, poor families are losing, and I promise you, you're not the only one who's angry about it.
To "Full Circle": Don't assume the National Guard is the answer for you, or people in high-crime neighborhoods, or anyone else. Let me share the insight I picked up after being enlisted in the National Guard for the better part of the '90s:
First of all, the military's primary mission isn't to maintain order, it's to kill enemy soldiers. The bulk of the Army's training is directed toward this mission--kill them, before they kill us. Aim the National Guard at a stateside target, and you'll see the effects of this training: you will have turned a high-crime area into a war zone. You'd wind up with more gun deaths, not less. If you want a force whose primary mission is to deal with Americans in a manner consistent with civil law, you need police, not soldiers.
Second, military personnel come disproportionately from poor neighborhoods, and you're assuming those same personnel would then march on their own friends and families and treat them like enemies? My old unit, the now-defunct 202nd Air Defense Artillery, was designated as the rapid-response team in the event of a riot in Chicago. While President Clinton never activated National Guard troops for combat, the Bulls won plenty of championships, so the risk of getting deployed for riot-control was certainly present. This was our biggest fear, because we knew we'd be marching into our own neighborhoods.
A common knee-jerk American reaction to any problem is to deploy guns and bombs, but that won't solve this problem, it'll just get a lot of people killed.

I have to correct you on something. You stated that "military personnel come disproportionately from poor neighborhoods. I have to say that you are wrong. A majority of the military come from Middle to Upper Class families. Furthermore, the combat and direct combat support jobs are primarily Caucasian. Which is why 75% of the soldiers killed in Iraq are Caucasian. Lastly, the Army does not just train to kill. If there is one good thing to come out of Iraq, it is the fact that we as a military are much better trained in civil control. Much of the methods used to curb violence in Iraq could be used to do the same in this country. As a former cop and soldier who has deployed to Iraq, I must say that your opinion and facts of the current Army are simply outdated

MinisterR wrote:

By the way I don't like George Bush and I am voting for McCain. I posted the above commentary to show you that most politicians are very much alike and "we" don't like them but occasionally need them

No one cares who you are voting for and stop posting all this non-relevant crapola here on this board.

The solution to the problem of gang violence is to end the war on drugs. Take away the million dollar profits from the illegal trade in drugs and the gangs go away.

Once that's implemented there is a chance to work on the other solutions folks have presented here, such as allowing a more conducive environment for a generation of young black Americans to learn how to take personal responsibility for themselves and then faithfully teach it to their children.

And make the penalties for using a gun to commit a crime draconian. No parole. No tv. Six out of 7 days you bust your ash working for the public good.

Would there be some fallout from decriminalizing drugs? Yes.

Would it be worse than the situation we currently have? God, no.

Bill P wrote:

Obama is the Senator from Illinois who has done NOTHING for this state. McCain is NOT from Illinois. Place the blame squarely where it belongs... ON OBAMA!
He has spent ALL of his time campaigning for yet another office he is not qualified to hold.
You libs are sick, twisted people. Pray that this insult to humanity does not steal the most powerful poisition on Earth. If he does, there will be REAL hell to pay!

Here comes the common denominator of the GOP...ignorant, angry and useless.

It's Obama's fault that gang violence exists?

The desperation of the stragglers still supporting Bush/McCain, et. al. are like housefiles this time of year. Buzzing all around in circles, knowing their days are numbered.

It's quite a sight.

One answer: more police cameras. I guarantee that if the CTA suspect wasn't caught on tape, that would be another unsolved crime and he would just do it again to someone else who brushed up against his hand(!). Every intersection, every alley, every school, every store, every train and bus, every streetlight....until citizens are willing to cooperate with the police without fearing retribution. Get rid of guaranteed fat public pensions to pay for it.