CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper

Yuck this is Even worse than the corruption.....

Socialism breeds corruption, so no, it's worse.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Socialism breeds corruption, so no, it's worse.

According to the World Economic Forum, democratic socialist countries perform pretty well on corruption.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

According to the World Economic Forum, democratic socialist countries perform pretty well on corruption.

Most of those are not socialist countries (North Korea and Yemen? excluded). They are social democracies. They use market forces in most instances. They have large safety nets though. I believe some don't even have minimum wages. And none of the policies they employ should be done at the city level. You think Chicago should have its own health care system?

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Most of those are not socialist countries (North Korea and Yemen? excluded). They are social democracies. They use market forces in most instances. They have large safety nets though. I believe some don't even have minimum wages. And none of the policies they employ should be done at the city level. You think Chicago should have its own health care system?

North Korea and Yemen were the worst performing (most corrupt). Some of the least corrupt on the list were the countries we constantly hear referred to as "socialist" (Denmark, Sweden, Finland).

I never took any side and I'm certainly not a member of Democratic Socialists of America. I was just pointing out that your comment "socialism breads corruption" seems counter to the data provided by WEF.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

North Korea and Yemen were the worst performing (most corrupt). Some of the least corrupt on the list were the countries we constantly hear referred to as "socialist" (Denmark, Sweden, Finland).

I never took any side and I'm certainly not a member of Democratic Socialists of America. I was just pointing out that your comment "socialism breads corruption" seems counter to the data provided by WEF.

The only socialist countries on the list are North Korea and potentially Yemen (it used to be anyway). None of the other countries are socialist. American Democratic Socialists want to end capitalism, European Social Democracy has no such desire.

[Hourstrooper]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

The only socialist countries on the list are North Korea and potentially Yemen (it used to be anyway). None of the other countries are socialist. American Democratic Socialists want to end capitalism, European Social Democracy has no such desire.

all I can say as for these new socialist aldermen a little money from developers and various organizations that want a change in the ward will go a long way for them, especially due to the fact that most come from impoverished inexperienced backgrounds they'll take every scrap they can get. thus furthers the corruption. Hope Lightfoot cuts half of them away we by no means need 50 aldermen.

[pip]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The reason I think she will be successful is that she is actually an incredible leader. I saw it with my own eyes, she had everyone on the same page in the crowd. Cheering growth for business. Cheering an end to mistrust between the community and the police. Cheering a good education for every single child in the city. Hitting all the points that I mentioned above which are the real issues threatening the solvancy of this town. I mean you hear people on this forum all the time calling for Chicago to do something to attract more immigrants, she actually called for that. Not only that, but she called for more migrants (i.e. rich educated yuppies) as well.

This is the first time a mayor of Chicago has openly run on smashing the long-standing aldermanic privilege system. This is the first time in like 70 years someone not born and raised here has been elected. This is the first time in forever that someone who has never held elected office has won. This is the first time since Harold Washington that a mayor has won every single ethnic group in the city.

Most importantly this is perfect timing. Rahm made a lot of tough choices and did a lot of divisive heavy lifting to open cracks in the facade of clout and corruption in this town. Now we have a former federal prosecutor as mayor who has boldly threatened to basically have anyone and everyone who is corrupt arrested. This may very well be the end of machine politics in Chicago. That alone opens the door to finally leveling the playing field for everyone who wants to live, work, or do business here which is what this city really needs more than anything else.


PS, based on what I saw last night, Lori is headed for national politics at some point. She is almost Obama smooth in her style and message. If she can deliver two terms of real progress in Chicago I can see her becoming senator or someday trying for president.

Good post

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper

all I can say as for these new socialist aldermen a little money from developers and various organizations that want a change in the ward will go a long way for them, especially due to the fact that most come from impoverished inexperienced backgrounds they'll take every scrap they can get. thus furthers the corruption. Hope Lightfoot cuts half of them away we by no means need 50 aldermen.

Well, delinquent Rosa isn’t taking developer money. It shows, since he couldn’t pay his rent and got evicted.

Being a socialist doesn’t pay. And neither do they. No wonder why they have a grudge against a system designed to reward responsible behavior and penalize people who act like leeches.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

No wonder why they have a grudge against a system designed to reward responsible behavior and penalize people who act like leeches.

The system may be designed that way, but I'm not sure that's how it worked for the bankers following the 2008 crash. Seems to me the exact opposite occurred, irresponsible behavior was rewarded with bailouts and the leeches who took it weren't penalized at all.

In my opinion, things like that are what is driving this socialism movement. Add in more recent tax cuts aimed at corporations experiencing records profits and rich people experiencing record asset appreciation and you will see a rise in people who want a different path. Then you have the other leeches like Ramirez-Rosa and his ilk who will take advantage of that anger for their own gain.

[chiphile]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The reason I think she will be successful is that she is actually an incredible leader. I saw it with my own eyes, she had everyone on the same page in the crowd. Cheering growth for business. Cheering an end to mistrust between the community and the police. Cheering a good education for every single child in the city. Hitting all the points that I mentioned above which are the real issues threatening the solvancy of this town. I mean you hear people on this forum all the time calling for Chicago to do something to attract more immigrants, she actually called for that. Not only that, but she called for more migrants (i.e. rich educated yuppies) as well.

This is the first time a mayor of Chicago has openly run on smashing the long-standing aldermanic privilege system. This is the first time in like 70 years someone not born and raised here has been elected. This is the first time in forever that someone who has never held elected office has won. This is the first time since Harold Washington that a mayor has won every single ethnic group in the city.

Most importantly this is perfect timing. Rahm made a lot of tough choices and did a lot of divisive heavy lifting to open cracks in the facade of clout and corruption in this town. Now we have a former federal prosecutor as mayor who has boldly threatened to basically have anyone and everyone who is corrupt arrested. This may very well be the end of machine politics in Chicago. That alone opens the door to finally leveling the playing field for everyone who wants to live, work, or do business here which is what this city really needs more than anything else.


PS, based on what I saw last night, Lori is headed for national politics at some point. She is almost Obama smooth in her style and message. If she can deliver two terms of real progress in Chicago I can see her becoming senator or someday trying for president.

I also want to add (from the economic thread, so feel free to delete that):

Are there plenty of job fairs and programs for women and minorities at law firms? Yes, those programs can get you in the door. But climbing the ladder for 10 years and making senior equity partner (meaning, a full part-owner of the entire firm who calls shots), is pure meritocracy for minorities. The fact that she did it as a black woman who is lesbian, who grew up poor, means she is probably twice as tenacious as anyone else. She had to navigate a city where pre-existing business relationships and Rolodex's were and are mostly still held by straight white men, and the fact that she cracked it and made equity partner is an incredible feat. I would've rested me laurels on that, but she ran for fucking Mayor and won.

Not that anyone has said anything here, but if anyone is thinking privately that she made it with a little "nudge" is vastly mistaken - she made it by running a triathlon when most law firm partners are asked to run marathons.

For this reason I think she's immensely qualified; she'll continue Rahm's recruitment of business, downtown will prosper, and we might see some tiny incremental change in the south and west sides. I for one am excited for this new chapter in Chicago history.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

The system may be designed that way, but I'm not sure that's how it worked for the bankers following the 2008 crash. Seems to me the exact opposite occurred, irresponsible behavior was rewarded with bailouts and the leeches who took it weren't penalized at all.

In my opinion, things like that are what is driving this socialism movement. Add in more recent tax cuts aimed at corporations experiencing records profits and rich people experiencing record asset appreciation and you will see a rise in people who want a different path. Then you have the other leeches like Ramirez-Rosa and his ilk who will take advantage of that anger for their own gain.

Couldn't agree more.

The problem is, the only people who are really getting penalized aren't the really wealthy. It's the people in the middle.

Every single time.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

The system may be designed that way, but I'm not sure that's how it worked for the bankers following the 2008 crash. Seems to me the exact opposite occurred, irresponsible behavior was rewarded with bailouts and the leeches who took it weren't penalized at all.

In my opinion, things like that are what is driving this socialism movement. Add in more recent tax cuts aimed at corporations experiencing records profits and rich people experiencing record asset appreciation and you will see a rise in people who want a different path. Then you have the other leeches like Ramirez-Rosa and his ilk who will take advantage of that anger for their own gain.

Personally, I think we should do away with corporate income taxes and increase personal income tax. Also, the financial system was in complete meltdown (though not all Banks were bad players). The government literally forced Chase to take the bailout even though it had been a good player. Chase reluctantly accepted it in order to be a good corporate citizen. The bailout was repaid immediately when allowed. We could have let the financial system fail I guess, but the ramifications would have likely been catastrophic and made the recession far worse. It's my understanding that the government made money off the bailout too.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Couldn't agree more.

The problem is, the only people who are really getting penalized aren't the really wealthy. It's the people in the middle.

Every single time.

And the wealthy convince the middle that it's the fault of the poor.

The truth lies in the middle (literally and figuratively). Grow the middle class by taxing the wealthy and giving access to basic services to the poor.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Personally, I think we should do away with corporate income taxes and increase personal income tax. Also, the financial system was in complete meltdown (though not all Banks were bad players). The government literally forced Chase to take the bailout even though it had been a good player. Chase reluctantly accepted it in order to be a good corporate citizen. The bailout was repaid immediately when allowed. We could have let the financial system fail I guess, but the ramifications would have likely been catastrophic and made the recession far worse. It's my understanding that the government made money off the bailout too.

I actually worked on the TARP program and you are correct that some players were not in need of bailout and the government ultimately made money on the program. BoA was basically forced to buy Merrill Lynch, for example. I don't think they should have let companies like AIG fail and take down the whole financial system, that wasn't really a reasonable option. Most of the anger comes from the fact that people who led us into this scenario faced very few legal consequences (rating agencies, buyers/sellers of CDOs, fraudulent lenders). This anger started the Occupy Wall Street movement which has similarities (goals) to the current socialism push.

The Upshot on mortgage fraud:

“Englewood and Garfield Park are two of the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago,” they wrote. “Englewood and Garfield Park were very poor in 2000, saw incomes decline from 2002 to 2005, and they remain very poor neighborhoods today.” Yet between 2002 and 2005, the annualized increase in income reported on home purchase mortgage applications in those areas was 7.7 percent, strongly suggesting borrowers’ incomes were overstated.

These cases may have been the fault of the buyers, but we also know that mortgage lenders were systematically falsifying income information. Countrywide, Wells Fargo and Ameriquest were all sued for this practice. In the end, the buyers who may have lied lost their livelihoods and the companies paid some fines.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Handro

And the wealthy convince the middle that it's the fault of the poor.

The truth lies in the middle (literally and figuratively). Grow the middle class by taxing the wealthy and giving access to basic services to the poor.

But that's just it--that never happens.

The wealthy, like JB Pritzker, convince the poor that the "rich don't pay their fair share" and thus need to pay more.

What they don't tell you is that it's the upper middle class and perhaps lower upper class, as well as the middle class, that pays more.

The extremely wealthy don't end up paying much more at all, mostly because they aren't dependent on a traditional income. Their wealth is in the form of equities, properties, options, etc etc. Totally different way of being taxed than regular W-2

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by emathias

Of course not. But to the extent she can get police to respect the community more, and to the extent she can convince the community that the Mayor's office actually understands their concerns hand has real skin in the game (a daughter, in addition to herself), that can make a big difference in outlook.

The real issue is the extreme violence in the AA communities, literally 3rd world murder rates - AA's are not leaving because the police don't respect the community.

[Baronvonellis]

Yes exactly TUP!!!

I have an extremely rich family friend who probably has a net worth of around $100 million. Who was a doctor that founded several businesses. He earned it all himself, and created hundreds of jobs around the US. But since he started these businesses he makes his money from stocks and capital gains which is taxed at 15%, so I have to pay a higher tax rate even though I'm not a millionaire. That's what isn't fair. The rich should have to pay their fair share too.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

North Korea and Yemen were the worst performing (most corrupt). Some of the least corrupt on the list were the countries we constantly hear referred to as "socialist" (Denmark, Sweden, Finland).

I never took any side and I'm certainly not a member of Democratic Socialists of America. I was just pointing out that your comment "socialism breads corruption" seems counter to the data provided by WEF.

Denmark, Sweden, and Finland are certainly not Socialist Countries, they are Capitalist.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Handro

And the wealthy convince the middle that it's the fault of the poor.

The truth lies in the middle (literally and figuratively). Grow the middle class by taxing the wealthy and giving access to basic services to the poor.

what does "wealthy" mean, specifically?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Yes exactly TUP!!!

I have an extremely rich family friend who probably has a net worth of around $100 million. Who was a doctor that founded several businesses. He earned it all himself, and created hundreds of jobs around the US. But since he started these businesses he makes his money from stocks and capital gains which is taxed at 15%, so I have to pay a higher tax rate even though I'm not a millionaire. That's what isn't fair. The rich should have to pay their fair share too.

If that bloated windbag Pritzker generally wanted the rich to pay, he would propose a State tax on Capital gains as a way to help the poor.

But most of the Illinois voters who blindly voted for him don't realize this. Idiots...

All this is going to do is make the executives in local companies shift their pay away from straight up cash, and more in the form of equities, stock options, etc. Live and adapt....