Big cities, most of all, have more “income inequality”, demonstrating a higher level of economic dysfunction demanding public subsidies to make them workable.
Yet Liberals, who claim to hate “income inequality” are normally large majorities in big cities.
This article is silly.
It was the cities that annexed land in order to bring in more taxpayers. The existing taxpayers were advance-taxed to build new roads,schools, infrastructure in the newly annexed areas ... the developers often got sweetheart deals to build out these areas ... infrastructure paid for and taxes reduced or deferred etc. Then the same thing would happen again and again as cities grew and incorporated more area around them and increase their tax base through property taxes
The writer has it backwards.
Mike
Obama's Presidential legacy will be that he enslaved the white devil.
Cities create broken, stressed dependent citizens. Citizens who become criminal, drug addicted, and frightened of losing their 'benefits' - the kind democrats control. The kind who vote for democrats... Great post, Key.
Big cities: run away. I did and I’ve never been happier.
True, there’s no light/high speed rail in my backyard and I don’t have immediate access to the ballet, the opera the theater and national sports teams.
When the rubber meets the road, none of that will mean a thing anyway.
I’ve noticed lately how on the news I’ve heard them refer to places like Joliet and Dekalb like they’re part of the Chicago Metro area. These places are pretty far out and away.
I have been thinking of this issue since I read the article on Rush and listened to Levin’s show the other night.
I was trying to think of how these policies would be implemented. The only thing that I could imagine it that the old time-honored standby: let the vandals loose to loot and pillage the countryside. Withdraw law enforcement from the rural areas that these policies would be supported to depopulate the countryside.
Only wealthy with security (read standing armies) would be able to stay in the countryside. This is becomeing more and more like 18th and 19th century England when the lands men were run off and the lands reverted to the nobility and gentry.
We are paddling way backwards folks.
Doesn’t baraq own a house in a chicago suburb?
So does the rule apply to him?
ok, big time sarcasm here.