[robsinatra]

You say this as if a government with the capacity would save the day? The government already has the capacity to solve problems but this is the best that it can achieve. This is it. It's not being held back because it only had a trillion dollar budget to work with.

[pjc50]

It chooses not to. It chose to waste the trillion dollars in Iraq; it chooses not to rationally investigate its options and invest in those most likely to have good outcomes.

As to why it chooses to do that, it looks like the crime in Chicago isn't an issue that affects marginal voters. Or that crime is endemic all the way up in Illinois; four of the last eight governors have been jailed for corruption, and that appears to be a cross-party problem.

[Glide]

Help my ignorance here, but why is the first response seem to go federally? Corruption seems to be a huge issue for Chicago, and the city is mostly run by one side for a while so why can’t they get anything done?

[pjc50]

Hardly the first response, since it's been a mess for years, but it follows naturally from your second sentence: it's clear that the problem has festered for a long time and the local system is incapable of fixing it. If the corruption can't be attacked from the inside, perhaps outsiders will be able to break it?

It took Federal prosecution to get Al Capone, after all.

[jonstewart]

It chooses to do that because it’s constitutionally engineered to favor rural communities over cities.

[Krasnol]

Is it though?

How come other countries look so much better being on pretty much the same level of society and culture?

Who else can fix an issue on this scale? Or does it mean society needs to come to terms with it and accept it like some force of nature?