Dem dels clash at NV convention... 'we need a medic!' barbara boxer booed...

[Glen Contrarian]

If we define "homicide" as the Bureua of Justice Statistics does we're looking at murder and non-negligent manslaughter. So let's take a look.


The homicide rate in the U.S. as a whole was 4.5 per 100,000 residents in 2014, according to the FBI. In Alaska, the homicide rate was 5.6. There were 41 reported homicides in the state that year. If the state adhered to the national average, there would have been 33 reported homicides, a difference of eight people (taking the state's population of 736,732). I would call that statistically insignificant. And I'm not really sure why you're picking on West Virgina, since that's state's homicide rate of 4.0 was below the national average (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-4).


Meanwhile, let's look at some "Blue" states:


Illinois: 5.3


Michigan: 5.4


Maryland: 6.1


And in the gun-grabber paradise of the District of Columbia, the homicide rate was an eyepoping 15.9 :shock: per 100,000.





I know this doesn't fit in with your narrative, but almost all of the Red states with high homicide rates are Southern states with large black populations. Much of the violence is concentrated in larger metro areas and most of that is related to gang and/or drug activity in lower-class, inner-city neighborhoods. To deny the link to race is disingenuous when about 13% of the population is committing more than half of all homicides in the country.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide)

Regarding Harlem, it's not the slum it used to be. A major gentrification has occurred and is occurring. About 65% of the population works in white-collar professions. People of all races have figured out that they aren't making any more Manhattan real estate.


What will happen when Harlem becomes white? | US news | The Guardian


Harlem Demographics & Statistics -- Employment, Education, Income Averages, Crime in Harlem

Look at your bolded section above - that is PRECISELY my point. Raise the standard of living, and the homicide rate goes down. YES, the states of the Deep South generally have larger black populations...but they're also - almost without exception - among the states with the LOWEST standard of living.

So now we've got a correlation/causation conundrum - "beerftw" (and you, apparently) want to point out the correlation between blacks and the homicide rate...and I say it's the standard of living that directly drives the homicide rate.

How to determine which is which? Okay, how many places with a relatively high percentage of blacks does NOT have a high homicide rate? Look at what I posted back in reply #40:

"Now, to destroy your attempted point: New York has over 3M blacks, and has the 13th-highest percentage of blacks in the state population...yet it's 30th on the list of states by homicide rates (from the reference in my last comment). Alaska is 34th on the list of states by percentage-black population, yet it's 12th on the list of states by homicide rate. Nevada is 23rd on the list of states by percentage-black population, yet it's 6th on the list of states by homicide rate.

That should be enough to disprove your personal correlation-causation logical fallacy...but look back at New York - it has more blacks than Mississippi has total people, yet its homicide rate is much lower. New York City itself is 26% black...yet it has one of the lowest homicide rates of a major city in the nation."

Yes, you addressed Alaska...but Alaska's not my only example, is it? I pointed at the entire state of New York - are you going to claim the size of the sample there is not significant? And look at LA - it also has a large black population, but its homicide rate isn't much higher than NYC's.

On the other hand, can you show me a region or a state - not just within America, but anywhere in the world - that has a high standard of living compared to the local norm, that has a higher homicide rate than the areas with a lower standard of living?

Good luck with that.

Guy, I was raised in the MS Delta - the "blackest" part of the nation, and I've been around the world...and thanks to my travels, I had to unlearn the racism I'd been taught in my youth. People ARE people ARE people, local religions and social mores notwithstanding...and if you want the homicide rates to drop, do what is necessary to raise the standard of living.

 

[Ahlevah]

If only women would stop having kids out of wedlock...never mind that our society is so sex-saturated that it's doggone near impossible for a kid to get through the day without seeing references to sex in advertisements or on television...and then there's what's happened with access to the internet on cell phones. In other words, "just say no" to premarital sex isn't a viable solution.

So just screw to your heart's content and Uncle Bernie will take care of you? You know, I've seen the mentality first hand time and time again working in the casino industry for over two decades. Girl gets knocked up at young age, quits school, goes on welfare. Decides she wants to work as a dealer or cocktail waitress. Meets a new guy at work. Gets knocked up again. While he's bragging about "doing her" or "getting a taste of that," she's off to the welfare office again to sign up for WIC and Medicaid for Kid #2. I'm not sure what the solution to this is other than the suggestions from Brookings, which isn't exactly known as a bastion of conservative thinking, but I'm tired of paying for it.

 

[Ahlevah]

Look at your bolded section above - that is PRECISELY my point. Raise the standard of living, and the homicide rate goes down. YES, the states of the Deep South generally have larger black populations...but they're also - almost without exception - among the states with the LOWEST standard of living.

And what has almost six decades of Great Society spending accomplished for blacks in the South other than destroying their family structure while creating blighted housing projects? We've spent a good part of the last two decades tearing these things down because they've become nothing but rat-infested breeding grounds for criminal activity. No more failed government experiments. It's time for a new plan, one community at a time.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

So just screw to your heart's content and Uncle Bernie will take care of you? You know, I've seen the mentality first hand time and time again working in the casino industry for over two decades. Girl gets knocked up at young age, quits school, goes on welfare. Decides she wants to work as a dealer or cocktail waitress. Meets a new guy at work. Gets knocked up again. While he's bragging about "doing her" or "getting a taste of that," she's off to the welfare office again to sign up for WIC and Medicaid for Kid #2. I'm not sure what the solution to this is other than the suggestions from Brookings, which isn't exactly known as a bastion of conservative thinking, but I'm tired of paying for it.

Yeah, and in your little right-wing echo chamber, you convince yourselves that that girl is doing all this with the sole intention of just pumping out more babies and staying on the dole for the rest of her life. That's almost word-for-word the same BS accusations I heard for so many years against "welfare queen" black women...which was a stereotype based on myth.

But that's what you do - you see one girl who makes bad choices (though you do NOT know why she did what she did), and so you ascribe what you personally assume to be her motives to most single mothers. "See, that's the way she is, and that's the way most of them are - they just want to pump out babies and stay on the dole!"

 

[Glen Contrarian]

And what has almost six decades of Great Society spending accomplished for blacks in the South other than destroying their family structure while creating blighted housing projects? We've spent a good part of the last two decades tearing these things down because they've become nothing but rat-infested breeding grounds for criminal activity. No more failed government experiments. It's time for a new plan, one community at a time.

The Deep South has always, ALWAYS been strongly conservative. The social services meant to give the poor a leg up, that they might better their own station, have ALWAYS been less well-funded, less effective, and less-supported in the Deep South than in other parts of the nation. Not only that, but the Deep South, racism is still very much alive - as evinced by the continuing success of "segregation academies" (I attended one called "Indianola Academy")...and the Delta where I grew up is ground zero for racism in all of America. Our neighbor and acquaintance was U.S. Senator John O. Eastland, twice president pro tem, and was for a generation the most powerful racist in America...and was a driving force behind the founding of the segregation academies immediately following Brown v. Board of Education.

And THEN there's the "White Citizens' Council", which morphed into today's "Council of Conservative Citizens":

The CofCC was founded in 1988 in Atlanta, Georgia, and then relocated to St. Louis, Missouri. The CofCC was formed by various Republicans, conservative Democrats, and some former members of the Citizens' Councils of America, sometimes called the White Citizens Council, a segregationist organization that was prominent in the 1960s and 1970s. Lester Maddox, former governor of Georgia, was a charter member. Gordon Lee Baum, a retired personal injury lawyer, was CEO until he died in March 2015. Tom Dover, head of Dover Cylinder Repair is the president. Leonard Wilson, a former Alabama State Committeeman for both Republican and Democratic parties, sits on the CofCC Executive Board. Bill Lord, Sr., Carroll County Coroner, former head of the Carroll Academy School Board, also sits of the Executive Board.

The organization often holds meetings with various other paleo-conservative organizations in the United States, and sometimes meets with nationalist organizations from Europe. In 1997, several members of the CofCC attended an event hosted by Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front party. The delegation from the CofCC presented Le Pen with a Confederate flag, which had been flown over the South Carolina state capitol building.

Following several articles detailing some of its members past involvement with the White Citizens' Council, several conservative politicians distanced themselves from the organization. One such politician was Bob Barr, who had spoken at CofCC functions, saying he found the group's racial views to be "repugnant," and did not realize the nature of the group when he agreed to speak at the group's meeting.

In later years, additional media articles on the involvement of other Republican Party leaders and conservative Democrats with the CofCC attempted to force a distinct denunciation of their association with the organization. For instance, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott had also been a member of the CofCC.

So...yeah, the blacks in the Deep South haven't made much progress at all...because the white racists holding most of the power made damn sure of it.

 

[Ahlevah]

Yeah, and in your little right-wing echo chamber, you convince yourselves that that girl is doing all this with the sole intention of just pumping out more babies and staying on the dole for the rest of her life.

I don't presume to know what they're thinking, but I assume they're not completely brainless. So if they're forced to bear the cost and consequences of raising these kids on their own maybe they'll think twice before they forego the rubbers next time. Also, it's a simple matter of equity, since someone who's responsible shouldn't have to foot the bill for someone who isn't.

But that's what you do - you see one girl who makes bad choices (though you do NOT know why she did what she did), and so you ascribe what you personally assume to be her motives to most single mothers. "See, that's the way she is, and that's the way most of them are - they just want to pump out babies and stay on the dole!"

Ain't one girl, man. This is a scenario I've seen played out repeatedly over the years. As to why, who knows? They want something to make them feel complete or share with their friends? All I know is it's irresponsible.

 

[Ahlevah]

So...yeah, the blacks in the Deep South haven't made much progress at all...because the white racists holding most of the power made damn sure of it.

Look, I don't care how much or how little money someone has. He has the power to make decisions that can alter his life for better or worse. Is there racism? No doubt. But it would be more constructive for blacks to stop the finger pointing and scapegoating and seize control of the own destinies. A good start would be to finish school and stop having kids out of wedlock.

 

[Ntharotep]

He's only 4 years older than Donald Trump...........................................

Shhhh. Don't use irony. It confuses the natives.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Look, I don't care how much or how little money someone has. He has the power to make decisions that can alter his life for better or worse. Is there racism? No doubt. But it would be more constructive for blacks to stop the finger pointing and scapegoating and seize control of the own destinies. A good start would be to finish school and stop having kids out of wedlock.

You say that because you didn't see it, you didn't live it first hand. I did. I saw how we kept the blacks down...and the proof is there in the references I gave you.

But of course you don't want to pay any attention to that...and you and I both know why that is.

 

[MickeyW]

We need a repeat of the 1968 Demo Convention! :2wave:

 

[eohrnberger]

(Part 1of 2)

"If only the individual people would {insert brilliant solution here}, they'd make it to the middle class!"

*sigh*

If only more kids would finish high school...never mind that so many of them are latchkey kids who often have zero supervision because their parent is off at work. Fewer than half of all U.S. kids now live in a "traditional" family. In other words, "if only people would do this or that" isn't the solution.

If only women would stop having kids out of wedlock...never mind that our society is so sex-saturated that it's doggone near impossible for a kid to get through the day without seeing references to sex in advertisements or on television...and then there's what's happened with access to the internet on cell phones. In other words, "just say no" to premarital sex isn't a viable solution.

The thing of it is if you look at the traits of those that are successful and then the traits of those that are not, the same character traits, both positive and negative, keep coming up. Wouldn't it be foolish to ignore those when considering this?

the more successful participants had higher cognitive ability, more educated parents and better impulse control. People scoring in the top half on our intelligence measure whose parents had college degrees earned more awards, made more money and were more educated than those scoring below average whose parents lacked college degrees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/opinion/sunday/how-not-to-explain-success.html

Based on this, it would seem that the best thing a parent can do for their children is to teach them to master and control their own impulses. Should the parent fail at this, what mechanisms does society have at it's disposal to teach this lesson?

If only people would stop depending on "goodies from the government"...never mind that adults have to fight even for entry-level jobs that pay so little that the adults (and their families) are so often at or below the poverty line...and so instead of the corporations paying a living wage, the government essentially has to subsidize those corporations' paychecks of the entry-level workers so they can have food, shelter, and clothing for themselves and their families.

Job compensation is driven by the market value placed on the work that the worker does. Not by anything else. If the worker wants to earn more compensation, then they'll have to proportionately deliver more value in their work to get it. The corporations are bound by the realities of this market the same as any other business.

Should the government mandate higher wages, what do you think will be the larger economy's response? That which is more expensive is going to have a down turn in demand. We can see this clearly in the $15 / Hr fast food movement, kiosks are going to put into place, and many will lose their entry level jobs. See how that works?

If you'll check, every first-world democracy has three things in common: big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation. Yes, conservatives hate all those, but those are part and parcel of a first-world democracy. On the other hand, almost every third-world democracy (and I've lived in one) has three things in common: small or weak government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation.

Correlation does not prove causation, you say so yourself below, at least not on it's own without additional documentation as to the why, and not just more of the what.

It is not an unreasonable belief that you can have a first-world democracy without a bloated wasteful government, without such a government demanding high taxation, and without strong regulation. Governments can be very cost effective and demand / require less taxation than they are, regulations can be written such that they are easy, simple to understand and simple and cost effective to comply with. It's just that the bloated wasteful government doesn't want it that way. They'd much rather continue on their jobs program for the legal industry (all the lawyers arguing regulation cases before the courts).

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: (Part 2 of 2)

The point is, holding the individual responsible for his or her own actions is all well and fine - it's a fact of life - BUT if one wants to live in a nation with a first-world standard of living, then the nation's government has to do what it can to encourage and help the poor and disadvantaged, to give them real opportunities to reach above their station in life. Yeah, I read Ayn Rand's paean to rugged individualism "Atlas Shrugged" a long time ago...and while her rhetoric - which has become in so many ways conservative dogma - sounds great, in the real world, it simply doesn't work. It's what is found in nearly every third-world societies...but is never found in first-world societies. Correlation does not equal causation, but when the correlation is strong enough, one should sit up and pay attention.

Willing to help. Sure. A hand up, but certainly not a hand out, and definitely not on a life long basis. It's back to teach a man to fish, rather than forcing someone else to give their fish to him and have a voting block for life.

The ideal situation would be that no one ever needed any public assistance, that everyone could 'earn their own keep', so to speak (notable exceptions for the disabled).

So you are going to have decide for yourself if continued public assistance without strings attached is going to promote people to self-reliance, or if some of the more conservative ideas are going to be more effective. I've got my bet on the more conservative ideas, frankly, as LBJ's War on Poverty surely hasn't made things better, but only worse.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: (Part 2 of 2)

Willing to help. Sure. A hand up, but certainly not a hand out, and definitely not on a life long basis. It's back to teach a man to fish, rather than forcing someone else to give their fish to him and have a voting block for life.

The ideal situation would be that no one ever needed any public assistance, that everyone could 'earn their own keep', so to speak (notable exceptions for the disabled).

So you are going to have decide for yourself if continued public assistance without strings attached is going to promote people to self-reliance, or if some of the more conservative ideas are going to be more effective. I've got my bet on the more conservative ideas, frankly, as LBJ's War on Poverty surely hasn't made things better, but only worse.

Based on...what, exactly? Got any metrics showing that?

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: (Part 2 of 2)

Based on...what, exactly? Got any metrics showing that?

Today the Federal Government has 59 major welfare programs and spends more than $100 billion a year on them. What has all this money done? Well, too often it has only made poverty harder to escape. Federal welfare programs have created a massive social problem. With the best of intentions, government created a poverty trap that wreaks havoc on the very support system the poor need most to lift themselves out of poverty: the family. Dependency has become the one enduring heirloom, passed from one generation to the next, of too many fragmented families.
. . . .
The Census Bureau reported in August 2005 that the poverty rate in 2004 had actually increased since 2003, up to 12.7 percent in 2004 from 12.5 percent in 2003. This translated into an additional 1.1 million people in poverty, with some 37 million Americans living in poverty in 2004. The progress eliminating poverty in the forty years since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty is negligible. In 1964 the Census Bureau estimated that 19 percent of the U.S. population lived in poverty, approximately 36 million people. In that forty-year interval, poverty never measured less than 11 percent of the population. In 1983, under President Reagan, poverty registered 15.2 percent; in 1993, at the beginning of Bill Clinton’s presidency, poverty was measured at 13.7 percent of the population. In 2004, under George W. Bush, a president often accused by the political Left as not caring about the poor, the poverty rate declined to 12.7 percent. Still, some 37 million Americans remain poor.
Democrats’ War on Poverty Has Failed

If it were working, wouldn't the poverty rate be going down?

It has only increased dependency, and not self-reliance, nor going and getting a job.

On the other hand, the Census poverty numbers do provide a very useful measure of “self-sufficiency”: the ability of a family to sustain an income above the poverty threshold without welfare assistance. The Census is accurate in reporting there has been no improvement in self-sufficiency for the past 45 years.

Ironically, self-sufficiency was President Johnson’s original goal in launching his War on Poverty. Johnson promised his war would remove the “causes not just the consequences of poverty.” He stated, “Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.” Johnson did not intend to put more Americans on the dole. Instead, he explicitly sought to reduce the future need for welfare by making lower-income Americans productive and self-sufficient.
This Chart Proves the War on Poverty Has Been a Catastrophic Failure

Proven itself to not be effective.

U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.

The War on Poverty After 50 Years

Sure, we all want all people to get out of poverty. All I'm saying is that we need to reexamine if we are going about it the right way. I'm much more in favor of Work-Fare type programs, and I think they should be structured such that a single hour of work or volunteering puts the worker / volunteer exactly 1 hours worth further ahead than if they didn't work / volunteer (some of which may have to be volunteering in a day care, so be it).

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: (Part 2 of 2)

If it were working, wouldn't the poverty rate be going down?

It has only increased dependency, and not self-reliance, nor going and getting a job.



Proven itself to not be effective.



Sure, we all want all people to get out of poverty. All I'm saying is that we need to reexamine if we are going about it the right way. I'm much more in favor of Work-Fare type programs, and I think they should be structured such that a single hour of work or volunteering puts the worker / volunteer exactly 1 hours worth further ahead than if they didn't work / volunteer (some of which may have to be volunteering in a day care, so be it).

Your claim was that the "Great Society made things worse"...and such a claim - if true - SHOULD be seen by a rise in the poverty rate...whereas your own charts showed that the poverty rate continued to fall...and stayed MUCH lower than it had been before the Great Society was implemented...and if you'll check, the bumps in the poverty rate all correspond with significant recessions along the way.

So...since the poverty rate continued to fall - until it reached a point of apparent equilibrium and for all practical purposes remained at about that same level of equilibrium ever since - your claim that the Great Society made things worse...is obviously false.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: (Part 2 of 2)

Your claim was that the "Great Society made things worse"...and such a claim - if true - SHOULD be seen by a rise in the poverty rate...whereas your own charts showed that the poverty rate continued to fall...and stayed MUCH lower than it had been before the Great Society was implemented...and if you'll check, the bumps in the poverty rate all correspond with significant recessions along the way.

So...since the poverty rate continued to fall - until it reached a point of apparent equilibrium and for all practical purposes remained at about that same level of equilibrium ever since - your claim that the Great Society made things worse...is obviously false.

If you consider that the War on Poverty has resulted in the dissolution of the minority family structure and the minority community, has turned their neighborhoods into shooting galleries (both drugs and guns), then I'd say yes, it has made things worse.

Even if that's not to your liking, it's hard to imagine any sort of justification for spending that amount of money and not getting a large and permanent reduction in the poverty rate.

 

[polgara]

Re: (Part 2 of 2)

If you consider that the War on Poverty has resulted in the dissolution of the minority family structure and the minority community, has turned their neighborhoods into shooting galleries (both drugs and guns), then I'd say yes, it has made things worse.

Even if that's not to your liking, it's hard to imagine any sort of justification for spending that amount of money and not getting a large and permanent reduction in the poverty rate.

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

Why are over 48 million people on food stamps just to survive? Something is not working as it should be in the War on Poverty, even though we've spent billions of tax dollars over the years....

 

[Greenbeard]

Re: (Part 2 of 2)

Willing to help. Sure. A hand up, but certainly not a hand out, and definitely not on a life long basis. It's back to teach a man to fish, rather than forcing someone else to give their fish to him and have a voting block for life.

What do you think the War on Poverty was? It was the 11 programs in the EOA, largely aimed at job training, education, and opportunities for individual empowerment.

Included eleven major programs:

1. The Job Corps provides work, basic education, and training in separate residential centers for young men and young women, from ages sixteen to twenty-one.
2. Neighborhood Youth Corps provides work and training for young men and women, ages sixteen to twenty-one, from impoverished families and neighborhoods.
3. Work Study provides grants to colleges and universities for part-time employment of students from low-income families who need to earn money to pursue their education.
4. Urban and Rural Community Action provides financial and technical assistance to public and private nonprofit agencies for community action programs developed with "maximum feasible participation" of the poor and giving "promise of progress toward elimination of poverty."
5. Adult Basic Education provides grants to state educational agencies for programs of instruction for persons eighteen years and older whose inability to read and write English is an impediment to employment.
6. Voluntary Assistance for Needy Children establishes an information and coordination center to encourage voluntary assistance for deserving and needy children.
7. Loans to Rural Families provides loans not exceeding $2,500 that assist low income rural families in permanently increasing their income.
8. Assistance for Migrant Agricultural Employees provides assistance to state and local governments, public and private nonprofit agencies or individuals in operating programs to assist migratory workers and their families with basic needs.
9. Employment and Investment Incentives provides loans and guarantees, not in excess of $25,000 to a single borrower, for the benefit of very small businesses.
10. Work Experience provides payments for experimental, pilot, and demonstration projects to expand opportunities for work experience and needed training of persons who are unable to support or care for themselves or their families, including persons receiving public assistance.
11. Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) recruits, selects, trains, and refers volunteers to state or local agencies or private nonprofit organizations to perform duties to combat poverty.[13]

The legislation also authorized the Economic Opportunity Council, which led to the launch of smaller independent groups that worked with communities to establish better economic climates.[14][15] Government took charge for providing a means to provide basic literacy to adults.[16] The idea was not wealth distribution, but to provide poor families with a means to provide for their family to a decent standard of living.[17]

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: (Part 2 of 2)

If you consider that the War on Poverty has resulted in the dissolution of the minority family structure and the minority community,

And you base that claim on...what, exactly? What program or programs in the "War on Poverty" specifically caused more divorces in the minority community, as opposed to, say, the nearly-as-high rise in the number of divorces among the white community? I suspect that if you check, you'll find that it has a lot more to do with the differences in levels of educational attainment, the levels of poverty, and the rise of feminism.

has turned their neighborhoods into shooting galleries (both drugs and guns), then I'd say yes, it has made things worse.

Except for the exhaustively-documented FACT that the violent crime rate all across America is FAR lower than it was in the late seventies and early eighties. From the late eighties until now, there's been a consistent and sustained drop in violent crime across America. Sorry, but your claim is not factual.

Even if that's not to your liking, it's hard to imagine any sort of justification for spending that amount of money and not getting a large and permanent reduction in the poverty rate.

With all due respects, your claims above are not factual...and so your conclusion is not acceptable. Besides, America - as socialized as our society is - is the least socialized of all the first-world democracies...and every one of the other first-world democracies have lower violent crime rates. This would strongly indicate, then, that even if stronger levels of socialization do not significantly lessen violent crime rates, stronger levels of socialization certainly do not make violent crime rates worse.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: (Part 2 of 2)

What do you think the War on Poverty was? It was the 11 programs in the EOA, largely aimed at job training, education, and opportunities for individual empowerment.

Why isn't it working? Why isn't it having an effect, or at least a more pronounced effect, on the level of poverty?
With the poor track record of reducing poverty, and significantly so, is it still wise spending and wide administration policies for these programs?

As I posted, it would be best if everyone were self-reliant and able to provide for themselves, which needs to be the goal for these programs.

Based on the steady level of poverty, it doesn't seem to be working well, if at all. It would seem time to change something to have these programs perform better.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: (Part 2 of 2)

And you base that claim on...what, exactly? What program or programs in the "War on Poverty" specifically caused more divorces in the minority community, as opposed to, say, the nearly-as-high rise in the number of divorces among the white community? I suspect that if you check, you'll find that it has a lot more to do with the differences in levels of educational attainment, the levels of poverty, and the rise of feminism.

If you get more money from the government without any effort by having another baby with a baby daddy, what are you going to do?
Not get married (not motivation to do so), dissolving the family unit ending up with the odd situation of many children all with different fathers.

Except for the exhaustively-documented FACT that the violent crime rate all across America is FAR lower than it was in the late seventies and early eighties. From the late eighties until now, there's been a consistent and sustained drop in violent crime across America. Sorry, but your claim is not factual.

In most places it's a welcome development. But I guess you've not seen what's going on in Chicago. From what I hear, it's only getting worse.

With all due respects, your claims above are not factual...and so your conclusion is not acceptable. Besides, America - as socialized as our society is - is the least socialized of all the first-world democracies...and every one of the other first-world democracies have lower violent crime rates. This would strongly indicate, then, that even if stronger levels of socialization do not significantly lessen violent crime rates, stronger levels of socialization certainly do not make violent crime rates worse.

I think this runs against the correlation doesn't prove causation that we've both posted.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: (Part 2 of 2)

If you get more money from the government without any effort by having another baby with a baby daddy, what are you going to do?
Not get married (not motivation to do so), dissolving the family unit ending up with the odd situation of many children all with different fathers.

I suspect that if you check, you'll find that the "extra money" that a single mother gets for having more children isn't as much as you might think. For instance, checking the Nevada amounts for SNAP - food stamps - the amount for one person is $200/month, and for two it's $367. For each additional member of the household, the amount goes up in decreasing amounts - for a third, the amount goes up about $159, for a fourth it goes up $142, for a fifth it goes up $125...you get the idea.

But wait, you say, what about the welfare payments? Now those payments are called "TANF" - "Temporary Assistance to Needy Families". I couldn't find how much it is in Nevada, but according to this list, the higher-cost-of-living blue states give from $600-$800/month, and the mostly red states in the South give from $170 to just over $300/month. There is a five year limit, though some states have a shorter time limit.

In other words, looking at the numbers above, I fail to see how any young single woman sees any benefit from pumping out more babies.

I suggest that perhaps you should ask them why they seem to decide to have more kids - I suspect you'll find that in the majority of cases, single mothers are almost desperate to find someone to spend their lives with, and are willing to do almost anything to find and keep that someone. You could use the cynical view that they're using sex and baby traps...but in my experience this isn't a malicious effort on the young woman's part - it's more a matter of desperation, of the fear of growing old alone, and without a dad around for her child.

And it's not just here in the U.S. I refer so often to the Philippines, of course...and I see the same thing there, even though there's precisely zero effective social help for the young mothers. Google around and see how many other third-world nations have high single-motherhood rates. It's simply not a matter of young women wanting to live off the dole - it's young women who are desperately trying to find a way out of the trap they've fallen into.

In most places it's a welcome development. But I guess you've not seen what's going on in Chicago. From what I hear, it's only getting worse.

Here's a graph of homicides in Chicago by year. It might be spiking this year, but looking at the long-term trend, the homicides are significantly less than before even though the city's population has continued to grow. Despite the oh-no-Chicago's-burning headlines, in the long term, Chicago - like the rest of the nation - is becoming more peaceful. Gotta watch paying too much attention to the headlines telling us how violent the world is...because relative to population, for the past twenty years the world has been more peaceful than it ever has been for any twenty-year stretch in recorded history. Yes, humanity really does have it better right now than ever before.

I think this runs against the correlation doesn't prove causation that we've both posted.

It is true that correlation is not causation...but by the same token, when the correlation is so strong worldwide across nations, cultures, and societies, it would be statistical malpractice to fail to address the possibility that the correlation in question is not a primary factor.