Children in single-mother households

Do you have an issue with the data? Or with its presentation in the graph, or the opinions below?
I already said, "I have no problem with the data itself. This has been widely publicized." Obviously there is no problem with a graphical format. I am wondering where the opinions below came from.
Nope. I'm saying that when welfare paid women to have babies out of wedlock, things got rapidly worse for their kids. When limits were put on it, things began to slowly get better for the kids.

Limit welfare, and cut off the welfare queens. Do it for the children.
How did it get better for the kids? Fewer of them? If you cut welfare now they will probably do more dealing with drugs, prostitution, breaking and entering, carjacking, small market robberies, etc. Jails will become fuller. I agree it is a bad problem, but simply cutting welfare without preparing for the aftermath will not make the cities better for a long time. Cutting welfare is the easiest (in principle) part of the entire problem. The kids don't want to go to school, they don't want to work, even if they could find jobs.

It is a real problem with a real dilemma. Any solution would have to be thought out more thoroughly than just reducing welfare.
 
Werbung:
First promote family values.
That would work for a few, but I think the biggest problem is the poor families living in squalor, with kids not in school, who have a feeling of hopelessness, apathy, low motivation, etc. There is no way that they will give a rats ass about family values. 1 out of every 142 Americans are now in jail. I think many would just as soon knife you as listen to a lecture on family values. We have a falling middle class. Half the families live on $40,000 a year or less and it is getting worse as the years go by.
Second, remove no fault divorce.
According to the second graph, that would apply to only half the women. For poor families I would bet that it would up the 5% that are married with husband absent. If a couple wants divorce, but can't afford it, and still stays together, I don't think the family values will be very high.
Third, keep a limit on how much welfare can be collected.
As I said before, that may lead to more crime.

My point is that it is not an easy problem to solve. There has to be a complete understanding of the ramifications on inner city life, and perhaps a total change in culture. Nothing like that is easily changed.
 
That would work for a few, but I think the biggest problem is the poor families living in squalor, with kids not in school, who have a feeling of hopelessness, apathy, low motivation, etc. There is no way that they will give a rats ass about family values. 1 out of every 142 Americans are now in jail. I think many would just as soon knife you as listen to a lecture on family values. We have a falling middle class. Half the families live on $40,000 a year or less and it is getting worse as the years go by.

First: poor families living in squalor, does not result in crime. I've told this story before, and I think even to you. I met a guy from Romania who immigrated here with a wife and two kids. He had no schooling, no marketable skills, and no money. He walked to work. His kids rode cheap bikes to school. He worked at Wendy's for just about minimum wage. Had a one bedroom apartment. He worked his way up, got management skills, and now runs a Hertz Rent-a-car outlet.

Second: the reason we have middle class families living on $40,000 a year or less, is because they are breaking up. When a family breaks up, two people that used to combine incomes, now are split, reducing the average. Or when a woman divorces, she must now work, and since she didn't before, her income will be low, reducing the average.

Third: Crime is a combination result of having lax punishments, and glorifying criminal acts. Instead of calling evil acts evil, we attempt to claim it's because they grow up in families living in squalor, which justifies their acts in their own minds. "Yeah I deserve to take others stuff because I live in the low-rent district."

Solution: Increase penalties on crime until it's no longer worth taking the risk. Remove no fault divorce so more families stay together. Stop making excuses for evil, and justifying criminal acts with lame excuses.

According to the second graph, that would apply to only half the women. For poor families I would bet that it would up the 5% that are married with husband absent. If a couple wants divorce, but can't afford it, and still stays together, I don't think the family values will be very high.

Reasonable to say that. But I have heard from too many families and personal stories, that sometimes the marriage vow was the only thing that held them together. Even if the couple directly involved don't have a great thing going on, it still sets a good example for the children.

A friend of mine had this happen. Instead of ending up all screwed up and in counseling, and having a history littered with broken relationships, he is happily married for 8 years. Why? Because his father and mother, when they separated, refused to divorce, and ended up sticking it out. It set a good example for him and his brother. (they got back together obviously, and made the best of their marriage)

As I said before, that may lead to more crime.

My point is that it is not an easy problem to solve. There has to be a complete understanding of the ramifications on inner city life, and perhaps a total change in culture. Nothing like that is easily changed.

During the great depression, crime rates were very low. Yet, everyone had recently become very poor. Moreover, in Australia, after the passage of gun control, crime has increased in some cities by over 3000%. Yet the average wealth per capita has increased.

The theory that cutting welfare will result in crime is false, and I can prove it completely.

In 1996, the republicans passed welfare reform as part of the contract with America, for the third time. After Clinton veto'd it twice, he finely signed into law a massive change to the system that made it so you couldn't take welfare indefinitely.

The resulting drop of 58% in caseloads, means slightly more than 1 in every two welfare recipient was kicked off the roll. Yet, crime rates declined from the mid-80s all the way to about 2000. There it has remained steady for the last 8 years, with a minor jump in 2005-2006 seemingly due to Hurricane Katrina.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/06/11/crime-rates-shown-to-be-falling.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/uoc--nrr021207.php

There's dozens of sources for this information, but that should be enough.

Again, the theory that cutting welfare will increase crime is a joke. Crime goes up or down based on the penalty for doing crime, and the ability to stop it.

Crime can be nearly eliminated by simply allowing free arming of the public, or drastically increasing the penalties. Either one will wipe crime out fairly quickly.

Crimes rates in Switzerland are so low, they generally don't even bother trying to keep a tab on it. Why? The population is nearly 100% armed with assault rifles. Think about breaking into a house, or steal a car, when you know every person in every home in the entire city has a fully automatic rifle? Heck no.

Or we could go the Singapore route where very few of the population has any weapons yet has one of the lowest crime rates. If you kidnap, murder or commit drug trafficking, the death penalty is mandatory. Shockingly, not many are willing to try any of the three, knowing their government has no problem putting people to death for criminal acts. Singapore has one of the highest state executions per capita of any nation in the world.

So if we really want to deal with crime, there's only two ways to do it. Arm the public to fend off criminals themselves, or enact very tough penalties. In the middle east, someone who can't use their hands properly, and steals, will have their hands amputated. Since I was just recently burglarized, I fully support this idea. They can't keep their hands off other peoples stuff, they should lose them.
 
First: poor families living in squalor, does not result in crime. ...
I met a guy from Romania who ...
I agree that some poor families can make it. Uplifting anecdotal stories are around, but represent only a small minority of the poverty mentality that too many Americans have.
Second: the reason we have middle class families living on $40,000 a year or less, is because they are breaking up.
Maybe that is one reason, but the question here is how do we prevent breakup. Changes in divorce laws may help the better off, but the rising trend is for unmarried women to have children.
Third: Crime is a combination result of having lax punishments,
Lax punishment? The US has, by a very large margin, the most incarcerated people per capita of any country in the world. Longer and more abundant prison sentences could be a deterrent, but a very expensive one. The cost of incarceration ranges from $40 to 50 thousand per year per inmate. If we were to go to higher rates of punishment, we would have to pay more than what we are giving as welfare per person. Incarceration would cause further family break-down. I'm not arguing you are wrong, I'm saying that it requires more government spending.
and glorifying criminal acts.
..."Yeah I deserve to take others stuff because I live in the low-rent district."
Right. The book "Ghetto Nation" shows a growing mindset. Ghetto is cool. Gangsta Rappers get rich because they are the idols of the young generation. The vernacular is expanding out of the ghetto: Bling-bling, bro, chill out, etc.

Again, the question is not to demonstrate that this is happening, but to come up with solutions on how going to jail is not cool, or shouldn't be considered a rite of passage.
Reasonable to say that. But I have heard from too many families and personal stories, that sometimes the marriage vow was the only thing that held them together.

A friend of mine had this happen....
Again, there are anecdotal successes, but the bigger problems still remain.
Crimes rates in Switzerland are so low, they generally don't even bother trying to keep a tab on it. Why? The population is nearly 100% armed with assault rifles.
Almost all Swiss males have undergone basic military training and are allowed to keep their weapons. What may work in Switzerland may not work with the large ghetto mindset in the US.
In the middle east, someone who can't use their hands properly, and steals, will have their hands amputated. Since I was just recently burglarized, I fully support this idea. They can't keep their hands off other peoples stuff, they should lose them.
In the US we consider that cruel and unusual punishment.

Yes, we can all imagine a more utopian direction. But the problem of getting there is no easy matter. One solution in one area can easily create problems in other areas. Poverty is a state of mind, not just finances. If you give one person money, that may be just enough boost to let him go to college. Give another person money and it is gone in a week on drugs, ipods, or whatever.
 
I agree that some poor families can make it. Uplifting anecdotal stories are around, but represent only a small minority of the poverty mentality that too many Americans have.

Not true. Most people in the middle class, started in the lower or poverty class.

Maybe that is one reason, but the question here is how do we prevent breakup. Changes in divorce laws may help the better off, but the rising trend is for unmarried women to have children.

Do you suspect that if women knew they would not be getting all kinds of benefits and federal hand outs, they might think twice before doing things that would put them in dire financial straights?

Does it seem odd to you that in nations around the world, where single-motherhood is not given tax payer hand outs, strangely have a lower level children out of wedlock?

Lax punishment? The US has, by a very large margin, the most incarcerated people per capita of any country in the world. Longer and more abundant prison sentences could be a deterrent, but a very expensive one. The cost of incarceration ranges from $40 to 50 thousand per year per inmate. If we were to go to higher rates of punishment, we would have to pay more than what we are giving as welfare per person. Incarceration would cause further family break-down. I'm not arguing you are wrong, I'm saying that it requires more government spending.

Simply putting all the people who commit crimes, in their very own, free room and board, hotel, is not what I consider strict punishment. In Singapore, thieves and assualt results in public "canning". They take a six-foot metal cane, and beat you repeatedly, in full public view. In many middle east nations, you steal something and they cut off your hands.

In the US, you get a warm climate controlled room with a bed, and all your gang member friends you can hang out with, play cards, shoot some hoop, and get parrolled in a few months or a year. When the inmates at a prison are sueing the state for not providing cable TV, that tells me we have a lax system.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-09-04-3192315395_x.htm

Again, the question is not to demonstrate that this is happening, but to come up with solutions on how going to jail is not cool, or shouldn't be considered a rite of passage.

It's real simple. Make it very very painful. If you lose your left hand, you won't think stealing and being a gangster is cool. You also won't think about stealing anything again, for fear of losing the only hand you have left.

If the prisons are frozen at 60 degrees in the winter, or 100 in the summer, it won't be cool and "chillin with the home boys" anymore.

Almost all Swiss males have undergone basic military training and are allowed to keep their weapons. What may work in Switzerland may not work with the large ghetto mindset in the US.

Not so. In locations within the US, where they have promoted home gun ownership, crime had markedly decreased.

In the US we consider that cruel and unusual punishment.

Cruel to me, is the way we have let crime terrorize our own lawful civilians. Unusual can be fix by simply doing it, and it will no longer be unusual.

Yes, we can all imagine a more utopian direction. But the problem of getting there is no easy matter. One solution in one area can easily create problems in other areas. Poverty is a state of mind, not just finances. If you give one person money, that may be just enough boost to let him go to college. Give another person money and it is gone in a week on drugs, ipods, or whatever.

I agree it is a mindset. But it is a mind set enabled by our policies.
 
Not true. Most people in the middle class, started in the lower or poverty class.
What I am saying is that most people that are in poverty stay that way.
Do you suspect that if women knew they would not be getting all kinds of benefits and federal hand outs, they might think twice before doing things that would put them in dire financial straights?
I agree we need welfare reform, but we cannot eliminate it without a huge social upheaval.
It's real simple. Make it very very painful. If you lose your left hand, you won't think stealing and being a gangster is cool. You also won't think about stealing anything again, for fear of losing the only hand you have left.

If the prisons are frozen at 60 degrees in the winter, or 100 in the summer, it won't be cool and "chillin with the home boys" anymore.

Cruel to me, is the way we have let crime terrorize our own lawful civilians. Unusual can be fix by simply doing it, and it will no longer be unusual.
I really don't think you are being serious. We don't cut off hands even at Gitmo. What Arab country even does this anymore?
 
Do you have a link or other reference that shows this?
I have some census data, but you can google "vanishing middle class" to see the trend. Here is one summary from the WSJ:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/09/recovery_bypass.html
Is that a reason to not do it?
It depends on how fast it is done. If welfare would disappear with a year, we would have to prepare for riots, looting, shoplifting, burglaries, etc. Rightly or wrongly it could easily be seen as a race thing and we would revisit the riots of Watts and Detroit.
 
What I am saying is that most people that are in poverty stay that way.

In his book "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell, he documents that this is not true. Most people move from one economic level, to another, multiple times in their lives.

I agree we need welfare reform, but we cannot eliminate it without a huge social upheaval.

We eliminated 58% of it, with no social upheaval.

I really don't think you are being serious. We don't cut off hands even at Gitmo. What Arab country even does this anymore?

It happened in Afghanistan and Indonesia, and there are people in Egypt trying to make that the law of the land. It's actually part of the Muslim Shaira Law. (if I spelled that right).

We didn't do a lot of things the left claimed, at gitmo.

Anyway, I'd be in support of this. But if you have an alternative, I'd love to hear it. We've tried everything else, and the result has been higher crime rates.
 
Quote:I really don't think you are being serious. We don't cut off hands even at Gitmo. What Arab country even does this anymore?

It happened in Afghanistan and Indonesia, and there are people in Egypt trying to make that the law of the land. It's actually part of the Muslim Shaira Law. (if I spelled that right).

We didn't do a lot of things the left claimed, at gitmo.

Anyway, I'd be in support of this. But if you have an alternative, I'd love to hear it. We've tried everything else, and the result has been higher crime rates.
I would guess that you are an American Muslim following Wahhabi Islamic doctrine since they are more strict about following the Qur'an. They originally preached against a perceived moral decline and political weakness as you do. It is the Qur'an that advocates cutting off hands, but the less fundamental sects don't abide by that.

However, as you no doubt know, Americans don't agree with that depth of fundamentalism toward punishment and women, etc. Certainly the Taliban and other Islamic governments kept everybody in line, with fashion police and very strict laws, but that sort of thing will not work in the US. Not by a long shot.
 
I would guess that you are an American Muslim following Wahhabi Islamic doctrine since they are more strict about following the Qur'an. They originally preached against a perceived moral decline and political weakness as you do. It is the Qur'an that advocates cutting off hands, but the less fundamental sects don't abide by that.

However, as you no doubt know, Americans don't agree with that depth of fundamentalism toward punishment and women, etc. Certainly the Taliban and other Islamic governments kept everybody in line, with fashion police and very strict laws, but that sort of thing will not work in the US. Not by a long shot.

Not interested in all that other stuff. Just cut off thieves hands. As one who has always hated thieves, and just been burglarized recently, I have zero tolerance for them.

With all due respect, we've tried the softer, kinder, gentler approach, and it's resulted in thieves everywhere for everything. In an earlier America, thieves were hung on a tree with a note posted to them for what they did.

Alternative approaches to handling crime have failed. The theory that if they have government help they will commit less crime has failed. Section 8 housing is a rats nest of scum and criminals. We have simply provided them a way to successfully live a life of crime on the public dime.

Since you have not offered any alternative, maybe it's time we try it my way?
 
Not interested in all that other stuff. Just cut off thieves hands. As one who has always hated thieves, and just been burglarized recently, I have zero tolerance for them.

Since you have not offered any alternative, maybe it's time we try it my way?
Great idea. I suggest you write letters to your paper and magazines; try to get into politics. Write a book and you can get on talk shows, newscasts, and lecture circuits. You will be a new sensation.
 
Werbung:
Great idea. I suggest you write letters to your paper and magazines; try to get into politics. Write a book and you can get on talk shows, newscasts, and lecture circuits. You will be a new sensation.

Second post from you with zero solutions. Thanks for your suggestion though, but politics is way too scummy for me.
 
Back
Top