This graph’s time period corresponds pretty closely with the rise of the welfare-warfare state/income tax. The population of the U.S. has slightly less than tripled in the same time period. [/quote]
Oh come on. That graph’s time period closely corresponds with a LOT of things, not just the welfare state. In fact it corresponds much MORE closely with the war on drugs. If you want evidence you’d better be more thorough than that. I don’t even disagree with the underlying idea as much as this is just shoddy lazy reasoning.[/quote]
Especially considering the rise in crime doesn’t start until about 10 years after Dr. Evil, I mean Lyndon Johnson, left office.
It’s going to take a little bit more than, “This graph says so.”
Is it possible that increases in the number of, and punishments for, victimless crimes is necessitated by a welfare state? Who am I kidding? Of course it’s not.
I mean, most of the great totalitarian states throughout history are known for harshly punishing those who oppose them(those who violate some arbitrary state rule)…so it’s a good thing we live in the United States, amirite?
Democrats are pro-welfare, while Republicans are big on punishing criminals, so there’s no way their policies could be working together.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is it possible that increases in the number of, and punishments for, victimless crimes is necessitated by a welfare state? Who am I kidding? Of course it’s not.
I mean, most of the great totalitarian states throughout history are known for harshly punishing those who oppose them(those who violate some arbitrary state rule)…so it’s a good thing we live in the United States, amirite?
Democrats are pro-welfare, while Republicans are big on punishing criminals, so there’s no way their policies could be working together.[/quote]
Is it possible to add correlation to a graph because it supports my position, of course!
Did I miss where America stopped electing representation at the local, state, and federal level?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is it possible that increases in the number of, and punishments for, victimless crimes is necessitated by a welfare state? Who am I kidding? Of course it’s not.
I mean, most of the great totalitarian states throughout history are known for harshly punishing those who oppose them(those who violate some arbitrary state rule)…so it’s a good thing we live in the United States, amirite?
Democrats are pro-welfare, while Republicans are big on punishing criminals, so there’s no way their policies could be working together.[/quote]
A welfare state would create a steady supply of petty offenses.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is it possible that increases in the number of, and punishments for, victimless crimes is necessitated by a welfare state? Who am I kidding? Of course it’s not.
I mean, most of the great totalitarian states throughout history are known for harshly punishing those who oppose them(those who violate some arbitrary state rule)…so it’s a good thing we live in the United States, amirite?
Democrats are pro-welfare, while Republicans are big on punishing criminals, so there’s no way their policies could be working together.[/quote]
Your sarcasm is noted. Now stop with the shitty reasoning and ad hoc correlations on graphs that don’t even come close to proving what you said. If you’re going to argue something then support it better.
I already said I don’t even disagree all that much with your underlying point, but you did a crappy job of supporting it and you’re more intelligent than that.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Your sarcasm is noted. Now stop with the shitty reasoning and ad hoc correlations on graphs that don’t even come close to proving what you said. If you’re going to argue something then support it better.
I already said I don’t even disagree all that much with your underlying point, but you did a crappy job of supporting it and you’re more intelligent than that.[/quote]
The argument wasn’t mine. conservativedog made the argument that there was less crime before welfare. I don’t know if there was less citizen-on-citizen crime or not. Since statistics on both welfare and crime are kept by the government, I would not expect to find anything stating that, even if it is true.
As much as I despise that woman, the basis of her opinion appears to be sound on the surface.
That all being said, comparing us to Australia and New Zealand isn’t exactly a fair comparison. First off, the cost of goods in Australia is significantly higher than that of the US. Trust me, I’ve been there.
The poverty rate in Australia is 1 in every 8 people. The poverty rate in the US is 1 in 7 people. Gee, things look so much different with that huge minimum wage!
Second, accepting immigrants into our country is who we are and how we’ve been built up. Do we honestly think not letting immigrants into our country will significant change things? I have serious doubts as shown by my previous example.
Lastly, there will always be a bell curve of some sorts. No matter what, unless someone distributes wealth out in a communistic manner, there will always be people who are going to be in the relative poverty zone of that nation and it will probably always be in the 10% +/- 5% to give room for the impact of macro economic events, both positive and negative.
Everyone wants to focus on poverty and minimum wage, but as I keep harping on, we need to focus on why whole, unprocessed foods cost so much? Why is the buying power so low for goods in which we need to simply survive?
This graph’s time period corresponds pretty closely with the rise of the welfare-warfare state/income tax. The population of the U.S. has slightly less than tripled in the same time period. [/quote]
Oh come on. That graph’s time period closely corresponds with a LOT of things, not just the welfare state. In fact it corresponds much MORE closely with the war on drugs. If you want evidence you’d better be more thorough than that. I don’t even disagree with the underlying idea as much as this is just shoddy lazy reasoning.[/quote]
It also correlates to the civil rights movement and the creation of inner city ghettos. More white people get welfare than black yet, blacks are disproportionally represented in prisons. If welfare = prison then there should be more whites in prison. And it is also about the war on drugs but more specifically certain drugs.
This graph’s time period corresponds pretty closely with the rise of the welfare-warfare state/income tax. The population of the U.S. has slightly less than tripled in the same time period. [/quote]
Oh come on. That graph’s time period closely corresponds with a LOT of things, not just the welfare state. In fact it corresponds much MORE closely with the war on drugs. If you want evidence you’d better be more thorough than that. I don’t even disagree with the underlying idea as much as this is just shoddy lazy reasoning.
[/quote]
More white people get welfare than black [/quote]
This argument is tired, white people make up nearly 75% of the population, of COURSE they are going to be more white people receiving welfare than black.
The better question as always is, what percentage receives more welfare.
The better question as always is, what percentage receives more welfare.[/quote]
You’re going to end up trying to draw causation where it doesn’t exist if you continue down that path, and play into the entire goal of Critical Race Theory.
So, given that, the better question is, given the amount government has given poor people for decades now, why are they still poor?
Answers will vary, but those are the ones that matter.
The better question as always is, what percentage receives more welfare.[/quote]
You’re going to end up trying to draw causation where it doesn’t exist if you continue down that path, and play into the entire goal of Critical Race Theory.
So, given that, the better question is, given the amount government has given poor people for decades now, why are they still poor?
Answers will vary, but those are the ones that matter. [/quote]
Probably correct, but I tire of the whole “whites commit more murders” “whites commit more crime”“whites get more welfare”
This graph’s time period corresponds pretty closely with the rise of the welfare-warfare state/income tax. The population of the U.S. has slightly less than tripled in the same time period. [/quote]
Oh come on. That graph’s time period closely corresponds with a LOT of things, not just the welfare state. In fact it corresponds much MORE closely with the war on drugs. If you want evidence you’d better be more thorough than that. I don’t even disagree with the underlying idea as much as this is just shoddy lazy reasoning.
[/quote]
More white people get welfare than black [/quote]
This argument is tired, white people make up nearly 75% of the population, of COURSE they are going to be more white people receiving welfare than black.
The better question as always is, what percentage receives more welfare.[/quote]
The best question is why in the fuck are we talking about race when discussing welfare in 2014?
It’s getting c-dog levels up in here. Crime is crime, fraud is fraud, rape is rape, welfare is welfare. I’m white and all that shit can piss me off regardless of who’s race it is.
Hell if we want to get specific all the welfare around me is white republican voting Christians. How’s that for throwing off the expected “welfare recipient?” Hell we got tons of “takers” around here and I bet Obama carried about 2 votes in the county.*
*Ok, actually Obama got 23% of the vote and Romney 75%.
The better question as always is, what percentage receives more welfare.[/quote]
You’re going to end up trying to draw causation where it doesn’t exist if you continue down that path, and play into the entire goal of Critical Race Theory.
So, given that, the better question is, given the amount government has given poor people for decades now, why are they still poor?
Answers will vary, but those are the ones that matter. [/quote]
I don’t know that that’s the critical question. Income Mobility is agonizingly slow. Like a couple/few hundred years from both income poles back to the mean, regardless of economic system. The question is what is does take to live healthy, productive, law-abiding lives as poor people. What does it take for them to be comfortable enough and feel dignified enough to live orderly and positive lives.
The better question as always is, what percentage receives more welfare.[/quote]
You’re going to end up trying to draw causation where it doesn’t exist if you continue down that path, and play into the entire goal of Critical Race Theory.
So, given that, the better question is, given the amount government has given poor people for decades now, why are they still poor?
Answers will vary, but those are the ones that matter. [/quote]
I don’t know that that’s the critical question. Income Mobility is agonizingly slow. Like a couple/few hundred years from both income poles back to the mean, regardless of economic system. The question is what is does take to live healthy, productive, law-abiding lives as poor people. What does it take for them to be comfortable enough and feel dignified enough to live orderly and positive lives.
The better question as always is, what percentage receives more welfare.[/quote]
You’re going to end up trying to draw causation where it doesn’t exist if you continue down that path, and play into the entire goal of Critical Race Theory.
So, given that, the better question is, given the amount government has given poor people for decades now, why are they still poor?
Answers will vary, but those are the ones that matter. [/quote]
The better question as always is, what percentage receives more welfare.[/quote]
You’re going to end up trying to draw causation where it doesn’t exist if you continue down that path, and play into the entire goal of Critical Race Theory.
So, given that, the better question is, given the amount government has given poor people for decades now, why are they still poor?
Answers will vary, but those are the ones that matter. [/quote]
[/quote]
lol, outside of parroting the talking point, can you actually speak on the subject?
Have we ever really seen times where this was the case? Honest question. Looking for perspective. [/quote]
Yes I believe so. I think one of the articles that can address a portion of this question (only a portion though), is in another thread and currently behind a wall from commentary magazine.