Fat Kat wrote: robillionaire wrote:
I think there are many layers, that I 100% agree with you. I think you layed out a few other factors as well and I agree with a lot of them. But we can't change everything at once that just isn't realistic or reasonable. If we were looking for a major impact on poverty which tends to lead to more violence understanding and improving the family structure is #1 on my list. When you incentivize parents not to be together to raise there child because its not finacially beneficial to them to have the father of there child in there home I see a major issue with that.
I would like to understand maybe one or two things you think might be a major factor and maybe we can come to some more common ground.
this just seems like a really strange conclusion to reach. let's agree that poverty is the primary cause of crime. not the only cause, but primary. reduce poverty and you reduce crime. let's also agree that society was and still is set up to financially benefit those who pool together their resources. Now, your suggestion seems to be that the #1 way to reduce crime, is to take away welfare from people who are already poor, making them even more poor, so that couples will forced to stay together out of necessity for survival, which will in turn help them financially because they are still able to pool together their (now virtually nonexistent) resources, and in turn this will reduce poverty and by extension, crime. For most people it would just plunge them into an even more dire and desperate situation which would cause crime to rise. And probably domestic violence as well.
Now you pointed out a correlation between welfare in the 1960s and single parent households increasing although I wouldn't say it proves causation. but I would also note that other things happened in the 1960s. One is that is the women's rights movements really took off at this time. This resulted in women's equal access to education and an increased participation in politics and the workplace. Statistics show that divorce rates are higher when couples make nearly equal incomes and lower when one makes most or all of the money. In other words when people are able to survive independently without being dependent on their partner, they may be less likely to stay in an unhappy relationship. In addition to this, you may be overlooking that in 1969 in that same time frame, Reagan signed the first no-fault divorce bill in California, other states quickly followed suit. This marked the time where people were free to have a divorce without the process of proving wrongdoing in your partner. Trapping people in unhappy marriages out of financial necessity through welfare cuts and perhaps other means to force people to stay together does not seem to be a realistic solution for poverty or crime. What are you suggesting you could do to "improve the family structure" that wouldn't amount to some sort of coercion?
If I've completely misrepresented your position here feel free to clarify what I've got wrong
Edit: I forgot to mention that one of the major policies that was enacted that created single parent household especially in the black community was the introduction of the "war on drugs" which was designed to target their communities and pretty much caused black men to disappear from their family and reappear in cages in grotesque numbers, the US still leads the world in incarceration today, and the war on drugs is still a driving force of it and this contributes to both poverty and crime. So if you want to look at improving the family structure there's my solution for a great first step. end the war on drugs, end mass incarceration
Glad you mentioned the war on drugs. The Rockefeller drug laws, over policing, and sentencing disparities are specifically damaging to black communities. We also have to consider that felons aren’t allowed to live in public housing with their families. That creates the perfect recipe for a single parent home. Almost as if it were planned that way to create a for-profit prison pipeline.
I think MPHarris has some points, but all along that was my point - there are a LOT of complicating factors.
Also, a general point about we'll all find facts where our ideology leads us, but that was kind of me going off on a tangent.
Welfare policy seems like an odd choice as the prime mover of poverty, or the prime mover of family breakdown, therefore poverty.
Again, I think a LOT of things are went on during that time frame and any time frame, regarding poverty.
I don't know. Someone here alluded to the fact that an underclass is part and parcel of the capitalist system. One of my earliest memories of someone teaching about social programs, probably from way back in high school, was that the New Deal was largely about recognizing that there were boom and bust cycles in capitalism, that there are always some people who don't do as well in it, and it was about the social responsibility to take the edge off those things.
Obviously, there is also the interpretation that the New Deal etc is about helping to maintain that system and I don't disagree, but some of those interpretations are a bit cynical for me. Or they could be exactly true.