Want to Reduce Crime? End Welfare!

from JoeUser Forums

There are endless speculations among our political elite as to how to end crime in the US. stricter enforcement hasn't worked, "zero tolerance" and "three strikes" have only worked against those whose cases aren't sensational enough to attract good lawyers. And, in fact, as long as there are two or more people alive on the earth, there will be crime of some sort or the other.

But the United States could go a long way towards reducing crime in this country as we know it by the simple act of ending welfare and other private "entitlements". While liberals claim it would increase crime (and it might, over the VERY short term), the fact is that over the long term eliminating welfare would, in all probability, REDUCE crime and create a stronger, more productive society.

To understand this, you must first understand where most crime occurs. And that is in the inner cities, which are fast becoming war zones. Put simply, property crimes are being carried out on those who have the least property to offer, and violence is being carried out on those who live in these public subsidized housing projects. In many cases, law enforcement is nonexistent as the police refuse to go there. Add to that the fact that, with the majority of these individuals on public assistance, thugs KNOW when they have money. It comes at the same time, every month.

In addition, entitlements have created an idle culture. Sure, you're supposed to WORK for welfare benefits, in theory, but there are many loopholes and the recipients of these entitlements are quite clever at finding these loopholes (like jailhouse lawyers, they will scrutinize these documents, having nothing but time, until they find the loophole that fits their own situation). The old saying "the devil has time for idle hands" could not be proven more true than in the inner cities of places like Detroit, Michigan and New York City.

But probably worst of all is that, in order to be more efficient in the distribution of these entitlements, housing projects have sprung up in these places. These housing projects are schools for crime, where most children have no choice but to join a gang or die, and where many of our career criminals are fostered.

Private charity has always been more compassionate, while being more discriminatory in who can and cannot receive aid. Administrators can more quickly identify fraud and act to arrest the fraud just as quickly. Best of all, private charities (theoretically, at least) rely on money that is VOLUNTARILY given to their cause, rather than money that is wrested out by faceless bureaucrats. And the administrative costs of private charities are FAR lower than those of their government counterparts.

The simple fact is, we don't WANT to reduce crime. We don't WANT to improve the lives of these individuals. For if we do, we will put to an end a multi BILLION dollar industry of government agents who are nothing more than state sanctioned welfare recipients themselves.

2,094 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I understand your point, but it wont happen.  Like all government programs, once started, they are impossible to kill.  This is typical of that.  It does not work, and yet the very mention of eliminating it and trying somethign new brings howls from the left about conservatives being baby killers.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't see how it will end crime. If the money doesn't come from the government every month, where will it come from?

In the short term there will certainly be a reduce on housing pressure - the old, the sick and the very young mostly won't survive the inevitable artificial famine, thus freeing up apartments. So sure, people will be spending less on accomodation, which will free up some of their funds.

But still the gangs will need to acquire enough money to feed themselves and get enough arms to defend what little they have. There are few enough private institutions willing to help, so presumably they'll support themselves with robbery - the same way they've always supported themselves, only without the middleman.

One statement in particular though bugs me - if what I've said above is even vaguely true (and I'm certain it's not particularly accurate - no country has repealed benefits entirely after they've been announced without revolution, so no one has any idea how it would work) then what about law and order?

If the police are already refusing to step in to maintain law and order, why are they more likely to do so when the gangs are totally desperate and true anarchy rules? The riots would be immense, and probably require the army's involvement, as in New Orleans.

And yes, that's a temporary thing. It seems highly unlikely that the US Army couldn't crush civil unrest in the major cities, regardless of their size. But it would make the Paris riots look like a playground (Americans are far more heavily armed, and therefore one would assume the capacity for destruction is vastly higher). The profit gleaned back from halting bread and circuses would need to be spent at a higher rate on police protection for wealthier areas, rebuilding and danger pay for countless soldiers, many probably not fully trained for urban combat.

I understand there is an expectation in your statement that those who no longer receive government benefits will find productive work somewhere, but where are they going to work? The factories in most cities closed years ago, and even sweatshops are on the decline (on American soil at least). Half the problem, half the reason there are so many on unemployment benefits is that so many are basically unemployable. They lack the skills for white-collar work and the training for what blue-collar work still exists. What else remains except in the black and totally unskilled market - which may not even survive the loss of income from losing their primary customers paychecks)?

Unless that's redressed somehow (and it could in theory cross the entire spectrum from death/work camps to poorhouses to government-created jobs) there's no other avenue for those without unemployment benefits than crime. After all, the wage is acceptable and the risk tolerable (prison is probably mildly comfortable if you're young, tough and ruthless). Why not take the money if no one is going to give it to you?
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
where most crime occurs. And that is in the inner cities, which are fast becoming war zones


has there ever been a time when this wasn't true of every city in the world? even in the relatively instant cities of 18th and 19th century america, there was always a hell's kitchen or a skid row. there was nothing even close to welfare then.

in order to be more efficient in the distribution of these entitlements, housing projects have sprung up in these places


look into the history of housing projects in detroit, chicago & nyc and you'll find the only efficiency involved when choosing sites was 'this the easiest way to keep em from moving into our neighboorhoods'
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Private charity has always been more compassionate, while being more discriminatory in who can and cannot receive aid


i can't recall reading anything about services or facilities operated by private charities in europe or america over the past 300 years that would lead me to believe those which might be thought of as havens of compassion weren't an extreme exception to the rule.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

And the administrative costs of private charities are FAR lower than those of their government counterparts.


I have seen this claim often. But do you have any data about this?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Leauki,

I will look for data. But simply applying common sense can sort it out for you.

The Salvation Army collects money in a bucket at WalMart (or wherever). The money is used in the local community, by a staff that is part paid, part volunteer, and ALL local. The government collects federal money in taxes, meaning IRS agents are needed to be employed, they have a six figure cabinet level position to administrate the money (along with the complete staff), they have six figure cabinet level positions available at state level in fifty states, and high five figure administrators in virtually every county. Then there are the social workers at the individual level. Add to that the accounting departments needed to process paperwork and issue checks, and it would be foolish to believe that the government is even REMOTELY efficient in the distribution of the money.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

If the money doesn't come from the government every month, where will it come from?

I think he addressed that question.  Charities (most) are much more efficient and discriminating, so there is a lot less fraud and waste.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

has there ever been a time when this wasn't true of every city in the world? even in the relatively instant cities of 18th and 19th century america, there was always a hell's kitchen or a skid row. there was nothing even close to welfare then.

OK, kingbee. So you are taking the position that the crime RATE (as a percentage of the population) right now is no greater than the crime rate of the 18th and 19th centuries? Remember, my topic was about the REDUCTION of crime, not the ELIMINATION of such.

If the crime rate is roughly the same as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, you just chucked every argument for gun control out the window.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the crime rate is roughly the same as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, you just chucked every argument for gun control out the window.


actually, i believe i said urban crime is urban crime and has been since cities first came into being. there were no guns in sodom or gomorrah. or thebes. or athens.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
But again, Kingbee, I was talking about REDUCING, not ELIMINATING crime. The fact is, you're right...we'll NEVER eliminate inner city crime. But if we actually expect individuals to WORK for a living, then they'll have less time to COMMIT these crimes (and actually putting them away for the crimes they DO commit wouldn't be a bad idea, either, since the recidivism rate in this country is through the roof).
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Somehow, this sentence was missed in certain people's reading  of the article. Are these sentences invisible to leftists, or what?

And, in fact, as long as there are two or more people alive on the earth, there will be crime of some sort or the other.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Somehow, this sentence was missed in certain people's reading of the article. Are these sentences invisible to leftists, or what?

And, in fact, as long as there are two or more people alive on the earth, there will be crime of some sort or the other.

Not in their leftist Utopia.  That is why they cant comprehend the sentence.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
But again, Kingbee, I was talking about REDUCING, not ELIMINATING crime. The fact is, you're right...we'll NEVER eliminate inner city crime


i dunno why you think i'm talking about eliminating anything. i was simply questioning what i believe to be a serious flaw in your argument...

the inner cities, which are fast becoming war zones


...by reminding you the cities of the ancient world seem to have been considered war zones by residents who customarily built fortress-like houses to keep the riff-raff out. that family compound tradition is still alive and well in the middle east. even at its high points, rome had neighborhoods where when the centurion was away, the hoodlums would play.

welfare wasn't a factor at all. poverty and greed were.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Somehow, this sentence was missed in certain people's reading of the article. Are these sentences invisible to leftists, or what?
And, in fact, as long as there are two or more people alive on the earth, there will be crime of some sort or the other.


if that was directed at me, i hope my previous comment will enable you to see you're not alone in wondering about them seemingly invisible concepts.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not in their leftist Utopia. That is why they cant comprehend the sentence


alas, i am wounded to the quick! another victim of the dr's rapier wit. *falls to the ground, writhing in agony*

(either that or uncontrollable laffter has de-assed me whilst rollin on the floor )
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
What 'little' they have??? My god, man, these thugs are living the high life, riding around on rims that cost more than many people's cars, wearing sneakers that would cost an honest man a week's pay, having diamonds inlaid in their teeth, and flashing wads of cash big enough to choke a horse.


I wish I was urban poor and in a gang in America! Sounds like the life to me! Apart from the diamonds in teeth thing - it's a little too bling for my tastes. I've spent a lot of money getting near-perfect teeth, and I wouldn't want to stuff that up by grinding them down with shiny rocks.

The reason they're so violent is because the business they are in (the making and selling of crack cocaine, the street level distributiuon of heroin, trafficking in stolen goods, and prostitution is so lucrative they kill each other to keep competition at a minimum.

The aint forming gangs to buy groceries, sweetheart, and the kids who join them arent just looking for a hot meal, they're looking for that glamorous thug life, you know, the type that rap music and hollywood glorify.


That kind of life doesn't appeal too much to me, but I suppose at least with sin you can sleep in on Sunday morning. I can deal with it. The glory sounds good. Where do you sign up?

Somehow, this sentence was missed in certain people's reading of the article. Are these sentences invisible to leftists, or what?

And, in fact, as long as there are two or more people alive on the earth, there will be crime of some sort or the other.


Yes, I suppose I shouldn't have said 'end' crime. But aren't crime rates in the US dropping anyway? At least the figures I last heard from NY suggested that (that was probably around 2000,2001 or so). Have they reversed again? And if they are dropping, why bother making drastic changes when no one knows what the effect will be?

I think he addressed that question. Charities (most) are much more efficient and discriminating, so there is a lot less fraud and waste.


As for the efficiencies of private aid, I see no reason to see it working this time around. It didn't work too well up til the 19th century; the failures of private aid in keeping the peasants quiet after all is why communism got so popular that the Chancellor of Germany introduced social security in the first place.

I guess I don't share your belief that people have changed since then. I'd like to have your faith, but it's just not there. Sorry. Basic difference in ideology.

Perhaps America should drop all its national aid programs. Be a kind of international test case for the libertarian cause. It'll save us all arguing like political scientists over the likelihood of nuclear war.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
cacto,

I realize that you live in a different country, and I hope someday you can come and get a good look at the lives of SOME of these inner city poor (the ones that make life miserable for the honest ones that are working to improve their lot).

You will see a world of fast, tricked out cars...and yes, the "bling!" that gangsta rap glorifies...very little of it legally obtained and most of it obtained on the backs of the aforementioned HONEST poor folks in these inner cities. You will see a financial exploitation of these poor led by the very "leaders" who claim to be working to improve their lot (Al Sharpton is now working as a pitchman for an auto loan title company that lends money at 30% interest PER MONTH, for instance). You will see row upon row of "rent to own" businesses that prey upon the "something for nothing" mentality that pervades many welfare recipients, and row upon row of pawn shops where they can hock their material goods for their latest fix. You will see drug dealers and prostitutes in the streets. What you will see is as close to hell on earth for the honest folks in the inner cities as it gets.

We need to provide a better hope for those that DO want to get out of the ghettos. 60 plus years of entitlements should show us that the way we're doing it now isn't working. While there's a tendency to throw money at the problem, money doesn't fix problems of the soul.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
We need to provide a better hope for those that DO want to get out of the ghettos.


But I'm not seeing what that better hope is. If you take away the money given to them through the government, who's going to step in? The Al Sharptons will set themselves up as aid agents, that's for sure, and probably skim a good percentage of the top and then invest the rest into their own private businesses. That's what a lot of so-called private orgs did in Australia when the government let its aboriginal and torres strait section privatise its aid program.

Chances are as well that most of that former tax money freed up by the end of social security will go into health charities (they're generally more popular than the Salvos/St Vincent de Paul/etc). So we'd probably see a cure or treatment for cancer a hell of a lot sooner, but the forgotten people of the inner city won't be remembered any easier. How many people can identify with a tricked-out gangsta? It's a lot easier with that cute kid dying of leukemia. Who would you give your money to?

I don't have a solution for you. What you seek is not something I can support based on my current knowledge and experience, so I can't approach the problem with total focus. But I hope you can find one, because you're right - the systems we use these days just aren't functioning properly in the immense cities that are becoming the norm.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you take away the money given to them through the government, who's going to step in?


PRIVATE organizations, cacto. I've said this so often you CAN'T claim to have overlooked it.

The LP platform proposes a dollar for dollar tax CREDIT (NOT deduction, but credit) for contributions to private charities to replace our inefficient welfare system. Private charities are MUCH more efficient in distributing their money.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
PRIVATE organizations, cacto. I've said this so often you CAN'T claim to have overlooked it.


But all you're doing is transferring the bureaucracy from government to charity. Sure, at the moment the competition is intense enough in the charity market that efficiency is high. But unless the government privatises its welfare section completely (ie doesn't maintain a list of preferred charity organisations) then that competition is going to disappear pretty quickly. The big charities, the ones currently least efficient, aren't going to get more efficient when they have even more money to burn.

I suppose we're not going to agree on this though so there's no point continuing.

The LP platform proposes a dollar for dollar tax CREDIT (NOT deduction, but credit) for contributions to private charities to replace our inefficient welfare system. Private charities are MUCH more efficient in distributing their money.


I know this is hella lazy, but do you have a link for this policy? I'd be interested to see how they propose preventing people from paying their entire tax debt to a charity, thus earning a credit from the government of equal size. Or do you know off the top of your head what the credit threshold is? If there's no threshold then it's just an excuse not to pay tax, and I don't think I can countenance that - after all, there are a few essential government agencies.