Slavery versus Public Handouts?

[Blue 92]

Got to thinking about the the Civil War thread concerning slavery and had some strange thoughts.

There appears to be some parallels between slavery and the more and more prevalent public handouts, also some differences.

The biggest difference, obviously, is that no one "owns" a person receiving public handouts but...

Slaves were provided with housing, food, clothing, and, most likely, some sort of health care in exchange for labor and/or service provided to their owners.

Without a doubt the treatment received at the hands of their owners varied greatly at the whim of their owners. And they had no control over their future or their lives.

We now appear to have a growing population that are provided with housing, food, clothing, free cell phones, healthcare and soon free broadband service.

Has our government somehow replaced the pre Civil War slaves owners as a benevolent Big Brother "owner'?

Pre Civil War owners benefited through labor and services.

What benefits do the new Big Brother "owners" gain? Is it influence and expanded power over all citizens by receiving votes in re-payment?

Is it a simple matter of belief in humanitarian equality?

[Joecooool]

If we didn't have a safety net people would be killing each other in the streets. Its not like there are millions of jobs around not being filled. The money we would have to spend on police and jails would make public assistance look like pocket change.

You can't simply incarcerate the 50 million Americans living in poverty.

[Doug28450]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

If we didn't have a safety net people would be killing each other in the streets.

No, they would be working. Earning a living, paying bills. Proud, productive members of society.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Its not like there are millions of jobs around not being filled.

Yes there are. Unfortunately, the welfare state that the government has created has made it easier to sponge off of working taxpayers than working. As a result, illegals have moved in taking the opportunities that are available, while lazy americans have their hand out.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

The money we would have to spend on police and jails would make public assistance look like pocket change.

Incorrect. Working Americans are proud of their accomplishments and protect what they have earned. Welfare recipients want what isn't theirs to begin with. More productive Americans means less riff raff.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

You can't simply incarcerate the 50 million Americans living in poverty.

Proof.

[MrPeabody]

Originally Posted by Blue 92

Got to thinking about the the Civil War thread concerning slavery and had some strange thoughts.

There appears to be some parallels between slavery and the more and more prevalent public handouts, also some differences.

The biggest difference, obviously, is that no one "owns" a person receiving public handouts but...

Slaves were provided with housing, food, clothing, and, most likely, some sort of health care in exchange for labor and/or service provided to their owners.

Without a doubt the treatment received at the hands of their owners varied greatly at the whim of their owners. And they had no control over their future or their lives.

We now appear to have a growing population that are provided with housing, food, clothing, free cell phones, healthcare and soon free broadband service.

Has our government somehow replaced the pre Civil War slaves owners as a benevolent Big Brother "owner'?

Pre Civil War owners benefited through labor and services.

What benefits do the new Big Brother "owners" gain? Is it influence and expanded power over all citizens by receiving votes in re-payment?

Is it a simple matter of belief in humanitarian equality?

One need only look at life on Indian reservations before the Casinos to see a more modern example of what you speak about.

[Torqaholic]

The biggest difference, obviously, is that no one "owns" a person receiving public handouts

Should have put the quotes around "no one" because they sure are owned. When the government tells them to fill out a form, or be somewhere compliance is only optional if they're willing to give up the benefits.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

You can't simply incarcerate the 50 million Americans living in poverty.

Show's the faith the left has in Americans.

We have to pay them or they'll turn to a life of crime!

I mean...they're poor. Obviously they're one welfare check away from gang life.

No wonder the left is so scared of Americans having guns...

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

If we didn't have a safety net people would be killing each other in the streets. Its not like there are millions of jobs around not being filled. The money we would have to spend on police and jails would make public assistance look like pocket change.

You can't simply incarcerate the 50 million Americans living in poverty.

Bullshit.

Before we had Welfare and the safety net crime rate were no greater than they are now and in may poor areas a great deal less than they are now. Welfare is the number one reason for increased crime rate per the NAACP.

Imagine all the jobs America would have if the 700 Billion spent each year on the Deadbeat were by individuals to BUY things or to invest? Thats ONE BHO Stimulus package each and every year once we end welfare.


http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

Michael Tanner
Director of Health and Welfare Studies
Cato Institute

before the

Subcommittee on Youth Violence
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime

June 7, 1995


Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Committee:

My name is Michael Tanner and I am the director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee on an issue of extreme importance to the American people. There is no doubt that juvenile crime is a serious and continuing problem in this country. There are many factors contributing to the rise in juvenile violence and crime, from the glorification of violence in the media to the failure of the "war on drugs." But, today, I would like to focus on a factor that has received far less attention -- the relationship between the welfare state and crime.

Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2)

Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)

As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:


The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O'Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada's social-welfare system on family structure concluded that "providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women."(9)

Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits. It is also true that a wide array of other social factors has contributed to the growth in out-of-wedlock births. But, by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out of wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible immediate consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.

Proof of this can be found in a study by Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who surveyed black, never-pregnant females age 17 or younger. Only 40% of those surveyed said that they thought becoming pregnant in the next year "would make their situation worse."(10) Likewise, a study by Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence found that: "in a sample of inner-city black teens presenting for pregnancy tests, we reported that more than 31 percent of those who elected to carry their pregnancy to term told us, before their pregnancy was diagnosed, that they believed a baby would present a problem..."(11) In other words, 69 percent either did not believe having a baby out-of-wedlock would present a problem or were unsure.

Until teenage girls, particularly those living in relative poverty, can be made to see real consequences from pregnancy, it will be impossible to gain control over the problem of out-of- wedlock births. By disguising those consequences, welfare makes it easier for these girls to make the decisions that will lead to unwed motherhood.

Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appallingly lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.(12)

I should also point out that, once the child is born, welfare also appears to discourage the mother from marrying in the future. Research by Robert Hutchins of Cornell University shows that a 10 percent increase in AFDC benefits leads to an eight percent decrease in the marriage rate of single mothers.(13)

As welfare contributes to the rise in out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families, it concomitantly contributes to the associated increase in criminal activity.

Secondly, welfare leads to increased crime by contributing to the marginalization of young black men in society. There are certainly many factors contributing to the increasing alienation and marginalization of young black men, including racism, poverty, and the failure of our educational system. However, welfare contributes as well. The welfare culture tells the man he is not a necessary part of the family. They are in effect cuckolded by the state. Their role of father and breadwinner is supplanted by the welfare check.

The role of marriage and family as a civilizing influence on young men has long been discussed. Whether or not strict causation can be proven, it is certainly true that unwed fathers are more likely to use drugs and become involved in criminal behavior.(14) Indeed, single men are five times more likely to commit violent crimes than married men.(15)

Finally, in areas where there is a high concentration of welfare, there may be an almost total lack of male role models. This can lead to crime in two ways. First, as the Maryland NAACP puts it, "A child whose parents draw a welfare check without going to work does not understand that in this society at least one parent is expected to rise five days of each week to go to some type of job."(16)

Second, boys growing up in mother only families naturally seek male influences. Unfortunately, in many inner city neighborhoods, those male role models may not exist. As George Gilder, author of Wealth and Poverty, has noted, the typical inner-city today is "almost a matriarchy. The women receive all the income, dominate the social-worker classes, and most of the schools." Thus, the boy in search of male guidance and companionship may end up in the company of gangs or other undesirable influences.(17)

Given all of the above, I believe it is clear that our current social welfare system is a significant cause of juvenile crime and violence in America today. Exactly how welfare should be reformed is undoubtedly beyond the scope of this hearing. The Cato Institute's position, however, is well known. Our research indicates that the current federal welfare system cannot be reformed. Accordingly, we have suggested that federal funding of welfare should be ended and responsibility for charity should be shifted first to the states and eventually to the private sector.(18)

In conclusion, let me simple say that, whatever Congress eventually decides to do in the way of welfare reform, I hope that you will recognize the disastrous consequences of our current welfare system. The status quo is plainly and simply unacceptable. The relationship between our failed social welfare system and juvenile violence and crime is one more urgent reason for reform.

[Chris Fowler]

I must ask, though...who is more the slave.

- The person who does nothing, but gets a check every month

- The person who works and has part of their check every month given to someone who did nothing

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by TxAg

A is more a slave than B.

B is robbed to "pay" slave A.

Remember, slaves were/are forced to do some kind of work. B isn't forced to work. B does it to get money now and hopefully more than B does from the gov't in the future.

So maybe the question really is A a slave or something a bit different since A isn't even forced to do some kind of work.

Just my .02 FWIW.

I am utterly confused by what you just typed. You negated your answer with your explanation.

[Doug28450]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

I must ask, though...who is more the slave.

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

- The person who does nothing, but gets a check every month

Slave to the system.

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

- The person who works and has part of their check every month given to someone who did nothing

Hostage of the system.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

If we didn't have a safety net people would be killing each other in the streets. Its not like there are millions of jobs around not being filled. The money we would have to spend on police and jails would make public assistance look like pocket change.

You can't simply incarcerate the 50 million Americans living in poverty.

Dead RONG, you simply have NO clue....

You have been owned by the rest of the guys, in typical fashion.....

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

If we didn't have a safety net people would be killing each other in the streets.

Not worth a response, but certainly good for a chuckle.

[VITE1]

Bureau of Justice Statistics Key Facts at a Glance Homicide Rate Trends

Two major factors that directly attribute to crime are the arrival of massive amount of immigrants ( 1900-1930) and Welfare ( 1965 to the Mid 1990's reform)

If you look at crime data from around the world the number one thing that reduces crime rate is Societal cohesion. When a society is working together VS being assaulted by societal changes and the like you have lower crime rates.

Do economic factors increase crime rate? Based on the data only slightly. Does Fatherless homes increase crime rate. The data proves it beyond any doubt. Does immigration increase crime rates? The data proves it as well.

[RetiredSFC 97]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

If we didn't have a safety net people would be killing each other in the streets. Its not like there are millions of jobs around not being filled. The money we would have to spend on police and jails would make public assistance look like pocket change.

You can't simply incarcerate the 50 million Americans living in poverty.

A safety net and way of life are two totally different things and you know it. You'r not that stupid.

You know very well it's about vote buying=slavery. If you don't vote for me, you will lose your freebies.

if not explain pushing granny off the cliff then?