20% (especially for this crowd) was more than enough to demonstrate a point. Fortunately, MANY people caught on. Many more "felt" something was wrong even if they didn't see right through it.

You still don't get it do you? In 1903 there was no welfare system in this country. In 2003 there definently is, now how did that happen in a country that hates socialism so much? Why have capital interests and the Republican party not been able to stop this? Why, in fact, have they hardly even TRIED since before WWII? Why was liberal Democrat BILL CLINTON the biggest reformer of social programs since and not Eisenhower, Nixon, Regan, or Bush?

It is a payoff. Welfare reduced property crime when it was introduced. No it did not eliminate it. Yes people on welfare still comit crimes. If there were not welfare they would be joined by many many more people who currently tolerate the conditions they are in without hurting anyone.

You don't seem to comprehend how bad things could of gotten if these systems hadn't been implemented. You act like this issue has no history before the Kennedy/Johnson era.

Peddle your bullshit on DU.

We have more socialism and welfare than we did 100 years ago because people wouldn't stand for it back then. It is a result of poor people voting for the "have's to support the "have nots."

And unless you are referring specifically to the Prohibition Era, it is laughable to suggest we have less crime now as a result of welfare/socilaism.

In the 1903rime was non existant compared to todays gang activity, narcotics trafficing, etc. Only a complete moron such as yourself would make such a statement.

And of course it predates Johnson, FDR started most of this crap as a attempt to deal with the Depression. It didn't fix that either, it took wartime production to get us out of the depression.

So once again, for the slow people.

Giving people free stuff does NOT work. It does not reduce crime. It does not fix the economy.

How many drug dealer do you know who suddenly became honest citizens once they reached the 100K mark? Gee, none? Seems to me they have more than enough.

ArmdLbrl: You've got it backwards.  When a welfare recipient commits a crime against the society that they are freeloading on ALL welfare benefits should be cut off.

You cannot maintain an orderly society if people are not held accountable for their actions.  This would bring a motivator into the equation.  Give them a reason to act responsibly and they just might.

You are a complete moron AUG.

Once again, you are projecting the current situation into the past and coming up with a fallacious argument.

In 1903 people beleved that crime was out of control. That bolshiviks and socialists were going to take over the country. Social warfare was expected to break out every time there was a labor dispute. Why don't you go dig up some period newspapers or read someof TR's or Beveridge's papers and educate yourself and see what this period was really like?

The state taking tax dollars keeps people fed, housed, clothed and healthy and allowes them to send their kids to school. What do you think those people would do if you took that away? You think they are just going to disappear? And what reason would they have to respect your property and life after you have cut them off and no longer share the same world with them? Nothing but naked force I assure you. Do you think that paying for the police to provide that force is going to cost more or less of your taxes than what you pay now for welfare? Your guns may protect you and your wife from some attacks also, but the feral humans you created are going to get lucky occasionaly. Maybe you, maybe your wife, maybe another family member or friend. And how willing are you to HAVE to shoot people? Not just a possiblity that it might happen like now, but a real constant, daily threat like, say in Israel?

One of the basic rules of debate is when you start calling names you've lost.  Too bad.

Of course communism/socialism killing 100 million people in the 20th century was just because the right people weren't in charge, right?

Lib, I'm just going to let you rant.  Responding to your flatulent bilge is an unconscienable waste of 1s and 0s on this site.  (BTW, the flatulent bilge comment was directed at your thoughts, not you personally [;)]- you might actually be an otherwise nice person for all I know).

Brohawk, that is a interesting way of admitting that you don't even comprehend what this thread is about. Russian or Chinese communism is not the issue here. Its about why socialist traits appear in a otherwise non-socialist society.

Prove it. Show me a statistic showing the decrease of crime during LBJ's presidency, when this welfare stuff was started. The best statistics that I could find in a quick web search were NCVS data from 1973 on. I'm not sure if there's good national burglary data before that. In any case, if welfare reduces burglary, as you allege, then you would expect an increase when Clinton reformed welfare. None is evident. Infact, the chart shows steadily decreasing burglary rates since they started collecting data.

[img]http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/burg.gif[/img]
[url]http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/burg.htm[/url]

The very theory is somewhat disturbing. You claim that people commit crimes because they are poor and in need. Crime is an evil act done by evil, greedy people, regardless of socioeconomic status. Being poor does not make someone so greedy and careless as to hurt others to make themselves better-off. Just because someone has enough money to get by does not mean that they would not commit crimes to get more.

What is it with you people. Why do you keep deliberately missing the point. Yes property crime has gone up. You don't seem to understand the kind of hell it would be if there wasn't any welfare left.

And NO not ALL criminals are comitting crimes because they are poor. Currently very FEW can make this claim seriously. What I am trying to get through to you is the number of ADDITIONAL crimes would be comitted by people currently ON welfare if you took it away. AND how much worse the crime increases of the past century would have been had the goverment not taken large sums of tax dollars and bribed a large portion of the population into acquiescence.



What is hard to understand about this?

Jesus Christ you are dumb as shit.

[size=6]YOU SAID[/size=6]

"In 1903 there was no welfare system in this country."

"It is a payoff. Welfare reduced property crime when it was introduced. "

Then I pointed out you were wrong, that in fact crime was lower PRIOR to welfare and now you call me a moron?

[size=6]CRIME, despite welfare (social programs) is HIGHER NOW than before it was introduced. WELFARE HAS NOT REDUCED CRIME.[/size=6]

FURTHERMORE, Socialism has failed everytime it has been attempted. Small amounts of socialism can survive (like a parasite) in strong economies of other system, such as capitalism. But once socialism takes prominence over the base system (the host) it kills it and neither can no longer survive.

The problem with Socialism is it removes the motivation factor. If I work harder and all they do is take everything earned due to the extra effort I will STOP.

It doesn't work. It never has worked. It never will work. And the ONLY people who seem to think it has merit are morons like YOU who have the benefit of living in a NON SOCIALIST country and are allowed to second guess it.

Well I'll tell you.

WE DISAGREE.

We believe that WITHOUT Welfare people would STOP having children for the sake of BENEFITS. As a result these kids wouldn't be born into houses where they would be neglected. As a result the MAJORITY of people having children would WANT them.

This would mean they would participate in their lives as parents and raise functional well adjusted human beings instead of car jackers, gang member and drug dealers who see the world as a place full of things for the taking if they aren't given to you.

Ya wanna 'splain that lucy?? What "rant"???

Lib = Armdlbrl

lib[red]eral[/red]

I like your attitude, I agree. Welfare to keep criminals from committing crimes is paying extortion.

Steyr. I can remember as a kid, (mid 1950's), When young people were gonna get married, and were asked about having kids, they often responded, "We can't afford to have children right now, maybe in a few years".


I haven't heard that much since the mid 60's...

You ain't gonna be able to 'splain to folks that family, church, and volunteer organizations are s'posed to do that stuff.


After all. govt. does it so much more efficiently and compassionatly don't they???[rolleyes]

I get it now....Sorry Bro...[:D]
lib=liberal                         Duh!

Right NOW, with a relatively new business and in my second year of marriage I cannot afford to have kids.

Maybe if I stop working and start robbing folks the liberals will "pay" me to have kids. Currently with my own business I don't qualify. I don't make enough to have kids, and I make too much to have the government "pay" me to have them. Yeah, that's fair.