85 Year Old Raped and Murdered, Vet Husband Brutally Beat

Criticism of the welfare state = racism to the reactionary Left.

_

 

Your strawman got up and hobbled away.

_

 

Really? Perhaps you will place them in a post so I can answer them. Since when have I been afraid of any poster on this forum?

 

I think it is a savage crime against two upstanding people. I want justice to be done, and I morn for the family. I also want the root causes of this type of lawlessness addressed and corrected. I also accuse the progressives of ignoring these types of crimes and violent crime in general.

_

 

I'm a PF progressive and I would call Tyrone a murderer. If we could depend on the Tulsa police to get the right guy (which we can't) instead of just the nearest black, the DoJ doesn't need to get involved.

 

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.(

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.(1

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.

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

 

When only one colour commits one type of crime, skin colour can be taken as a reason. Since it hasn't happened yet and won't in the future, blame cannot be placed on that alone.

As long as society refuses to address the problem, by better education which admittedly isn't easy these days as the present generation of parents were dealt with in too lenient a manner, we have what we have.

Going back to basics is the answer but not an easy one to implement.

 

Yep, speech controls are breaking down, and the PF progressives are in a huff.

_

 

Is anyone able to check?


_

 

I did and you are avoiding them.

_

 

Then list them. Or don't you want answers?

 

I'm sure that if what you're saying is true, then Fox News will cover it. Right?

 

So, state education is the answer to violent crime? What if the children are so violent that they beat the teachers and commit crimes in and out of school?
Doesn't a stable family count for anything with you?
_

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/1061042925-post154.html

You ducked these questions a while ago. Twice, if memory serves.

_

 

Of course it does. Don't any of my responses reflect that?

 

This is a serious crime. They should go to prison. Apparently the criminals stole a car, a TV, cash, etc., so the intent of crime seems to be robbery, plus the assault and murder of the victims...

Why are people making it about race?

 

See my post 164. If it doesn't satisfy you, follow up on it. Just to ensure any future claim that I am ducking, I'm off for the afternoon.

 

I did and you keep ducking it.

 

Then, the classic progressive solution of throwing money at this problem alone will not and can not succeed.

.

 

There's nothing behind those eyes. Soulless. Apathetic.
This was an innocent baby once. Now a rapist and murderer.

 

No racism is posting never ending threads about blacks and how bad they are.That is what you do and there is no getting around that fact whatever you say.

No my points stand as they are intelligent unlike your posts.

Funny how you never even mentioned the crime in your very first post. You went on a rant about liberals and blacks I believe. Face it you have been caught out yet again trying to further your racist agenda at the expense of a disgraceful crime against two elderly people.

 

Wrong, that was my first post. Oops. I've lost count of how many gaffes you've let loose in this thread.

 

Well talking about gaffes, I am talking to Don not you and in his very first post just like your very first post he was on a rant about liberals and blacks. Try reading it then you will have a clue and I quote.

 

Funny, I don't see any rant about liberals and blacks in there. I see a few questions, though. Since when do questions equal rants in liberal utopia?

 

Only in the loony mind of a ******* is criticizing a race worse than raping and murdering an 85-year-old woman.

Liberals should be ashamed of themselves for their wacky way of thinking. Too many of these crimes are happening all over America, but the left seem more concerned with prosecuting thought criminals instead of the violent ones.