• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy limping back to strength

Goldenboy219 said:
If the guy is robbing your house it is too late. :(
Click to expand...

If the analogy has to be that realistic, say he threatens to come over again unless you pay him $100. Do you choose to pay him the money or to call the police?
 
phattonez said:
If a guy is robbing your house, would you rather give him $100 or call the police?
Click to expand...

I call a maid's service to clean his brains off my wall. I'm loaded for bear.
 
palin says socialism is redistribution of wealth. the police force is a redistribution of wealth.

i suppose some libertarians would prefer militia police like they have in afghanistan?
 
scottsoperson said:
palin says socialism is redistribution of wealth. the police force is a redistribution of wealth.
Click to expand...

Explain your statement.

i suppose some libertarians would prefer militia police like they have in afghanistan?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could name these Libertarians that prefer militia police.
 
phattonez said:
If the analogy has to be that realistic, say he threatens to come over again unless you pay him $100. Do you choose to pay him the money or to call the police?
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point. Area's that are impoverished tend to have higher crime rates than area's that are not. This is a simple economic fact, which is exemplified via property value.

You do not want an extremely impoverished underclass with no support whatsoever. Theft is only a minor issue. Remember, the next great "whomever" can come from any social class.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I think you are missing the point. Area's that are impoverished tend to have higher crime rates than area's that are not. This is a simple economic fact, which is exemplified via property value.

You do not want an extremely impoverished underclass with no support whatsoever. Theft is only a minor issue. Remember, the next great "whomever" can come from any social class.
Click to expand...

I say we start executing or enslaving those who are degenerates and on welfare (except the truly disabled and **** upon folks). Make them get work or die tryin'

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
EpicDude86 said:
I say we start executing or enslaving those who are degenerates and on welfare (except the truly disabled and **** upon folks). Make them get work or die tryin'

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Click to expand...

That might be something Mao would do:rofl

I will stress this point once again. The next great mind that will change the world can come from any social class. Social Darwinism does not take into account genius.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
That might be something Mao would do:rofl

I will stress this point once again. The next great mind that will change the world can come from any social class. Social Darwinism does not take into account genius.
Click to expand...


Perhaps it would be common sense? Instead of paying welfare recipients to merely 'live' and get by, pay them to do something useful or at the very least get up off their asses. There are plenty of ditches that need clearing, holes that need digging, trash that needs picking up. Many jobs the government has to do that don't require skilled labor are going un-done because they are falling low on the priority scale.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I think you are missing the point. Area's that are impoverished tend to have higher crime rates than area's that are not. This is a simple economic fact, which is exemplified via property value.

You do not want an extremely impoverished underclass with no support whatsoever. Theft is only a minor issue. Remember, the next great "whomever" can come from any social class.
Click to expand...

If there's an impoverished area with high crime, you don't solve the problem by giving them money. You load up more police over there.

If a kid is failing a class because he doesn't try, you don't give him a B so that he'll try harder. Giving him a B won't make him try harder, in fact it will probably make him try less. In the same way, if a person is stealing because he is poor, you don't give him money so that he'll stop stealing.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
If there's an impoverished area with high crime, you don't solve the problem by giving them money. You load up more police over there.
Click to expand...

Statement is false. See: Kansas City Experiment.

phattonez said:
If a kid is failing a class because he doesn't try, you don't give him a B so that he'll try harder. Giving him a B won't make him try harder, in fact it will probably make him try less. In the same way, if a person is stealing because he is poor, you don't give him money so that he'll stop stealing.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes. Ja. Yes. Yes. Si. Da. Oui. Aye.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Statement is false. See: Kansas City Experiment.
Click to expand...

"The Kansas City Police Department drew the conclusion that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe and that resources normally allocated to these activities could safely be allocated elsewhere."

I didn't see this study citing whether there were more arrests made because of the higher presence of police. It showed that the same amount of robbery occurred, but were police attempts to thwart them more successful?
 
phattonez said:
If there's an impoverished area with high crime, you don't solve the problem by giving them money. You load up more police over there.
Click to expand...

Why do many prisons give the inmates special privileges? Not because they are feeling generous, but because it makes the job easier on the guards. I have no doubt that police serve a very integral purpose in our society. However, simply stating that adding more police, building more prisons, hiring more judicial response, etc... is all that is needed is nothing short of naive.

The war on drugs is a great example. Those in poverty who are unable to seek employment are often drawn into the lucrative drug racket. Adding additional DEA etc... has been how successful Tony? Effective policy (not to be mistaken for police) is just as, or even more important.

If a kid is failing a class because he doesn't try, you don't give him a B so that he'll try harder. Giving him a B won't make him try harder, in fact it will probably make him try less. In the same way, if a person is stealing because he is poor, you don't give him money so that he'll stop stealing.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about a kid failing a class. Quite a poor comparison if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
"The Kansas City Police Department drew the conclusion that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe and that resources normally allocated to these activities could safely be allocated elsewhere."

I didn't see this study citing whether there were more arrests made because of the higher presence of police. It showed that the same amount of robbery occurred, but were police attempts to thwart them more successful?
Click to expand...

Essentially what it proved was that simply adding more Police presence, whether they made more arrests or not (and that's not including successful prosecutions), had no noticeable effect on crime, in a number of different neighborhoods with varying demographics.

I believe in Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) techniques rather than just throwing more Police at bad neighborhoods. :D
 
Last edited:
EpicDude86 said:
Essentially what it proved was that simply adding more Police presence, whether they made more arrests or not (and that's not including successful prosecutions), had no noticeable effect on crime, in a number of different neighborhoods with varying demographics.

I believe in Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) techniques rather than just throwing more Police at bad neighborhoods. :D
Click to expand...

Well I was speaking figuratively when talking about throwing more police at the problem. I would just rather give money to the police to stop such crime rather than pay the criminal so he won't do it.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
We are not talking about a kid failing a class. Quite a poor comparison if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I would think it's a good comparison. One of those 'give a man a fish/teach a man to fish' scenarios. Kind of why welfare does about as much for getting impoverished people on their feet and back into society as 'No Child Left Behind' did for getting students through college.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Why do many prisons give the inmates special privileges? Not because they are feeling generous, but because it makes the job easier on the guards. I have no doubt that police serve a very integral purpose in our society. However, simply stating that adding more police, building more prisons, hiring more judicial response, etc... is all that is needed is nothing short of naive.
Click to expand...

The movies always show those inmates who act up go to the hole. Let's compare them to the robbers. They don't get special treatment, they get punished.

If Hitler wants all of Europe, you don't give him Czechoslovakia, you attack him and hold him back.

The war on drugs is a great example. Those in poverty who are unable to seek employment are often drawn into the lucrative drug racket. Adding additional DEA etc... has been how successful Tony? Effective policy (not to be mistaken for police) is just as, or even more important.
Click to expand...

So we should give drug dealers money so that they'll stop dealing drugs? Not that it matters, but these are things that shouldn't even be prosecuted anyway.

We are not talking about a kid failing a class. Quite a poor comparison if you ask me.
Click to expand...

If you're poor you're not exactly succeeding at getting yourself the things that you want (unless you choose to live that way, and if you did, you're probably not prone to stealing).
 
phattonez said:
The movies always show those inmates who act up go to the hole. Let's compare them to the robbers. They don't get special treatment, they get punished.

If Hitler wants all of Europe, you don't give him Czechoslovakia, you attack him and hold him back.

If you're poor you're not exactly succeeding at getting yourself the things that you want (unless you choose to live that way, and if you did, you're probably not prone to stealing).
Click to expand...


You are misinterpreting the point. It is not to reward bad behavior, so you should refrain from ushering that as your central premise in the discussion. Instead, it is to reduce the causalities (on both sides of the equation) associated with those at the bottom, and those who are employed to deal with the bottom.

So we should give drug dealers money so that they'll stop dealing drugs? Not that it matters, but these are things that shouldn't even be prosecuted anyway.
Click to expand...

I would like to focus on this comment for a second. Public assistance is not the same as just "giving" someone money. Of course there are some programs that simply "give" people money, but the reason for doing so is not equitable to bribery. There are various grants for education for low income individuals/families, food stamps, health care, etc.... We refer to this a policy, not bribery. Of course you are free to call it whatever you desire, but the intention is not to bribe, but to help those who are less fortunate better themselves. Has such policy been shown to reduce criminality? Of course. Note: i am not equating it to an all or nothing where welfare policy alone is the single determinant.

The war on drugs has become the most famous policy blunder. How does our government deal with the issue? In the same fashion that you and Epic feel we should handle the impoverished, sick, etc.... Lock them up and segregate them into a far lower social status and area, that way they will not effect the rest of us. This is known as deterrence theory.

If you are going to respond to anything, i ask that it is at least this last question. How successful is deterrence theory in regards to impoverished area's or drug territory?

The poor still have a higher propensity to create crime, and the amped up assault on the illicit drug industry has pushed for windfall profits at the demise of those who are addicted.

There is not an absolute solution, as the world is not black and white....
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
You are misinterpreting the point. It is not to reward bad behavior, so you should refrain from ushering that as your central premise in the discussion. Instead, it is to reduce the causalities (on both sides of the equation) associated with those at the bottom, and those who are employed to deal with the bottom.
Click to expand...

The intent of giving them money is to thwart theft, but it also creates an incentive to not work. Also, you haven't proven how giving police money (incentivizing good behavior) is not a better way to spend money.

I would like to focus on this comment for a second. Public assistance is not the same as just "giving" someone money. Of course there are some programs that simply "give" people money, but the reason for doing so is not equitable to bribery. There are various grants for education for low income individuals/families, food stamps, health care, etc.... We refer to this a policy, not bribery. Of course you are free to call it whatever you desire, but the intention is not to bribe, but to help those who are less fortunate better themselves. Has such policy been shown to reduce criminality? Of course. Note: i am not equating it to an all or nothing where welfare policy alone is the single determinant.
Click to expand...

This is just a word game and really doesn't matter. Even if you call it policy, I'd call it a bad one, so we're arguing over the heart of the issue not semantics.

The war on drugs has become the most famous policy blunder. How does our government deal with the issue? In the same fashion that you and Epic feel we should handle the impoverished, sick, etc.... Lock them up and segregate them into a far lower social status and area, that way they will not effect the rest of us. This is known as deterrence theory.
Click to expand...

Lock them up? I'm not for actively putting up barriers for social mobility. Then again, I'm not going to force other people to throw down a ladder to help them get out. I'd do it myself through charity, but my preferred method would be job training or something that makes their work more valuable. This is much more effective than handouts.

If you are going to respond to anything, i ask that it is at least this last question. How successful is deterrence theory in regards to impoverished area's or drug territory?

The poor still have a higher propensity to create crime, and the amped up assault on the illicit drug industry has pushed for windfall profits at the demise of those who are addicted.

There is not an absolute solution, as the world is not black and white....
Click to expand...

It's not about effectiveness, it's about what's right. For me, I'm not going to pay someone more money than I would pay another just because he has a higher propensity to commit crime. I would much rather pay him less.

However, even though that is my primary argument, it is not my sole argument. There is also the utilitarian argument that giving money to the poor because they are more likely to commit crime also creates an incentive to be poor. In the other situation, where we would instead give that money to the police, we incentivize the good behavior.

So giving money to the poor to deter crime fails on a moral level, but it also may fail when you look at indirect effects (reduced crime and higher incentive to be poor versus higher crime but lower incentive to be poor). Trying to figure out which is more valuable in a utilitarian sense is futile, there's no way to figure it out. However, I think that my moral argument sways the argument in my favor.
 
phattonez said:
The intent of giving them money is to thwart theft, but it also creates an incentive to not work. Also, you haven't proven how giving police money (incentivizing good behavior) is not a better way to spend money.

This is just a word game and really doesn't matter. Even if you call it policy, I'd call it a bad one, so we're arguing over the heart of the issue not semantics.

Lock them up? I'm not for actively putting up barriers for social mobility. Then again, I'm not going to force other people to throw down a ladder to help them get out. I'd do it myself through charity, but my preferred method would be job training or something that makes their work more valuable. This is much more effective than handouts.

It's not about effectiveness, it's about what's right. For me, I'm not going to pay someone more money than I would pay another just because he has a higher propensity to commit crime. I would much rather pay him less.

However, even though that is my primary argument, it is not my sole argument. There is also the utilitarian argument that giving money to the poor because they are more likely to commit crime also creates an incentive to be poor. In the other situation, where we would instead give that money to the police, we incentivize the good behavior.

So giving money to the poor to deter crime fails on a moral level, but it also may fail when you look at indirect effects (reduced crime and higher incentive to be poor versus higher crime but lower incentive to be poor). Trying to figure out which is more valuable in a utilitarian sense is futile, there's no way to figure it out. However, I think that my moral argument sways the argument in my favor.
Click to expand...

Ok, i am going to admit that i kind of set you up. There is evidence based policy assessment that backs up my central premise. You might feel that the moral argument is in your favor, yet in doing so you throw objectivity out the door.

Consider the work of Fritz Foley, associate professor of finance at Harvard Business School:

Crime rises when US welfare recipients run short of cash at the end of the month. This column discusses research that links the timing of financially-motivated crime and the timing of welfare payments. Cities that make monthly welfare payments see a clear monthly crime cycle, whereas cities that spread out the payments do not.

Consider an individual who receives support from welfare payments that occur once a month. Several recent papers indicate that this individual is likely to spend this income soon after receiving it and to face severe liquidity constraints. Dobkin and Puller (2007), Shapiro (2005), and Stephens (2003) find that recipients of government income support increase their consumption when these payments arrive and experience increasing marginal utility of consumption in between payments. Adams, Einav, and Levin (forthcoming), Duflo, Gale, Liebman, Orszag, and Saez (2006), and Barr (2004) present evidence that low-income individuals do not save very much and do not have access to credit that would allow them to overcome temporary cash shortfalls.

My research indicates that such welfare recipients deplete welfare-related income quickly and then turn to crime to supplement their income.

Evidence supporting this conclusion comes from analysing data on daily reported incidents of crime from 12 US cities that differ with respect to the timing and frequency of welfare payments. The sample includes cities in which welfare payments are common; I require that more that 10% of the population receive payments from the Food Stamp program, which is the welfare program with the broadest coverage in the United States.

I use two approaches to identify the effects of the timing of welfare payments. First, I split the sample cities into those in which Food Stamp payments occur at the beginning of the month and those in which Food Stamp payments are more staggered. In some jurisdictions, for example, payments to different recipients occur on different days throughout the month while in other jurisdictions, most payments occur at the beginning of the calendar month. Although this sample split is somewhat crude, using it provides support for the hypothesis that individuals attempt to supplement welfare-related income with criminal income once welfare-related income has been deleted.

Figure 1 displays crime rates, computed by taking the number of reported incidents of crime on a particular day in a particular city and dividing that number by the sample period average number of daily reported incidents in the city, averaged over the first five days of the month and the tenth day through end of the month for different subsamples of the data.
Click to expand...

crime rates over the course of a month:

foley_fig1b.JPG


Policy implications:

These results, along with the results of the recent work others have done on the consumption and savings behaviour of the poor, have immediate policy implications. Increasing the frequency of welfare payments would smooth patterns in crime. The levelling of criminal activity would make communities safer because police departments would not become overwhelmed by cyclical spikes. In addition, frequent payments would smooth the consumption patterns of welfare beneficiaries and, consequently, should reduce the extent to which they face dire circumstances because they consumed welfare-related income too quickly. As a result, more frequent payments would lower crime rates. As local and federal governments adopt the use of electronic benefit cards to distribute welfare payments, the costs of making payments more frequently is likely to be low.

The findings also have implications for the deployment of police officers. Many police departments have begun to use their incident data to deploy officers optimally across the jurisdictions they serve and to study the timing of criminal activity across hours of the day and days of the week. Less attention has been paid to monthly patterns. In jurisdictions where welfare payments are distributed at the beginning of the month, increased levels of criminal activity later in the month call for increased police protection at that time. Providing this protection requires fairly flexible labour laws that are not common in many cities or countries.
Click to expand...

source

So while you feel you are on the higher moral ground (like religion), empirical evidence is on my side. Without a welfare system, crime would be far worse than it is now. You cannot refute this!

I win!:2wave:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Ok, i am going to admit that i kind of set you up. There is evidence based policy assessment that backs up my central premise. You might feel that the moral argument is in your favor, yet in doing so you throw objectivity out the door.

Consider the work of Fritz Foley, associate professor of finance at Harvard Business School:

crime rates over the course of a month:

foley_fig1b.JPG




source

So while you feel you are on the higher moral ground (like religion), empirical evidence is on my side. Without a welfare system, crime would be far worse than it is now. You cannot refute this!

I win!:2wave:
Click to expand...


I wouldn't quite claim that victory so fast there, this merely suggests crime caused by welfare recipients would be higher, which really wouldn't have that much of an effect on overall crime rates, amirite? The Moral high-ground is probably better in this debate because no one wants to be correct on the side of lazy, good for nothing criminals. :\

just my opinion
 
EpicDude86 said:
I wouldn't quite claim that victory so fast there, this merely suggests crime caused by welfare recipients would be higher, which really wouldn't have that much of an effect on overall crime rates, amirite? The Moral high-ground is probably better in this debate because no one wants to be correct on the side of lazy, good for nothing criminals. :\

just my opinion
Click to expand...

How would an increase in a specific demographic's crime rate have little effect on overall crime rates? I am curious as to how you came to this conclusion;)

Sorry Epic, i win hands down. Morality is quite over rated.... There is more empirical evidence where this came from!
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
So while you feel you are on the higher moral ground (like religion),
Click to expand...

Don't even bring religion into this.

empirical evidence is on my side. Without a welfare system, crime would be far worse than it is now. You cannot refute this!

I win!:2wave:
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Your study didn't go far enough. I didn't argue the point you made that giving money to the poor decreases crime. Your data supports it and the theory makes sense. However, your study does not take into account how much of an incentive welfare creates to become poor and how this incentive increases the total pool of poor people and whether this increase in poor people offsets the benefits of the crime reduction created by the welfare (that was a mouthful).
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
How would an increase in a specific demographic's crime rate have little effect on overall crime rates? I am curious as to how you came to this conclusion;)

Sorry Epic, i win hands down. Morality is quite over rated....
Click to expand...

What percentage of the population is on welfare in this country? Then what percentage of that percentage are the ones who commit crimes to supplement their welfare incomes?

Then tell me that number has a significant effect on crime rates on a larger scale than just neighborhood by neighborhood, and then we'll talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom