Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But again, I think you are missing the main point that Valley Native, myself, and others are stressing.....handouts that exist without accountability, with no time limits, are ripe for abuse and make no mistake, there's lots of abuse and it is an enabler of potentially making it too easy for people to take the lazy way out. I think if you get into thinking a bit more gray, instead of the all or nothing mode of thought, you might see where some of us are coming from.
Being a student of history, you know what went on during the great depression. You realize there were no safety nets that we have today and though it wasn't pretty, people somehow managed to survive without causing widespread violence and rioting that you seem to assume will automatically happen when we pull the perpetual handouts to people without limits. I'm sure you're aware during the great depression, people who hit hard times banded together to help each other out, they seeked out work(any kind of work) they could and took that work, and didn't have an entitled attitude and whine that it was beneath them to say, shovel horse manure if they had to earn a buck. They patched their clothes, did bartering, grew their own food where they could, canned it, etc. Yes, that all requires work, thought, and planning. And people made it work during those hard times. Ain't happening today as many have an entitled attitude, expect more things from the gov. Our genetics didn't change that much in a few generations to allow an excuse that somehow today things are different from back then. Though attitude I think certainly has changed. I think they had a different ethic during that generation that I think is largely missing today. My example was to bring up a simple point.....somehow our society didn't go crazy, fall apart, wide-spread violence didn't occur, etc during some very tough times that most people in this country haven't come close to experiencing.....yet your theory of what should happen to people didn't. People kept it together. Attitude. And based on local police records from the great depression era and from research from scholars that have done more work than you and I on the subject have discovered that crime actually went down during the great depression. And of course that's before the "New Deal" so all our wonderful freebies we have now didn't exist then:
And we are a far different society than your example of Somalia you used in your example. There is plenty of work and opportunities here(higher education, many of it free if your poor enough) for people who are willing to take some effort and seek it out, get educated, change their lives IF they want to change their lives. I think the bottom line is it sounds like you are saying about 100 million people who are taking some sort of freebies are all victims and can't change and will strike violence if we don't keep the freebies coming without limits. That's a big Non-sequitur.
Given the huge growth in people taking welfare over the last few decades, especially over the last 10 years, and the costs involved with this and less and less people working and doing more taking, I think your theory of a society getting ugly can come to pass. Unless you believe the magic money printers of monopoly money will continue forever and ever and having more people taking than working is the way to sustain a productive and prosperous society, I think that's where your concerns should be focused. Ignore at your own risk.
You have a whitewashed view of how Americans behaved during the Great Depression. You need to review your history. Crime rates SOARED during the Great Depression. So did social unrest. Even military vets contributed to the social unrest. Some 10,000+ military vets and their women and children descended on Washington DC in 1932 demanding a bonus they had been promised by the government. President Hoover called in the military to roust them out from their shantytown (with Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur in charge). In a bloody attack that's still a stain on the history of the U.S. military, active military solders charged the military vets with bayonets and tear gas. Two babies of vets died and local hospitals were swamped with injured. And that was just one of many riots that took place.
And this was within just a couple of years of start of the depression. If things had gone on the way they were, it would have gotten a whole lot worse. By 1932, people were growing frustrated and angry at the GOP administrations' inaction. Hoovers idea of mostly just sitting and waiting for the economy to heal itself was just not acceptable - hence the landslide victory of Roosevelt. Once he came in, he immediate took a proactive stance with all kinds of new government programs to help provide that social stability and the country began to calm down (though it still took a while).
We were NOT a "peaceful" nation during the Great Depression.
Does welfare get abused? Of course it does. Some people will abuse anything. Does that change the fact that nations still have to provide a safety net to ensure social stability? Nope.
Ken
PS - the article you link to is just not accurate (or at the very least, misleading). It talks about crime rates over a short period of time. Crime rates and social instability don't necessarily start to rise IMMEDIATE after a major economic collapse. It takes a while for people's frustration to begin to build. Looking at crime statistics just 1 or 2 years after the onset of economic troubles doesn't really give you a picture of what's down the road. If conditions do not improve the crime rates will get higher and higher as time goes by.
The U.S. murder rate for example hit its' peak in 1933 and then began dropping as the government began serious efforts to address the bad economic conditions (by 1938 it had fallen by 1/3). It didn't get back to that 1933 high again for nearly 50 years.
Other crimes increased as well. According to the FBIs' Uniform Crime Report, burglaries for example went up from a base index of 249.7/day in 1930 to 342.5/day (an increase of over 30% in just 3 years) in 1933.
Although accurate crime statistics are hard to come by, the whole contention that crime didn't go up during the Great Depression is just utter nonsense. All the author is doing is cherry picking data over a select period of time.
The final thing to keep in mind that, yes - people did grow and can more of their own food in the 1930s. Today that's much harder to do because more people than ever live in high-density urban areas.
Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-01-2015 at 08:46 AM..
You have a whitewashed view of how Americans behaved during the Great Depression. You need to review your history. Crime rates SOARED during the Great Depression. So did social unrest. Even military vets contributed to the social unrest. Some 10,000+ military vets and their women and children descended on Washington DC in 1932 demanding a bonus they had been promised by the government. President Hoover called in the military to roust them out from their shantytown (with Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur in charge). In a bloody attack that's still a stain on the history of the U.S. military, active military solders charged the military vets with bayonets and tear gas. Two babies of vets died and local hospitals were swamped with injured. And that was just one of many riots that took place.
And this was within just a couple of years of start of the depression. If things had gone on the way they were, it would have gotten a whole lot worse. By 1932, people were growing frustrated and angry at the GOP administrations' inaction. Hoovers idea of mostly just sitting and waiting for the economy to heal itself was just not acceptable - hence the landslide victory of Roosevelt. Once he came in, he immediate took a proactive stance with all kinds of new government programs to help provide that social stability and the country began to calm down (though it still took a while).
We were NOT a "peaceful" nation during the Great Depression.
Does welfare get abused? Of course it does. Some people will abuse anything. Does that change the fact that nations still have to provide a safety net to ensure social stability? Nope.
Ken
PS - the article you link to is just not accurate (or at the very least, misleading). It talks about crime rates over a short period of time. Crime rates and social instability don't necessarily start to rise IMMEDIATE after a major economic collapse. It takes a while for people's frustration to begin to build. Looking at crime statistics just 1 or 2 years after the onset of economic troubles doesn't really give you a picture of what's down the road. If conditions do not improve the crime rates will get higher and higher as time goes by.
The U.S. murder rate for example hit its' peak in 1933 and then began dropping as the government began serious efforts to address the bad economic conditions (by 1938 it had fallen by 1/3). It didn't get back to that 1933 high again for nearly 50 years.
Other crimes increased as well. According to the FBIs' Uniform Crime Report, burglaries for example went up from a base index of 249.7/day in 1930 to 342.5/day (an increase of over 30% in just 3 years) in 1933.
Although accurate crime statistics are hard to come by, the whole contention that crime didn't go up during the Great Depression is just utter nonsense. All the author is doing is cherry picking data over a select period of time.
The final thing to keep in mind that, yes - people did grow and can more of their own food in the 1930s. Today that's much harder to do because more people than ever live in high-density urban areas.
I can say the same thing for your stats...you are cherry picking specific events to make your point. The point scholar Glen Elder(who again did much more research than you and I/is much more well versed on the subject) is taking about overall crime rate during the depression and found the rate dropped as compared to other times based on local police records. The article I sent you made the point that you made above.....crime data wasn't globally collected as it is today but he used local police records which is a pretty darn good source in my book. If you have access to more data that he didn't have, than you can correct him.
As for Roosevelt and the "new deal", many in history will argue WWII and its job creation did more to get the US out of the depression more than anything so your speculation and of others that the "new deal" made it all go away is hard to prove. Again, I'm not arguing against some form of temporary social net....I'm arguing against the abuse of what it has become in our society today in allowing things to go on perpetually. AZ's law of 12 months is plenty in my book for the vast majority of people.
Regardless, it sounds like you're making the point again that crime/social unrest doesn't exist much when handouts exist. Look at what's going on now in inner cities crime wise, things you specifically mentioned like prostitution, and all the recent protests and the violence/destruction that has occurred as a result in just the last year. I guess those areas still need more money to make it right? And not to mention the overall violence, gangs, drugs, etc. Billion and billions of dollars spent and lots of welfare certainly hasn't made this all go away. Your argument is like saying keep throwing money at education and school systems will perform just fine. That's been proven completely false.
As for food in urban areas, today people in these urban climates have cheap fast food at their disposal. They won't be the healthiest if they eat certain types of this food but it's cheap and they won't starve, even making low wages. Heck, as I recall, working at some of these restaurants, at least in the past, one could get a free meal allowance by working there. And pick a healthier restaurant to work at that gives meal allowances and there you go.
Personal choice? Or endless excuses? Personal choice to me for most people. And you feel most people are victims who need access to perpetual handouts as if they don't get them, they'll throw a temper tantrum on society. Not healthy as a parent to give into this for a kid acting in this manner and not healthy to enable adults for the same reason. I think that summarizes our different views.
Send them to Alabama. Our "low cost of living" ought to suit them well. FYI, our unemployment paid PER WEEK is 250.00.
I'm sure anyone can make that work, can't they?
Of course, I"m being wildly sarcastic. Our nation has been polarized for a long, long time. Probably always will be, as the land was invaded by settlers who killed the original residents. Then those settlers brought over slaves against their will.
Send them to Alabama. Our "low cost of living" ought to suit them well. FYI, our unemployment paid PER WEEK is 250.00.
I'm sure anyone can make that work, can't they?
Of course, I"m being wildly sarcastic. Our nation has been polarized for a long, long time. Probably always will be, as the land was invaded by settlers who killed the original residents. Then those settlers brought over slaves against their will.
One nation United, Under God...blah blah blah.
unemployment isn't "welfare", it's insurance, paid for by a tax on your *wages*. That means you have to have a history of working, not mooching off the government. Your employer can object to the payment of unemployment & many do, just for spite.
Arizona's max benefit is $240 - afaik, the only state with a lower weekly benefit is louisiana.
It's important to note that by relativity we already provide abysmal services for our poor, yet we already have a large impoverished population. You can say that minimum wage and welfare aren't meant to be permanent. But Pima Co. And Tucson rank as the 6th poorest large metro. Our crown jewel metro is very mediocre economically.
The measure of a society of by how well we look out for each other. Until we elect people who live here, consider it their home and community, and see that the problems we are facing could be easily mitigated we will always be a funding hole.
Look at what Utah does for its homeless while saving money in the long run.
Seattles minimum wage hike pulls people off EBT and public benefits by making them ineligible. This is a proper and smart way to govern, not this mess AZ enjoys finding itself in.
The measure of a society of by how well we look out for each other.
And why does "how well we look out for each other" always seem to mean "what kind of programs an inefficient and corrupt government has"? If we want to look out for each other, and I believe as a whole we do, perhaps we should look at ourselves as individuals. What are WE doing to help each other? Forget the government; it is but a third party that takes a cut.
And your Seattle minimum wage claim is as of yet unsupported. Time will tell whether it works or not; there are theories to go either way.
And why does "how well we look out for each other" always seem to mean "what kind of programs an inefficient and corrupt government has"? If we want to look out for each other, and I believe as a whole we do, perhaps we should look at ourselves as individuals. What are WE doing to help each other? Forget the government; it is but a third party that takes a cut.
And your Seattle minimum wage claim is as of yet unsupported. Time will tell whether it works or not; there are theories to go either way.
Theories do go one way or another.
Walmart has the largest share of any employer to employees receiving public assistance. This makes the jobs Walmart creates a net drain on the areas they are located in. Does AZ need 15/hr, hardly. Would it be cheaper for the taxpayer if Walmart payed their employees enough to where they don't need public assistance? YES. Before we say Walmart isn't supposed to a permanent deal consider that Walmart is Phoenix's largest private employer, one of Tucson's and one of the State's largest employer.
We can say what ought to be, but the reality is we simply lack living wages for a large portion of our state's population, and we encourage it by attracting terrible employers and things like Call Centers then pat ourselves on the backs. We fund our University system, which are outstanding, but we throw our graduates into a retail and poverty wage economy, that's a wasted investment. Our governor is being short sighted with his austerity measures. You defund ASU and UA whom both attract large amounts of Federal Grants (read $$) for their local communities, UA alone bolsters Tucson's economy a few slots higher than it would otherwise be, to save a little. It's called investing in our state, it's clear that we have no interest in a long term future here in AZ.
I survived a few years ago on $9.50/hr for a year here in Tucson but less would have been a real struggle. Our COL allows for lower wages than Seattle or LA. But I do think we should be considering something to their effect if we actually want to save money.
I can say the same thing for your stats...you are cherry picking specific events to make your point. The point scholar Glen Elder(who again did much more research than you and I/is much more well versed on the subject) is taking about overall crime rate during the depression and found the rate dropped as compared to other times based on local police records. The article I sent you made the point that you made above.....crime data wasn't globally collected as it is today but he used local police records which is a pretty darn good source in my book. If you have access to more data that he didn't have, than you can correct him.
As for Roosevelt and the "new deal", many in history will argue WWII and its job creation did more to get the US out of the depression more than anything so your speculation and of others that the "new deal" made it all go away is hard to prove. Again, I'm not arguing against some form of temporary social net....I'm arguing against the abuse of what it has become in our society today in allowing things to go on perpetually. AZ's law of 12 months is plenty in my book for the vast majority of people.
Regardless, it sounds like you're making the point again that crime/social unrest doesn't exist much when handouts exist. Look at what's going on now in inner cities crime wise, things you specifically mentioned like prostitution, and all the recent protests and the violence/destruction that has occurred as a result in just the last year. I guess those areas still need more money to make it right? And not to mention the overall violence, gangs, drugs, etc. Billion and billions of dollars spent and lots of welfare certainly hasn't made this all go away. Your argument is like saying keep throwing money at education and school systems will perform just fine. That's been proven completely false.
As for food in urban areas, today people in these urban climates have cheap fast food at their disposal. They won't be the healthiest if they eat certain types of this food but it's cheap and they won't starve, even making low wages. Heck, as I recall, working at some of these restaurants, at least in the past, one could get a free meal allowance by working there. And pick a healthier restaurant to work at that gives meal allowances and there you go.
Personal choice? Or endless excuses? Personal choice to me for most people. And you feel most people are victims who need access to perpetual handouts as if they don't get them, they'll throw a temper tantrum on society. Not healthy as a parent to give into this for a kid acting in this manner and not healthy to enable adults for the same reason. I think that summarizes our different views.
The reality is what the reality is. Social safety nets exist for a REASON. Taking care of the poor happens for a REASON. I never said there was no crime in poor areas. The fact that there IS higher crime in poor areas pretty much PROVES my point. Throughout history, in every nation and every culture crime has been highest where the people are the most destitute - and the greater the level of poverty the greater the level of crime and civil unrest. You may not want to admit that, but those are FACTS. Social safety nets exist to keep those crime and civil unrest levels at acceptable levels. There will ALWAYS be people who are poor. The key is to keep them from being totally destitute so that they don't revolt.
Again, if you really think you can prove that social safety nets are not a good idea, show me a successful country that doesn't have them. You won't be able to come up with one because NO country is successful without them. And in fact the LEAST successful countries on the planet are those without them. The list of nations without such safety nets are a who's who of failed and failing nations (Somalia, Ethiopia, Botswana, Afghanistan - to name a few). That is no coincidence.
In regards to the New Deal, I know many folks on the Right claim it was WWII that ended the Great Depression. While it is true that WWII put the nails in the coffin of the Great Depression, unemployment fell at the fastest rate EVER during the New Deal - going back up somewhat only in 1938 when the New Deal was scaled back a bit too early over GOP concerns about the rising deficit. The UE rate fell by more than 10 points (from 24.75 to 14.18) from 1933 to 1937 - that's an incredible drop that's never been matched before or since - the largest 4-year drop ever. There's a REASON FDR was re-elected so many times - the American people SAW the improvements in their lives. Rightwing attempts to re-write the past will never change that.
In the final analysis, the arguments that social safety nets are not needed is really silly and simply not backed up by the facts. The ONLY legitimate question, is "how much is sufficient?" - and NO ONE knows the answer to that - not you, not me, not anyone. Has Arizona overdone it's welfare cuts? I don't know. All I DO know for sure is that no successful nation can survive without SOME form of social safety net.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-17-2015 at 09:39 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
have discovered that crime actually went down during the great depression. And of course that's before the "New Deal" so all our wonderful freebies we have now didn't exist then:
And not to mention the overall violence, gangs, drugs, etc. Billion and billions of dollars spent and lots of welfare certainly hasn't made this all go away. Your argument is like saying keep throwing money at education and school systems will perform just fine. That's been proven completely false. 
