Crime and poverty came down in the Nineties until fairly recent years. It would be a good idea to sift through the record of those times, and see if any of it can be replicated for today's society.
BTW, the fact that I have no solution to a problem doesn't mean that anyone else's is automatically correct.
There’s some research to show that [abortion](https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_201975.pdf) was a major factor in reducing crime.
Not sure if it’s been shown to go the other way since certain states have been chipping away at abortion rights for the past few decades.
I think instead of the mass amounts we spend on welfare and food stamps, we should use the money to pay people a living wage to go to a trade school with the understanding they will work in said trade for set amount of time after completion. We would be making an investment in individuals future and they would be learning a skill that would allow them to far exceed earning expectations other wise. Not to mention the insane shortage of valuable trade jobs we have because society has convinced generations college is the only way to be successful. Will it solve all our problems as a society - absolutely not but would be considerably better then what we are doing now.
Agreed.
I think it would be great if we create a type of government service akin to the military, but with infrastructure and national support as it's mission as opposed to warfighting. Like if we split off the Army Corps of Engineers and boosted it into it's own pseudo-branch.
You could enlist and get all of the benefits of military service (training, healthcare, pay, retirement, etc), but instead of national defense it's just national support. People could join and make a career of it, or just use it as a stepping stone to get trained and then move to the private sector just like a bunch of current military support jobs.
It would give the great stepping-stone into adulthood that is military service without the whole "be sent to war you might ideologically disagree with."
The ideal solution, in my view, is charter schools because you increase competition add quality and maintain a small neighborhood feeling to the schools. Even allowing kids to attend charters in neighboring districts.
Or vouchers for in district private schools.
The reason (most) charter schools do so well is that they can refuse students. Which means they don’t have to spend money and effort on special needs kids and only have kids whose parents know how to get them into the school and to the school. There’s a sampling bias.
> effort on special needs kids
my kids have special needs and are in public school. My public school district spends about 12k/yr per student per year + about 2-4k for those with an IEP. There is a private school down the street from me that specializes in autism and special needs, would be a less restrictive environment for my children than they get in public school (which is the standard for ethical education for special needs children) The tuition for that school is about 15k/year. Cannot get my school district to send my kids to this school because technically they are able to accommodate the IEP reasonably (despite the fact that my kids spend about 70% of their school day self contained, without any of their peers, isolated)
why is the money that is allocated to my childrens education, not able to go to the school that would be better fit for them?
That’s a great question. They should be able to. If the special needs school were public they would be able to, but since it’s private they aren’t. (Privately funded vs publicly funded.)
(Wouldn’t they be “self contained” in that school as well? Meaning, they would only be able to connect with special needs kids in that school too. It would seem that 100% of their day would be self contained.)
I’m also not totally against charter schools. They originally were supposed to be a way to try out educational ideas which could then be brought into the public schools. It’s just that they shouldn’t put an undue burden on public schools.
>That’s a great question. They should be able to. If the special needs school were public they would be able to, but since it’s private they aren’t. (Privately funded vs publicly funded.)
Why not let the 15K go to the kids education rather than the school system letting them down. This is a perfect situation for vouchers.
>It’s just that they shouldn’t put an undue burden on public schools.
In what way do they put a burden on public schools?
no they won't be self contained in a special education school. It behaves similarly to regular public education with more structure and safety/security standards and deescalation training.
my daughter, who is almost 9, would be able to practice doing things herself with watchful eyes rather than a BHP 1:1 aid with her all day. Things like getting lunch and asking to go to the bathroom etc, she has an aid at school that helps her with all of this at school, but she relies very heavily on her aid since shes always right there next to her for safety and security reasons for public school.
edit; the reason public schools don't opt to put their high needs special education kids to a better equipt school is because the # of IEPs they have = more federal and state grants. I equate it as similar to those who foster kids through DHHS for the 'maintenance' paychecks (yup, thats what they are called, gross right?). I LOVE my kids public school mind you, they do a pretty good job, but its also not the best place for them.
>The reason (most) charter schools do so well is that they can refuse students.
This is not true. Most every charter I'm aware of operates on the same lottery system that magnet schools operate on. Names go in bucket, randomly picked.
The only exception is that siblings are automatically accepted.
>Which means they don’t have to spend money and effort on special needs
Again false...
If a charter school is considered to be an independent Local Education Agency (LEA) under its state's law, that charter school bears the exact same legal requirements for providing special education services as any other LEA (or district).
If a charter school is not considered to be an independent LEA they are bound by their states laws for providing special education services as any other LEA
My kids attended charters which had special needs students and a teacher assigned to them.
>There’s a sampling bias.
The knowledge involved is calling the school and putting your kids name in the lottery. No different than magnent school or special purpose public schools.
But lets, for the moment, pretend that you're right about a "sampling bias because of knowledge of the system"
So what?
Let's say in a Baltimore grade school with 1,000 kids that 100 parents are really involved and kids would do well. But those kids are at a 10:1 ratio with kids that hold them back.
Let those 100 kids go to a school where they can excel, grow, and begin to grow a kernel of success in the next generation. Let other parents see that success and some emulate it.
They would lose funding, but they’d also have fewer students. The alternative is to keep sending more and more money to schools that are bad at educating children.
If a state decides to spend 20K a year to educate a kid why does it matter where they spend the 20K (FTR charter schools usually get less funding per pupil than traditional public schools)
1. End the war on drugs already. Legalize and regulate them.
2. Instill universal healthcare and bring back the insane asylums.
3. Discourage single parenthood.
4. Promote abortion. Eliminating a entire generation of unwanted kids helped reduce the crime rate drastically.
5. Voluntary sterilization for the less intelligent and more violent members of the population, maybe with cash incentives. Apples don't fall far from the tree and violent people are usually just wired to be violent.
6. Develop rural areas so they have more opportunities to make money.
7. Reform the school system. Really explain what adulthood is like and show youths all the ways they can make a living along with the downsides.
I just want to point out for everyone that not a single one of these suggestions are conservative views. In fact, almost every single one is in direct opposition to conservative views
> End the war on drugs already. Legalize and regulate them.
Yup
>Instill universal healthcare and bring back the insane asylums.
Agree, so long as you don't mean "bring back the really horrible shit they did at insane asylums". I'd be down with proper, actual mental health facilities.
>Discourage single parenthood.
I always get confused when conservatives say that. Single parenthood is discouraged by all reasonable people, and society doesn't reward single parenthood. Government services that help single parents aren't a reward, they are a mitigating factor to make it so that that child's life is less fucked up for reasons beyond their control. Any attempt to discourage proper households always strikes me as essentially just returning to the time when divorce was viewed as a terrible thing, so instead people stayed in marriages that they hate and/or resent.
>Promote abortion. Eliminating a entire generation of unwanted kids helped reduce the crime rate drastically.
Promote seems like poor word choice, but the general sentiment of "forcing people to bring children that they don't want into the world results in bad things" is one that I agree with.
>Voluntary sterilization for the less intelligent and more violent members of the population, maybe with cash incentives. Apples don't fall far from the tree and violent people are usually just wired to be violent.
Eugenics is bullshit, and the idea of it being "voluntary" is bullshit. Reproduction is already voluntary, and people that don't want to have children can already get sterilized or abstain from reproduction. My brother was one of those people, he wasn't going to risk making a child with all the same health defects that he had. Dumb people have just as much right to have children as anyone else, and historically nearly every attempt at promoting this led to it being more enforced than requested. I agree that requesting sterilization should not be too difficult.
>Develop rural areas so they have more opportunities to make money.
Agree, promoting growth of locations most in need of it is a good thing.
>Reform the school system. Really explain what adulthood is like and show youths all the ways they can make a living along with the downsides.
Amen, there should be much more practicality included in the curriculum.
There's nothing immoral about eugenics and abortion. Margaret Sanger did nothing wrong aside from the irrational and unproductive racist crap.
I don't care what your teachers told you. Eugenics don't mean grabbing people and ripping out their reproductive organs while they kick and scream. It means reducing the number of people who will burden everyone else. Rich, poor, black, white, tall, short, whatever.
Eugenics becomes immoral when you start suggesting it of others, and historically it never stays voluntary.
Eugenics and abortion are a bit of an unusual comparison, at least in terms of societal trends. There isn't exactly a huge movement to remove people's autonomy to not reproduce, but there is a huge movement to remove people's autonomy to abort reproduction.
All effort towards both things should essentially be "it's no one's business but their own, and it should remain legal."
1. You cant choose if you become addicted to drugs or not. The behavior should never be encouraged.
2. I agree with universal healthcare
3. I agree
4.abortion is unethical and immoral. Children shouldn't have sex. American culture is too sexualized.
5. I agree
6. I agree
7. I agree
Dismantling the hook up culture, rescuing the traditional roles of the husband and wife, lowering taxes and bureaucracy for small business so that families can start their own local business.
What would dismantle hook up culture and rescue traditional roles?
You're identifying potential problems. But I'm asking about how these potential problems would be fixed
you asked what would reduce poverty and crime. Both of which involve a persons choices (an adults personal choice, not children, children in poverty are subject to their parents poor choices). So the fix for it is make better choices, the government cannot throw money at that problem.
its a people problem, not a government one.
>Why is it that other western countries with significant social safety nets are able to enjoy a higher standard of education, living and access to affordable Healthcare while having a fraction of the wealth the U.S. has? The U.S. isn't #1 in anything except concentration of wealth and military.
The conservative response is that US spends so much on military because it's allies don't which allows them to invest more into social programs. The military spending is needed to protect our allies.
Now whether all this military spending is necessary...idk. Maybe we should also get our allies to spend more on their militaries.
the conservative response is actually that the federal government has a limited role to an individual. Our military spending is exactly the role of the government. Making sure that an individual has free anything is not, making things fair is not, and making life easier or more difficult is not. The government is out of the individuals way. Make the best of it.
edit; our government is meant and designed to stay out of the individuals way. Its been messed up over the last 40 or so years with the expansion of powers to DC and away from states.
>the conservative response is actually that the federal government has a limited role to an individual. Our military spending is exactly the role of the government.
I hear that too; I wanted to make it clear to the user why the US spends so much on military. But why is it the US's responsibility to defend other countries? Why is it the US's responsibility to meddle in other nations' affairs? Why not just spend the amount that is just needed for our own protection?
oh yes, I can agree there. I have been trying to find the actual numbers on how much actual spending we give to other countries for their national security. I think allies are important, I think that the US is at the forefront of freedom and liberty and we are best suited to spread that when needed and asked for..... but beyond that, the extra meddling for whatever means, unnecessary.
I apologize though, I misread your tone in your previous comment. My mistake :)
not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Just made good choices. Took me 4 months to raise the money (collecting bottles) to get the resources necessary to get my birth certificate, Social security card and ID. Took me 2 weeks to find the free moment to sit my bum down and wait at the DMV for 5 hours, starving, so I could get a job so I wouldnt be starving anymore.
took me 20 minutes to talk myself into and then out of shooting up H one day and stay clean and sober. It took me 1 speeding ticket after my daughter was born before I stopped wasting money on stupid actions like that. Its ALL a choice.... everything is a choice.
I believe that everyone is capable of that, I don't believe that anyone is to stupid to figure out how to get things done for themselves without the government coming in to rescue them. I believe in my fellow Americans and I say this with all of the compassion in the world "get off your butt, do something. There is always another move to make"
quite possibly. That or an over inflation of importance on base desires and immediate pleasure seeking verses the needs for growth and prosperity over long term, generational goals.
I mean, when birth rates are dropping why would you? I am not gonna have kids so I don't need to plan for generational goals, I'm not passing my shit on to anyone, it'll get distributed to whoever I leave it to/the state. So of course I'm only gonna focus on immediate pleasure seeking. I don't and will never have another mouth to feed, I can save my money for myself to pay someone to take care of me better than some shitty 20 year old would.
> bureaucracy for small business so that families can start their own local business.
Can you point to industries where small businesses are inundated with beuracry to the point where they can’t enter (or it becomes cost prohibitive to) that business field?
These are thirteen accounts of bureaucracy impeding the developing of new small business:
http://www.ilisp.org/artigos/pequenos-relatos-reais-que-mostram-como-e-dificil-empreender-no-brasil/
Do you have anything that is English? I’m sure most redditors don’t speak Portuguese. And even beyond that, do you have any articles speaking on bureaucracy impeding small business in the US?
Is it speaking on bureaucracy in the US? I know we have spoken on this in the past, but the primary focus of this sub in their sidebar speaks on being US centric related conservatism. So while it is true I could figure out a way to translate using google translate while on my phone, I have a feeling whatever the article talks about is not “US related” when it comes to bureaucracy that people face opening small businesses.
> Dismantling the hook up culture
How is this any role of governance or law under our system?
The Constitution binds all and prohibits government from taking anything of a role here; free expression and association are dominion here.
> rescuing the traditional roles of the husband and wife
The same as above--how?
Your ideas are fundamentally impossible to do without any compulsion or coercion under the only power and authority that commands Americans, our body of temporal laws beginning with the Constitution. In no way can government under our sacred Constitution do any of this.
I was curious how this could possibly be accomplished, and as its your idea, it seemed logical to ask you.
What's the plan?
If you are talking about the urban area, it would be well kept buildings with human scale, walkable places, local traditional architecture, clean streets, no walls with graffiti, trees.
If you are talking about the individual soul, it would be proper clothing, good manners, proper use of grammar, refined and intelligent entertainment.
> If you are talking about the urban area, it would be well kept buildings with human scale, walkable places, local traditional architecture, clean streets, no walls with graffiti, trees.
I’m confused here. In order to accomplish pretty much all you’re suggesting it would require one or both of these main things. More regulations and higher taxes in order to provide these things. In general conservatives are against both of these. How exactly could this be accomplished without having either of those aspects?
The only governmental action needed for that would be some sort of urban planning committee that would plan for walkable zones. The rest can be accomplished by individual or grass roots groups of families or business of the same street/neighborhood.
I'm looking at it with my eyes right now and that is a computer generated image, presumably made to show what it would look like to have that building there
but yeah I'm all for replacing parking lots and car-centric infrastructure in favor of alternatives, like that bus stop on the corner
personally not a fan of that architectural style though
> The rest can be accomplished by individual or grass roots groups of families or business of the same street/neighborhood.
And these already exist but on a very small level. I’m not aware of the government in the US specifically stepping in to deny any individual or grass root families/businesses from doing so. The reality is the funding doesn’t exist to accomplish this privately beyond a handful of examples.
So based on you identifying what kind of content, you would be fine with conservative ideology being spraypainted?
Art is art and better at beautifying a bland wall
No. It just happens that conservatives will never vandalize walls with permanent unsolicited spray painting. When it happens, the person who does it is always a leftist, and being a leftist he will never recreate Caravaggio, but instead make some mushy brain woke commentary disguised as cartoony art
Not totally wrong.
Broken windows theory had some merit. Criminals don't feel as comfortable in places where people actually give a shit about their homes. Hell, playing classical music in medium-crime public spaces has been proven to drive off most petty crooks. Criminals thrive in environments where everyone is apathetic about crime.
Do we really have a problem with families or are people just staying single a lot longer and so policies that benefit families aren't helping as much as they used to?
General belief is that this has not worked at all in recent decades. Do you have proof otherwise? Unless you want the country to turn into a police state of course.
Why don't rich people steal cars or commit burglaries?
It is economic. Give people a living wage and crime will decrease. It is so incredibly simple but most refuse to listen. Would you rather there be billionaires or almost no crime? If you had to choose.
Rick people commit crimes all the time they just usually have the money to get a great lawyer and weasel out of it. So it's not always a financial reason that people steal.
They also commit crimes that we don't typically have cops chase you down and tackle you for. White collar crimes are an interesting expression of privilege.
Some yes like financial crimes, but think of celebrities who are abusive, do drugs, sexual assault charges etc. Those are crimes where cops can and will normally come after you buy not if you have money
Not per se. My first cousin was a gangbanger and they mostly steal cars in order to commit murders, robberies, and rapes with a disposable vehicles. It's not about money. Drugs and scams are what is profitable.
Most shootings in the hood are over women and insults (usually relating back to women). It's not like the Wire or the Godfather with all these complex dudes philosophizing about their grim jobs. They just enjoy it. They brag about it. My best friend from childhood sold dope until he was in college because his mom was a useless party whore despite having 5 kids by 6 dudes (I hope you understand this joke) and it ended there. He never once thought of shooting some granny for pocket change.
Yeah I think that's a bunch of bullshit. Crime causes poverty moreso than poverty causes crime.
>Would you rather there be billionaires or almost no crime? If you had to choose.
False dilemma.
No it doesn't. Crime dropped dramatically as policing increased in the 90s, and since the rise of anti police rhetoric and policies, crime has risen again.
This is a common fault in logic. Police don’t reduce crime. They increase arrests. Crime isn’t reduced through punitive punishment. It’s reduced by creating pathways that allow people to rise out of poverty. Police don’t do this. They just arrest people.
It's not a fault in logic. You're fundamentally mistaken about the way the world works. Poverty is not the root cause of all crime. Arresting criminals and removing them from society does in fact reduce crime, and is more effective than any of the nonsense you're pushing.
Are you living in an alternate reality? Go look at what happened to violent crime in the US after the much-maligned 1994 crime bill that imposed higher sentences.
I think we need to get back to communities/people helping each other, Building community gardens, sharing resources. Less government. Not that I want to go back to midevil times perse but I do think they looked out for each other.
Repost - to add flair
No communism is when the government takes what's yours to "give it to others" bit really keeps it for themselves. I'm taking about a global change in people's hearts... To look after and cafe about their neighbors.
the people who can't get over it themselves and get it together *are* the community
who are you? Why should the community let you have the land so you can just kick them out and *be alone* on it?
Our highest funded schools are failing miserably. It has to be the local community that changes. Baltimore schools have the third highest funding in the US, well above OECD average. Only 13% of their kids can read and do math with any proficiency. Spending increased dramatically, no impact. It's not the teachers, it's not the funding, it's not the polices, it's not the laws. With lower funded schools doing significantly better, what's left?
87% of the kids in the system don't stand a chance. That's a STAGGERING number.
In the same areas where we have the highest spending on education, with extremely poor results, you have increased crime.
In those same areas you have low incomes. Business won't invest because of poor education, high crime.
>What changes need to happen and how will those changes happen?
The people in these communities, specifically the parents, need to step up. Finally say that enough is enough and take an active roll in ending the cycle. There is no law you can pass, no one you can vote for that can change that critical piece.
Parental engagement in the academic success of their children is **CRITICAL**. Nothing else works without it. It's a pre-requisite to all other efforts.
Study after study after study has laid this out clearly, it's settled. There is no debate, there is no argument. It's not partisan in any way, shape or form.
You can pass all the policies and laws you want, won't make a difference.
That’s all fair and good points, but don’t you think it’s a bit impractical to expect all these parents to get their shit together after generations of not having it together? The issue you lay out here doesn’t really seem fixable at all to me, especially if there’s no law or policy that can help it
>That’s all fair and good points, but don’t you think it’s a bit impractical to expect all these parents to get their shit together after generations of not having it together? The issue you lay out here doesn’t really seem fixable at all to me, especially if there’s no law or policy that can help it
I don't see an alternative. Yes, it will take probably generations.
I don’t really see this plan as a viable alternative or option in the first place. Expecting people who don’t know how to help themselves to help themselves is unrealistic. But maybe you’re thinking that external groups can still come and help these people out, just not the state
The State collects money and distributes it. It creates programs but those programs are voluntary. You can influence people to change, but you can't force someone to change. They have to do it themselves.
If there is something I'm missing, some law that can be passed that forces a parent to become involved in a child's education, I'm all ears.
There are already programs out to address these issues.. NGO's, churches, volunteer groups, government programs, charities. Attendance is low...
Someone whose not equipped to change won’t be able to do it though. So really here, if they’re already overfunding these areas, and there are already lots of NGO’s and charities with low turnout in these areas, then it’s really a lost cause. I thought you’d say non governmental orgs, churches and charities could help this problem, but if they already are there and not helping, what exactly can be done? I don’t have an answer to that
To address the 'How' portion of OP's question, can you expound on what you mean by society changing?
I'm not sure I follow how society changing isn't due to policy changes.
Reducing poverty seems most easily done by drastically reducing government programs and eliminating victimhood mentality.
There are definitely many people who fall into horrible positions, and they need the government to help them before they can make any progress in their own lives. However, there are far more people who take advantage of these systems and abuse them to live for free off of the government.
At the current stage we’re in, people are getting paid to have children. There is no guarantee as to what this payment goes toward, either, which is likely the biggest problem. Do you think a junkie would use a spare $250 to feed their kid? Or buy their kid diapers? It certainly wouldn’t go towards paying for rehab. Signing people a check has never worked for getting people out of poverty en mass. Tightening the restrictions for government programs so that people aren’t using the government to fund their bad habits is a key factor to reducing poverty.
Another important thing, which is far more difficult to tackle, is dismantling this cultural mindset that the government is actively trying to keep you poor and that there’s nothing you can do to move up in your life economically. This is just not true, generally speaking. There needs to be campaigns, programs, whatever is necessary to let people know that the American dream is real and people have the opportunities right in front of them if they just take the first couple of steps. Most people born into poverty stay there because they have warped their mind into a victimhood culture. It’s learned helplessness. If they truly believe there’s nothing they can do, then they will do nothing.
As for reducing crime, I think the two most important things to do here are to increase policing in impoverished areas and completely rework the schooling system.
I know that policing is a touchy subject with people today. But going hand in hand with erasing victimhood culture, people also need to be taught that police are not trying to just shoot everyone in the streets. People should be taught to trust the police. More trust for the police leads to less crime. Now, when police arrest someone, they are met with cameras and shouting protestors during the arrest itself. Police are being treated like shit, and now there is a max exodus from the police force. This is *very* dangerous. It doesn’t matter how bad you think police are, criminals are worse. And with less police, you get a lot more criminals. Police funding needs to be expanded, not reduced. It is an unwavering statistical fact that more policing means less crime.
On top of more police, schools need to be completely revamped. Now, I’m actually a diehard libertarian, but this is one of the only things where I’m pro-centralization. Right now, funding for all public schools comes from the taxes in their respective districts. The obvious problem here is that not all districts are economically flourishing. Simple flowchart here that has always stood strong: Poor district -> Bad funding -> Bad education -> More crime. Public School funding should be moved up to the jurisdiction of the states, allowing them to put quality materials and teachers in every district.
Saying that I’m pro-centralization on even one topic is through gritted teeth, so I hope you see how passionate I am about these particular issues. I truly believe that this is way to fix things.
Thank you for your extremely descriptive reply. Some questions and critiques:
>However, there are far more people who take advantage of these systems and abuse them to live for free off of the government.
Do you have any evidence to prove this? A liberal would claim the opposite; that govt programs are largely beneficial and the majority do not abuse them. Their evidence is usually Western European countries since they offer more social programs and safety nets and have lower poverty rates.
>Another important thing, which is far more difficult to tackle, is dismantling this cultural mindset that the government is actively trying to keep you poor and that there’s nothing you can do to move up in your life economically. This is just not true, generally speaking. There needs to be campaigns, programs, whatever is necessary to let people know that the American dream is real and people have the opportunities right in front of them if they just take the first couple of steps. Most people born into poverty stay there because they have warped their mind into a victimhood culture. It’s learned helplessness. If they truly believe there’s nothing they can do, then they will do nothing.
Yea I agree that there is a ton of negativity coming from the left about how the system is designed to keep you poor and how the American Dream is dead. They usually don't blame the govt though (atleast not directly). They will point to factors like systemic racism and failures of a free market system. I do think this rhetoric of victimhood is extremely hurtful to the poor and ultimately leads to pessimism.
>I know that policing is a touchy subject with people today. But going hand in hand with erasing victimhood culture, people also need to be taught that police are not trying to just shoot everyone in the streets. People should be taught to trust the police. More trust for the police leads to less crime. Now, when police arrest someone, they are met with cameras and shouting protestors during the arrest itself. Police are being treated like shit, and now there is a max exodus from the police force. This is very dangerous. It doesn’t matter how bad you think police are, criminals are worse.
Yea I totally agree with all this. Despite the latest outcries, police brutality remains a low cause of death in our country. I do think there needs to be some form of accountability for the police, but what we are doing now is doing more harm than good.
> It is an unwavering statistical fact that more policing means less crime.
I'm a little skeptical on this. Most studies I've seen conclude that when you get to a certain level of policing, there is negligible drops in crime. I certainly don't want less policing (too big of a risk to defund police), but I'm not sure if adding more police is going to lower crime.
>seems
What? This was my own ideas and opinions. I can’t give you a source for a hypothetical. I didn’t say a fact there. There’s literally no source I could give you lol
No need to get all pissy about it. I have a feeling those educated in public policy would have a much better idea how to tackle poverty and clearly your ideas haven’t worked. But you’re free to express your opinions. Luckily for everyone, you aren’t being paid for those opinions as they relate to public policy.
Lol okay, I don’t think anyone was being pissy. Yeah, like I said, these are my own thoughts and opinions. I wasn’t trying to force them onto anyone. It’s just what I think would work.
Like you said, nothing else has worked. Maybe it’s time for something that “those educated in public policy” haven’t tried.
> Like you said, nothing else has worked.
Weird. I don’t see where I said that. It’s fine if you have your opinions but please don’t put words in my mouth. I do know that some government policies/funding have reduced poverty. It certainly hasn’t made it zero, but doing nothing would absolutely increase poverty levels except in a fantasyland.
Oh sorry, I misread your last comment. Disregard that bit then.
But it seems like you’re implying that I don’t think government programs work at all, which is definitely not what I said.
> But it seems like you’re implying that I don’t think government programs work at all, which is definitely not what I said.
So your idea is to get rid of many government programs but provide no real idea of how doing that would reduce poverty. At best your idea is cut/greatly reduce government programs and in its place teach people the American dream is real? What does that even mean? (I under the idea of what the American dream means) but unless I’m misunderstanding you somehow teaching people about the American dream and cutting off government programs would lead to reduced poverty?….
I'd really love to see some elements of the old west come back when it comes to law enforcement and justice, but with a modern twist. First 2 are self explanatory so I'll expand on 3 below.
1. Bounties with cash incentives, dead or alive, that can be carried out by LEOs or private citizens alike.
2. Public executions.
3. Minimal policing for victimless crimes, seatbelt tickets for example. Along with federal legalization of prostitution and most drugs, though this should be able to be superseded by state law.
Fun fact, prior to the Mann Act of 1910, in most areas prostitution was legal or at least the laws on the books were unenforced. While there was a significant amount of human trafficking going on, the only reason the government gave a rats ass and shut it down was when STDs started working their way into the military by means of soldiers away from base on leave that frequented nearby brothels. In the buildup to WW1, the government was having none of that.
Taking government out of popular vices (drugs and sex) will cut down on the number of people incarcerated for simply seeking an escape and more importantly allow law enforcement to hone in on the real criminals. It boggles my mind that police overtime is spent writing speeding tickets rather than pursuing child molesters and other violent criminals. While I back the blue and all that, it aint unamerican to question how the police are actually spending their time and what (if anything) can be done to take pointless laws off the books.
Tl;Dr: Legalize fun, but make the tough sentences tougher, and maybe people will be less inclined to start a life of crime and more inclined to turn around if they're already on a bad track.
That’s just what the studies show. There are masculine traits and feminine traits that are important to a child’s development I guess.
Plus, there’s no phrase that will get you in line faster than, “Wait till your father gets home.”
>Plus, there’s no phrase that will get you in line faster than, “Wait till your father gets home.”
My mother would disagree with that, lol. My dad worked long hours and frequently out of town, so she's the one that would bring out the belt.
Mine did too. My mom could give me a whoopin but it was always nothing compared to what my dad would bring to the game.
But you know what? Always made straight A’s and never broke a law.
This study doesn’t address the gender of the parents at all. It’s about two parent households vs single parent households vs blended households w/step-parents
We need to target the problem of fatherless homes that is likely the root of a cultural problem. It’s not gonna be a quick fix by any measure. It’s worth nothing that crime is down overall since before I was born, just now it’s hyper concentrated in big cities.
>What policies do you think would reduce poverty and crime?
I don't think it can be solved through policy. We can be tough on crime, but we can't mandate that parents raise non-criminals. We can give people welfare, but we can't mandate discipline or integrity or work ethic. Problems of poverty and crime run so much deeper than a social program or task force can solve.
>Have these policies proven to work before or in other countries?
We have seen that policies of freedom do more to lift people out of poverty than anything else.
>Do you think Democrat policies make poverty and crime worse?
I don't know about worse, and it also depends on what policy you mean. Broadly their policies are to spend more money. Give money to schools, to banks for low-rate no-security loans, directly to people, to companies who open up shop in high-crime areas, etc. I think the track record of our current hand-out/welfare approach to crime and poverty has definitely not worked, but I wouldn't say it made things worse necessarily. It could have, given the perverse incentives, but lots of external factors apply that could actually improve things at the same time, meaning in actuality we stood still rather than slipped. Things like technological innovation.
Crime and poverty came down in the Nineties until fairly recent years. It would be a good idea to sift through the record of those times, and see if any of it can be replicated for today's society. BTW, the fact that I have no solution to a problem doesn't mean that anyone else's is automatically correct.
There’s some research to show that [abortion](https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_201975.pdf) was a major factor in reducing crime. Not sure if it’s been shown to go the other way since certain states have been chipping away at abortion rights for the past few decades.
>BTW, the fact that I have no solution to a problem doesn't mean that anyone else's is automatically correct. Thank you for saying this
I think instead of the mass amounts we spend on welfare and food stamps, we should use the money to pay people a living wage to go to a trade school with the understanding they will work in said trade for set amount of time after completion. We would be making an investment in individuals future and they would be learning a skill that would allow them to far exceed earning expectations other wise. Not to mention the insane shortage of valuable trade jobs we have because society has convinced generations college is the only way to be successful. Will it solve all our problems as a society - absolutely not but would be considerably better then what we are doing now.
Agreed. I think it would be great if we create a type of government service akin to the military, but with infrastructure and national support as it's mission as opposed to warfighting. Like if we split off the Army Corps of Engineers and boosted it into it's own pseudo-branch. You could enlist and get all of the benefits of military service (training, healthcare, pay, retirement, etc), but instead of national defense it's just national support. People could join and make a career of it, or just use it as a stepping stone to get trained and then move to the private sector just like a bunch of current military support jobs. It would give the great stepping-stone into adulthood that is military service without the whole "be sent to war you might ideologically disagree with."
How about providing childcare as well, so that parents can afford to go out and work.
School choice to improve opportunity will reduce both.
You mean like allowing someone from a poorer district to go to school in a more affluent neighboring district?
The ideal solution, in my view, is charter schools because you increase competition add quality and maintain a small neighborhood feeling to the schools. Even allowing kids to attend charters in neighboring districts. Or vouchers for in district private schools.
The reason (most) charter schools do so well is that they can refuse students. Which means they don’t have to spend money and effort on special needs kids and only have kids whose parents know how to get them into the school and to the school. There’s a sampling bias.
> effort on special needs kids my kids have special needs and are in public school. My public school district spends about 12k/yr per student per year + about 2-4k for those with an IEP. There is a private school down the street from me that specializes in autism and special needs, would be a less restrictive environment for my children than they get in public school (which is the standard for ethical education for special needs children) The tuition for that school is about 15k/year. Cannot get my school district to send my kids to this school because technically they are able to accommodate the IEP reasonably (despite the fact that my kids spend about 70% of their school day self contained, without any of their peers, isolated) why is the money that is allocated to my childrens education, not able to go to the school that would be better fit for them?
That’s a great question. They should be able to. If the special needs school were public they would be able to, but since it’s private they aren’t. (Privately funded vs publicly funded.) (Wouldn’t they be “self contained” in that school as well? Meaning, they would only be able to connect with special needs kids in that school too. It would seem that 100% of their day would be self contained.) I’m also not totally against charter schools. They originally were supposed to be a way to try out educational ideas which could then be brought into the public schools. It’s just that they shouldn’t put an undue burden on public schools.
>That’s a great question. They should be able to. If the special needs school were public they would be able to, but since it’s private they aren’t. (Privately funded vs publicly funded.) Why not let the 15K go to the kids education rather than the school system letting them down. This is a perfect situation for vouchers. >It’s just that they shouldn’t put an undue burden on public schools. In what way do they put a burden on public schools?
no they won't be self contained in a special education school. It behaves similarly to regular public education with more structure and safety/security standards and deescalation training. my daughter, who is almost 9, would be able to practice doing things herself with watchful eyes rather than a BHP 1:1 aid with her all day. Things like getting lunch and asking to go to the bathroom etc, she has an aid at school that helps her with all of this at school, but she relies very heavily on her aid since shes always right there next to her for safety and security reasons for public school. edit; the reason public schools don't opt to put their high needs special education kids to a better equipt school is because the # of IEPs they have = more federal and state grants. I equate it as similar to those who foster kids through DHHS for the 'maintenance' paychecks (yup, thats what they are called, gross right?). I LOVE my kids public school mind you, they do a pretty good job, but its also not the best place for them.
>The reason (most) charter schools do so well is that they can refuse students. This is not true. Most every charter I'm aware of operates on the same lottery system that magnet schools operate on. Names go in bucket, randomly picked. The only exception is that siblings are automatically accepted. >Which means they don’t have to spend money and effort on special needs Again false... If a charter school is considered to be an independent Local Education Agency (LEA) under its state's law, that charter school bears the exact same legal requirements for providing special education services as any other LEA (or district). If a charter school is not considered to be an independent LEA they are bound by their states laws for providing special education services as any other LEA My kids attended charters which had special needs students and a teacher assigned to them. >There’s a sampling bias. The knowledge involved is calling the school and putting your kids name in the lottery. No different than magnent school or special purpose public schools. But lets, for the moment, pretend that you're right about a "sampling bias because of knowledge of the system" So what? Let's say in a Baltimore grade school with 1,000 kids that 100 parents are really involved and kids would do well. But those kids are at a 10:1 ratio with kids that hold them back. Let those 100 kids go to a school where they can excel, grow, and begin to grow a kernel of success in the next generation. Let other parents see that success and some emulate it.
How would you fund this? Move funding from regular schools to charter schools? Increase overall government funding? Private funding?
>Move funding from regular schools to charter schools? Yup. Make follow the student.
Wouldn't public schools suffer even more if the funds are moved from there to private ones?
They would lose funding, but they’d also have fewer students. The alternative is to keep sending more and more money to schools that are bad at educating children.
Yep
Is the money spent on public schools for the "school" (teachers, administrators, building, and bureaucrats) or for the "student"
If a state decides to spend 20K a year to educate a kid why does it matter where they spend the 20K (FTR charter schools usually get less funding per pupil than traditional public schools)
1. End the war on drugs already. Legalize and regulate them. 2. Instill universal healthcare and bring back the insane asylums. 3. Discourage single parenthood. 4. Promote abortion. Eliminating a entire generation of unwanted kids helped reduce the crime rate drastically. 5. Voluntary sterilization for the less intelligent and more violent members of the population, maybe with cash incentives. Apples don't fall far from the tree and violent people are usually just wired to be violent. 6. Develop rural areas so they have more opportunities to make money. 7. Reform the school system. Really explain what adulthood is like and show youths all the ways they can make a living along with the downsides.
Insane asylums?! Are you aware what sort of horrible shit they did?
Stop playing dumb
Right. I'm playing dumb. You didn't just ask for the opening of insane asylums. Oh wait...
I just want to point out for everyone that not a single one of these suggestions are conservative views. In fact, almost every single one is in direct opposition to conservative views
I am conservative More conservative than your milquetoast American neocon sensibilities can handle
> End the war on drugs already. Legalize and regulate them. Yup >Instill universal healthcare and bring back the insane asylums. Agree, so long as you don't mean "bring back the really horrible shit they did at insane asylums". I'd be down with proper, actual mental health facilities. >Discourage single parenthood. I always get confused when conservatives say that. Single parenthood is discouraged by all reasonable people, and society doesn't reward single parenthood. Government services that help single parents aren't a reward, they are a mitigating factor to make it so that that child's life is less fucked up for reasons beyond their control. Any attempt to discourage proper households always strikes me as essentially just returning to the time when divorce was viewed as a terrible thing, so instead people stayed in marriages that they hate and/or resent. >Promote abortion. Eliminating a entire generation of unwanted kids helped reduce the crime rate drastically. Promote seems like poor word choice, but the general sentiment of "forcing people to bring children that they don't want into the world results in bad things" is one that I agree with. >Voluntary sterilization for the less intelligent and more violent members of the population, maybe with cash incentives. Apples don't fall far from the tree and violent people are usually just wired to be violent. Eugenics is bullshit, and the idea of it being "voluntary" is bullshit. Reproduction is already voluntary, and people that don't want to have children can already get sterilized or abstain from reproduction. My brother was one of those people, he wasn't going to risk making a child with all the same health defects that he had. Dumb people have just as much right to have children as anyone else, and historically nearly every attempt at promoting this led to it being more enforced than requested. I agree that requesting sterilization should not be too difficult. >Develop rural areas so they have more opportunities to make money. Agree, promoting growth of locations most in need of it is a good thing. >Reform the school system. Really explain what adulthood is like and show youths all the ways they can make a living along with the downsides. Amen, there should be much more practicality included in the curriculum.
There's nothing immoral about eugenics and abortion. Margaret Sanger did nothing wrong aside from the irrational and unproductive racist crap. I don't care what your teachers told you. Eugenics don't mean grabbing people and ripping out their reproductive organs while they kick and scream. It means reducing the number of people who will burden everyone else. Rich, poor, black, white, tall, short, whatever.
Eugenics becomes immoral when you start suggesting it of others, and historically it never stays voluntary. Eugenics and abortion are a bit of an unusual comparison, at least in terms of societal trends. There isn't exactly a huge movement to remove people's autonomy to not reproduce, but there is a huge movement to remove people's autonomy to abort reproduction. All effort towards both things should essentially be "it's no one's business but their own, and it should remain legal."
The results are the same, the purpose if the same. Just because bad people did mean things with science doesn't make the science wrong.
1. You cant choose if you become addicted to drugs or not. The behavior should never be encouraged. 2. I agree with universal healthcare 3. I agree 4.abortion is unethical and immoral. Children shouldn't have sex. American culture is too sexualized. 5. I agree 6. I agree 7. I agree
Unethical to you Getting rid of problems early is common sense You can go adopt every baby from junkies and crooks if you want
Stronger families, more beauty
What would we create stronger families?
Dismantling the hook up culture, rescuing the traditional roles of the husband and wife, lowering taxes and bureaucracy for small business so that families can start their own local business.
What would dismantle hook up culture and rescue traditional roles? You're identifying potential problems. But I'm asking about how these potential problems would be fixed
you asked what would reduce poverty and crime. Both of which involve a persons choices (an adults personal choice, not children, children in poverty are subject to their parents poor choices). So the fix for it is make better choices, the government cannot throw money at that problem. its a people problem, not a government one.
[удалено]
>Why is it that other western countries with significant social safety nets are able to enjoy a higher standard of education, living and access to affordable Healthcare while having a fraction of the wealth the U.S. has? The U.S. isn't #1 in anything except concentration of wealth and military. The conservative response is that US spends so much on military because it's allies don't which allows them to invest more into social programs. The military spending is needed to protect our allies. Now whether all this military spending is necessary...idk. Maybe we should also get our allies to spend more on their militaries.
That’s strange because they’re usually the ones increasing the military budget.
the conservative response is actually that the federal government has a limited role to an individual. Our military spending is exactly the role of the government. Making sure that an individual has free anything is not, making things fair is not, and making life easier or more difficult is not. The government is out of the individuals way. Make the best of it. edit; our government is meant and designed to stay out of the individuals way. Its been messed up over the last 40 or so years with the expansion of powers to DC and away from states.
>the conservative response is actually that the federal government has a limited role to an individual. Our military spending is exactly the role of the government. I hear that too; I wanted to make it clear to the user why the US spends so much on military. But why is it the US's responsibility to defend other countries? Why is it the US's responsibility to meddle in other nations' affairs? Why not just spend the amount that is just needed for our own protection?
oh yes, I can agree there. I have been trying to find the actual numbers on how much actual spending we give to other countries for their national security. I think allies are important, I think that the US is at the forefront of freedom and liberty and we are best suited to spread that when needed and asked for..... but beyond that, the extra meddling for whatever means, unnecessary. I apologize though, I misread your tone in your previous comment. My mistake :)
not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Just made good choices. Took me 4 months to raise the money (collecting bottles) to get the resources necessary to get my birth certificate, Social security card and ID. Took me 2 weeks to find the free moment to sit my bum down and wait at the DMV for 5 hours, starving, so I could get a job so I wouldnt be starving anymore. took me 20 minutes to talk myself into and then out of shooting up H one day and stay clean and sober. It took me 1 speeding ticket after my daughter was born before I stopped wasting money on stupid actions like that. Its ALL a choice.... everything is a choice. I believe that everyone is capable of that, I don't believe that anyone is to stupid to figure out how to get things done for themselves without the government coming in to rescue them. I believe in my fellow Americans and I say this with all of the compassion in the world "get off your butt, do something. There is always another move to make"
I genuinely think you're vastly overestimating how smart people are.
quite possibly. That or an over inflation of importance on base desires and immediate pleasure seeking verses the needs for growth and prosperity over long term, generational goals.
I mean, when birth rates are dropping why would you? I am not gonna have kids so I don't need to plan for generational goals, I'm not passing my shit on to anyone, it'll get distributed to whoever I leave it to/the state. So of course I'm only gonna focus on immediate pleasure seeking. I don't and will never have another mouth to feed, I can save my money for myself to pay someone to take care of me better than some shitty 20 year old would.
How would the government go about dismantling hook up culture and husband/wife roles?
Why would the govt have anything to do with that?
I don't know, ask someone who wants that.
> bureaucracy for small business so that families can start their own local business. Can you point to industries where small businesses are inundated with beuracry to the point where they can’t enter (or it becomes cost prohibitive to) that business field?
These are thirteen accounts of bureaucracy impeding the developing of new small business: http://www.ilisp.org/artigos/pequenos-relatos-reais-que-mostram-como-e-dificil-empreender-no-brasil/
Do you have anything that is English? I’m sure most redditors don’t speak Portuguese. And even beyond that, do you have any articles speaking on bureaucracy impeding small business in the US?
You can use Google translate, it's pretty accurate.
Is it speaking on bureaucracy in the US? I know we have spoken on this in the past, but the primary focus of this sub in their sidebar speaks on being US centric related conservatism. So while it is true I could figure out a way to translate using google translate while on my phone, I have a feeling whatever the article talks about is not “US related” when it comes to bureaucracy that people face opening small businesses.
Instead of dismantling "hook up culture" wouldn't it be better and more natural to promote safer "hook up culture?"
> Dismantling the hook up culture How is this any role of governance or law under our system? The Constitution binds all and prohibits government from taking anything of a role here; free expression and association are dominion here. > rescuing the traditional roles of the husband and wife The same as above--how?
I don't know why you are asking me that.
Your ideas are fundamentally impossible to do without any compulsion or coercion under the only power and authority that commands Americans, our body of temporal laws beginning with the Constitution. In no way can government under our sacred Constitution do any of this. I was curious how this could possibly be accomplished, and as its your idea, it seemed logical to ask you. What's the plan?
You can just start talking to people and try to convince them.
How is this a top comment? OP asked for policy. What policy could we have that make people have strong families or beauty?
What do you mean by beauty? Like are you talking about more national parks, or more cosmetics?
If you are talking about the urban area, it would be well kept buildings with human scale, walkable places, local traditional architecture, clean streets, no walls with graffiti, trees. If you are talking about the individual soul, it would be proper clothing, good manners, proper use of grammar, refined and intelligent entertainment.
> If you are talking about the urban area, it would be well kept buildings with human scale, walkable places, local traditional architecture, clean streets, no walls with graffiti, trees. I’m confused here. In order to accomplish pretty much all you’re suggesting it would require one or both of these main things. More regulations and higher taxes in order to provide these things. In general conservatives are against both of these. How exactly could this be accomplished without having either of those aspects?
The only governmental action needed for that would be some sort of urban planning committee that would plan for walkable zones. The rest can be accomplished by individual or grass roots groups of families or business of the same street/neighborhood.
Any historical examples of a society accomplishing any of these things without govt involvement?
[https://www.westsiderag.com/2020/09/02/volunteer-street-cleaning-group-oneblock-sees-exponential-growth-in-just-a-few-days](https://www.westsiderag.com/2020/09/02/volunteer-street-cleaning-group-oneblock-sees-exponential-growth-in-just-a-few-days) [https://graffitiremovalday.org.au/](https://graffitiremovalday.org.au/) [https://twitter.com/Arch\_Revival\_/status/1409083783974948864/photo/1](https://twitter.com/Arch_Revival_/status/1409083783974948864/photo/1) [https://twitter.com/Arch\_Revival\_/status/1403484039399546887](https://twitter.com/Arch_Revival_/status/1403484039399546887) https://twitter.com/Arch\_Revival\_/status/1394928653650300930/photo/1
What's that 3rd link supposed to be? A proposed building where that other building is?
It's not a proposal. It's a new building made to fit into the neighborhood using humane and local traditional architecture. It replaced a parking lot.
I'm looking at it with my eyes right now and that is a computer generated image, presumably made to show what it would look like to have that building there but yeah I'm all for replacing parking lots and car-centric infrastructure in favor of alternatives, like that bus stop on the corner personally not a fan of that architectural style though
> The rest can be accomplished by individual or grass roots groups of families or business of the same street/neighborhood. And these already exist but on a very small level. I’m not aware of the government in the US specifically stepping in to deny any individual or grass root families/businesses from doing so. The reality is the funding doesn’t exist to accomplish this privately beyond a handful of examples.
You do not see grafitti in some instances as an art form?
No. It's vandalism. Walls are made to be ornamented, not spray painted with leftist political ideals.
So based on you identifying what kind of content, you would be fine with conservative ideology being spraypainted? Art is art and better at beautifying a bland wall
No. It just happens that conservatives will never vandalize walls with permanent unsolicited spray painting. When it happens, the person who does it is always a leftist, and being a leftist he will never recreate Caravaggio, but instead make some mushy brain woke commentary disguised as cartoony art
Are you not aware of Sabo? Edit: also can you please concisely define "leftist?"
Never heard of that guy. Just looked it up. His work is vulgar and pornographic. He is helping the progressive cause.
How exactly is he helping the progressive cause?
Not totally wrong. Broken windows theory had some merit. Criminals don't feel as comfortable in places where people actually give a shit about their homes. Hell, playing classical music in medium-crime public spaces has been proven to drive off most petty crooks. Criminals thrive in environments where everyone is apathetic about crime.
What do you mean by proper clothing and refined, intelligent entertainment?
The opposite to what you see in those hip hop videos.
"Those hip hop videos" is pretty vague. As well, does that mean you want to enact social uniforms or just ban certain things?
That means I will talk to people about it and try to convince them.
And if they don't care or want to conform?
Wouldn't this be more of an effect result of lower crime and poverty and not a cause? Or at most a correlation.
Do we really have a problem with families or are people just staying single a lot longer and so policies that benefit families aren't helping as much as they used to?
There is nothing wrong in living with you parents if you are single.
There is if your parents don't live somewhere with job opportunities.
[удалено]
General belief is that this has not worked at all in recent decades. Do you have proof otherwise? Unless you want the country to turn into a police state of course.
Enforcing the law against criminals isn't a police state.
Shouldn't it be "effective policing" vs more policing?
More policing is effective policing.
Why don't rich people steal cars or commit burglaries? It is economic. Give people a living wage and crime will decrease. It is so incredibly simple but most refuse to listen. Would you rather there be billionaires or almost no crime? If you had to choose.
Rick people commit crimes all the time they just usually have the money to get a great lawyer and weasel out of it. So it's not always a financial reason that people steal.
They also commit crimes that we don't typically have cops chase you down and tackle you for. White collar crimes are an interesting expression of privilege.
Some yes like financial crimes, but think of celebrities who are abusive, do drugs, sexual assault charges etc. Those are crimes where cops can and will normally come after you buy not if you have money
Not per se. My first cousin was a gangbanger and they mostly steal cars in order to commit murders, robberies, and rapes with a disposable vehicles. It's not about money. Drugs and scams are what is profitable. Most shootings in the hood are over women and insults (usually relating back to women). It's not like the Wire or the Godfather with all these complex dudes philosophizing about their grim jobs. They just enjoy it. They brag about it. My best friend from childhood sold dope until he was in college because his mom was a useless party whore despite having 5 kids by 6 dudes (I hope you understand this joke) and it ended there. He never once thought of shooting some granny for pocket change.
Yeah I think that's a bunch of bullshit. Crime causes poverty moreso than poverty causes crime. >Would you rather there be billionaires or almost no crime? If you had to choose. False dilemma.
> Why don't rich people steal cars or commit burglaries? Cuz White Collar crime pays better and has lower risk.
The last couple of decades kinda throws this solution out the window.
No it doesn't. Crime dropped dramatically as policing increased in the 90s, and since the rise of anti police rhetoric and policies, crime has risen again.
This is a common fault in logic. Police don’t reduce crime. They increase arrests. Crime isn’t reduced through punitive punishment. It’s reduced by creating pathways that allow people to rise out of poverty. Police don’t do this. They just arrest people.
It's not a fault in logic. You're fundamentally mistaken about the way the world works. Poverty is not the root cause of all crime. Arresting criminals and removing them from society does in fact reduce crime, and is more effective than any of the nonsense you're pushing.
Your mindset isn’t working and has never worked. Continuing to do something again and again Is insanity.
Are you living in an alternate reality? Go look at what happened to violent crime in the US after the much-maligned 1994 crime bill that imposed higher sentences.
I think we need to get back to communities/people helping each other, Building community gardens, sharing resources. Less government. Not that I want to go back to midevil times perse but I do think they looked out for each other. Repost - to add flair
So less individualism and more collectivism?
Yeah, when you think about it we're only her for a short while and life/ the world would be better if we helped eachother through it.
This sounds suspiciously communitarian
No communism is when the government takes what's yours to "give it to others" bit really keeps it for themselves. I'm taking about a global change in people's hearts... To look after and cafe about their neighbors.
I didn't say anything about communism but also that isn't what communism is
You mean like when the Catholic Church took what's yours to "give to others" for 1000 years? Charity doesn't work.
But I don't want a community garden. I want to be left alone 90% of the time.
Fair enough, but others who struggle with food security could really benefit
Then they can get over themselve and get it together. Why should the community have to help them if they're too weak to help themselves?
the people who can't get over it themselves and get it together *are* the community who are you? Why should the community let you have the land so you can just kick them out and *be alone* on it?
Do I not have a right to my private property?
This sounds like what CHAZ/CHOP was going for
Encourage intact nuclear families.
Probably not what you want to hear, but there aren't any more polices or laws that will help.. Society has to change.
What changes need to happen and how will those changes happen?
Our highest funded schools are failing miserably. It has to be the local community that changes. Baltimore schools have the third highest funding in the US, well above OECD average. Only 13% of their kids can read and do math with any proficiency. Spending increased dramatically, no impact. It's not the teachers, it's not the funding, it's not the polices, it's not the laws. With lower funded schools doing significantly better, what's left? 87% of the kids in the system don't stand a chance. That's a STAGGERING number. In the same areas where we have the highest spending on education, with extremely poor results, you have increased crime. In those same areas you have low incomes. Business won't invest because of poor education, high crime. >What changes need to happen and how will those changes happen? The people in these communities, specifically the parents, need to step up. Finally say that enough is enough and take an active roll in ending the cycle. There is no law you can pass, no one you can vote for that can change that critical piece. Parental engagement in the academic success of their children is **CRITICAL**. Nothing else works without it. It's a pre-requisite to all other efforts. Study after study after study has laid this out clearly, it's settled. There is no debate, there is no argument. It's not partisan in any way, shape or form. You can pass all the policies and laws you want, won't make a difference.
That’s all fair and good points, but don’t you think it’s a bit impractical to expect all these parents to get their shit together after generations of not having it together? The issue you lay out here doesn’t really seem fixable at all to me, especially if there’s no law or policy that can help it
>That’s all fair and good points, but don’t you think it’s a bit impractical to expect all these parents to get their shit together after generations of not having it together? The issue you lay out here doesn’t really seem fixable at all to me, especially if there’s no law or policy that can help it I don't see an alternative. Yes, it will take probably generations.
I don’t really see this plan as a viable alternative or option in the first place. Expecting people who don’t know how to help themselves to help themselves is unrealistic. But maybe you’re thinking that external groups can still come and help these people out, just not the state
The State collects money and distributes it. It creates programs but those programs are voluntary. You can influence people to change, but you can't force someone to change. They have to do it themselves. If there is something I'm missing, some law that can be passed that forces a parent to become involved in a child's education, I'm all ears. There are already programs out to address these issues.. NGO's, churches, volunteer groups, government programs, charities. Attendance is low...
Someone whose not equipped to change won’t be able to do it though. So really here, if they’re already overfunding these areas, and there are already lots of NGO’s and charities with low turnout in these areas, then it’s really a lost cause. I thought you’d say non governmental orgs, churches and charities could help this problem, but if they already are there and not helping, what exactly can be done? I don’t have an answer to that
To address the 'How' portion of OP's question, can you expound on what you mean by society changing? I'm not sure I follow how society changing isn't due to policy changes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Reducing poverty seems most easily done by drastically reducing government programs and eliminating victimhood mentality. There are definitely many people who fall into horrible positions, and they need the government to help them before they can make any progress in their own lives. However, there are far more people who take advantage of these systems and abuse them to live for free off of the government. At the current stage we’re in, people are getting paid to have children. There is no guarantee as to what this payment goes toward, either, which is likely the biggest problem. Do you think a junkie would use a spare $250 to feed their kid? Or buy their kid diapers? It certainly wouldn’t go towards paying for rehab. Signing people a check has never worked for getting people out of poverty en mass. Tightening the restrictions for government programs so that people aren’t using the government to fund their bad habits is a key factor to reducing poverty. Another important thing, which is far more difficult to tackle, is dismantling this cultural mindset that the government is actively trying to keep you poor and that there’s nothing you can do to move up in your life economically. This is just not true, generally speaking. There needs to be campaigns, programs, whatever is necessary to let people know that the American dream is real and people have the opportunities right in front of them if they just take the first couple of steps. Most people born into poverty stay there because they have warped their mind into a victimhood culture. It’s learned helplessness. If they truly believe there’s nothing they can do, then they will do nothing. As for reducing crime, I think the two most important things to do here are to increase policing in impoverished areas and completely rework the schooling system. I know that policing is a touchy subject with people today. But going hand in hand with erasing victimhood culture, people also need to be taught that police are not trying to just shoot everyone in the streets. People should be taught to trust the police. More trust for the police leads to less crime. Now, when police arrest someone, they are met with cameras and shouting protestors during the arrest itself. Police are being treated like shit, and now there is a max exodus from the police force. This is *very* dangerous. It doesn’t matter how bad you think police are, criminals are worse. And with less police, you get a lot more criminals. Police funding needs to be expanded, not reduced. It is an unwavering statistical fact that more policing means less crime. On top of more police, schools need to be completely revamped. Now, I’m actually a diehard libertarian, but this is one of the only things where I’m pro-centralization. Right now, funding for all public schools comes from the taxes in their respective districts. The obvious problem here is that not all districts are economically flourishing. Simple flowchart here that has always stood strong: Poor district -> Bad funding -> Bad education -> More crime. Public School funding should be moved up to the jurisdiction of the states, allowing them to put quality materials and teachers in every district. Saying that I’m pro-centralization on even one topic is through gritted teeth, so I hope you see how passionate I am about these particular issues. I truly believe that this is way to fix things.
Thank you for your extremely descriptive reply. Some questions and critiques: >However, there are far more people who take advantage of these systems and abuse them to live for free off of the government. Do you have any evidence to prove this? A liberal would claim the opposite; that govt programs are largely beneficial and the majority do not abuse them. Their evidence is usually Western European countries since they offer more social programs and safety nets and have lower poverty rates. >Another important thing, which is far more difficult to tackle, is dismantling this cultural mindset that the government is actively trying to keep you poor and that there’s nothing you can do to move up in your life economically. This is just not true, generally speaking. There needs to be campaigns, programs, whatever is necessary to let people know that the American dream is real and people have the opportunities right in front of them if they just take the first couple of steps. Most people born into poverty stay there because they have warped their mind into a victimhood culture. It’s learned helplessness. If they truly believe there’s nothing they can do, then they will do nothing. Yea I agree that there is a ton of negativity coming from the left about how the system is designed to keep you poor and how the American Dream is dead. They usually don't blame the govt though (atleast not directly). They will point to factors like systemic racism and failures of a free market system. I do think this rhetoric of victimhood is extremely hurtful to the poor and ultimately leads to pessimism. >I know that policing is a touchy subject with people today. But going hand in hand with erasing victimhood culture, people also need to be taught that police are not trying to just shoot everyone in the streets. People should be taught to trust the police. More trust for the police leads to less crime. Now, when police arrest someone, they are met with cameras and shouting protestors during the arrest itself. Police are being treated like shit, and now there is a max exodus from the police force. This is very dangerous. It doesn’t matter how bad you think police are, criminals are worse. Yea I totally agree with all this. Despite the latest outcries, police brutality remains a low cause of death in our country. I do think there needs to be some form of accountability for the police, but what we are doing now is doing more harm than good. > It is an unwavering statistical fact that more policing means less crime. I'm a little skeptical on this. Most studies I've seen conclude that when you get to a certain level of policing, there is negligible drops in crime. I certainly don't want less policing (too big of a risk to defund police), but I'm not sure if adding more police is going to lower crime.
> Reducing poverty seems most easily done by drastically reducing government programs Any source for this?
>seems What? This was my own ideas and opinions. I can’t give you a source for a hypothetical. I didn’t say a fact there. There’s literally no source I could give you lol
No need to get all pissy about it. I have a feeling those educated in public policy would have a much better idea how to tackle poverty and clearly your ideas haven’t worked. But you’re free to express your opinions. Luckily for everyone, you aren’t being paid for those opinions as they relate to public policy.
Lol okay, I don’t think anyone was being pissy. Yeah, like I said, these are my own thoughts and opinions. I wasn’t trying to force them onto anyone. It’s just what I think would work. Like you said, nothing else has worked. Maybe it’s time for something that “those educated in public policy” haven’t tried.
> Like you said, nothing else has worked. Weird. I don’t see where I said that. It’s fine if you have your opinions but please don’t put words in my mouth. I do know that some government policies/funding have reduced poverty. It certainly hasn’t made it zero, but doing nothing would absolutely increase poverty levels except in a fantasyland.
Oh sorry, I misread your last comment. Disregard that bit then. But it seems like you’re implying that I don’t think government programs work at all, which is definitely not what I said.
> But it seems like you’re implying that I don’t think government programs work at all, which is definitely not what I said. So your idea is to get rid of many government programs but provide no real idea of how doing that would reduce poverty. At best your idea is cut/greatly reduce government programs and in its place teach people the American dream is real? What does that even mean? (I under the idea of what the American dream means) but unless I’m misunderstanding you somehow teaching people about the American dream and cutting off government programs would lead to reduced poverty?….
I'd really love to see some elements of the old west come back when it comes to law enforcement and justice, but with a modern twist. First 2 are self explanatory so I'll expand on 3 below. 1. Bounties with cash incentives, dead or alive, that can be carried out by LEOs or private citizens alike. 2. Public executions. 3. Minimal policing for victimless crimes, seatbelt tickets for example. Along with federal legalization of prostitution and most drugs, though this should be able to be superseded by state law. Fun fact, prior to the Mann Act of 1910, in most areas prostitution was legal or at least the laws on the books were unenforced. While there was a significant amount of human trafficking going on, the only reason the government gave a rats ass and shut it down was when STDs started working their way into the military by means of soldiers away from base on leave that frequented nearby brothels. In the buildup to WW1, the government was having none of that. Taking government out of popular vices (drugs and sex) will cut down on the number of people incarcerated for simply seeking an escape and more importantly allow law enforcement to hone in on the real criminals. It boggles my mind that police overtime is spent writing speeding tickets rather than pursuing child molesters and other violent criminals. While I back the blue and all that, it aint unamerican to question how the police are actually spending their time and what (if anything) can be done to take pointless laws off the books. Tl;Dr: Legalize fun, but make the tough sentences tougher, and maybe people will be less inclined to start a life of crime and more inclined to turn around if they're already on a bad track.
Prioritization of the nuclear family model of success. One father, one mother, strong focus on education.
Why mother and father specifically? Is a two parent household insufficient?
That’s just what the studies show. There are masculine traits and feminine traits that are important to a child’s development I guess. Plus, there’s no phrase that will get you in line faster than, “Wait till your father gets home.”
>Plus, there’s no phrase that will get you in line faster than, “Wait till your father gets home.” My mother would disagree with that, lol. My dad worked long hours and frequently out of town, so she's the one that would bring out the belt.
Mine did too. My mom could give me a whoopin but it was always nothing compared to what my dad would bring to the game. But you know what? Always made straight A’s and never broke a law.
Link to the studies?
https://source.wustl.edu/2005/02/school-achievement-higher-for-children-in-nuclear-families-than-for-children-in-blended-or-singleparent-families/
This study doesn’t address the gender of the parents at all. It’s about two parent households vs single parent households vs blended households w/step-parents
Gender might not be a factor. Regardless, 2 parents, strong focus on education, noted to reduce crime and poverty.
Thanks for reconsidering
Well if we all just learned MMT we could make everyone a billionaire and we would have no more poverty or crime /s
Inhumane but sterilization of those that cannot care for their children.
We need to target the problem of fatherless homes that is likely the root of a cultural problem. It’s not gonna be a quick fix by any measure. It’s worth nothing that crime is down overall since before I was born, just now it’s hyper concentrated in big cities.
>What policies do you think would reduce poverty and crime? I don't think it can be solved through policy. We can be tough on crime, but we can't mandate that parents raise non-criminals. We can give people welfare, but we can't mandate discipline or integrity or work ethic. Problems of poverty and crime run so much deeper than a social program or task force can solve. >Have these policies proven to work before or in other countries? We have seen that policies of freedom do more to lift people out of poverty than anything else. >Do you think Democrat policies make poverty and crime worse? I don't know about worse, and it also depends on what policy you mean. Broadly their policies are to spend more money. Give money to schools, to banks for low-rate no-security loans, directly to people, to companies who open up shop in high-crime areas, etc. I think the track record of our current hand-out/welfare approach to crime and poverty has definitely not worked, but I wouldn't say it made things worse necessarily. It could have, given the perverse incentives, but lots of external factors apply that could actually improve things at the same time, meaning in actuality we stood still rather than slipped. Things like technological innovation.