Rep Grace Meng D-N.Y. new conservative

I'm certainly in favor of a woman's choice, cruel as it may be to abort a child. Interesting correlation and video by Professor Levitt and a great point about reducing the number of unwanted babies, but how are you going to sell it to the government - as a eugenics program that cuts crime, with the disagreeable side affect of an increase in abortions? Originally Posted by Bert Jones

I'm not sellling it as a eugenics program.

I'm making the point that crime is overwhelmingly related to fatherless boys - NOT income inequality or poverty.

There are a LOT of adults living in poverty that don't commit crime. They are called "women".

So, your anti-poverty programs are going to waste huge amounts of money and will accomplish very little. You are using the wrong tool to fix the wrong problem. But more bureaucracy fits the progressive agenda, so that's what you advocate.

Squandering tax money isn't bad so long as you feel good about doing it.

Why don't we create programs that value every person born, not kill off the undesirables? Might we raise the value of our human capital that way? Originally Posted by Bert Jones

And what exactly would that program look like? How exactly does a bureaucracy show love and affection and administer discipline to a child?

I think it was an educated guess that a poor person did it considering the area - but perhaps it was just a bunch of people walking around who decided they wanted to jack someone after they watched an internet video - what difference does it make? Originally Posted by Bert Jones

What difference does it make, Hillary?

Good question. If it was just a bunch of people walking around who decided they waned to jack someone, then what good would the anti-poverty program you advocated do? You just undermined your own argument.

What difference does it make, Hillary?

Good question. If it was just a bunch of people walking around who decided they waned to jack someone, then what good would the anti-poverty program you advocated do? You just undermined your own argument. Originally Posted by ExNYer

If they had something more productive to do, thanks to a well designed and run government program, they wouldn't have had those idle hands looking for something to do

If they had something more productive to do, thanks to a well designed and run government program, they wouldn't have had those idle hands looking for something to do Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Oh?

They couldn't go to a movie? They couldn't watch TV? They couldn't read a book? They couldn't play some pick-up basketball?

Why do you only see TWO alternatives?

Either they are enrolled in some government program or they violence. You don't see ANY other alternatives they don't require government programs?

Of course, Bertie.. If someone robs a store, kills someone, burglarizes a house, commits rape, battery or other kind of assault, it's OUR fault for not supporting government programs. They are not responsible for their decisions, WE are.

Bullshit.

Of course, Bertie.. If someone robs a store, kills someone, burglarizes a house, commits rape, battery or other kind of assault, it's OUR fault for not supporting government programs. They are not responsible for their decisions, WE are.

Bullshit. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm saying if we provided better programs, they have something else to do, and might make better decisions with their lives, and we would all benefit. It is just sad to see the crime as well as the victims, and all the waste.
At least I have you and ExNyer on the same side!!!

Ah, yes. The government is the purveyor of all that is good. The only good in society comes from government. Right, Bertie?

Ah, yes. The government is the purveyor of all that is good. The only good in society comes from government. Right, Bertie? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Not at all, sir. However, it has a role and can do good in the proper hands. Just like private business, depending on who is in charge, it can be a force for good, or a force for evil.

Not at all, sir. However, it has a role and can do good in the proper hands. Just like private business, depending on who is in charge, it can be a force for good, or a force for evil. Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Another lousy comparison.

Can Verizon arrest you?

Can Walmart take more and more of your income without giving you anything because other customers say they can?

Private businesses and government are not and never can be equivalent. Private businesses have competitors. If you don't like the one you are dealing with, you can go to a competitor for a better deal.

None of that applies to government. They are the only game in town.

So if they decide to squander tax money on Midnight Basketball and other stupid programs that have accomplished NOTHING, I can't take my tax money away and go patronize another government that is less wasteful, can I?

Government has gotten so big it is its own interest group. It opposes any restriction on its size in order to maximize its power. Just check the agenda of AFSCME or any other public employee union.

So, do progressives have a program to fix that?

If you REALLY want to see your theory deflated, watch this YouTube clip on Freakonomics, abortion and the crime rate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw

Crime started dropping in the US around 1988, just about 15 years after Roe v. Wade (in 1973). Fifteen is about the age when teenage boys starts causing trouble.

No other factor has as strong a correlation to the reduction in crime that we have seen as legal abortion. Not community policing, not mandatory sentences, not poverty programs, nada.

On average, abortion gets rid of more future criminals than future law-abiding taxpayers.

Do progressives have a programs to expand THAT? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yes...it is called free early term abortion, mandatory sex-ed classes. Free morning after pill and condoms.

Or we could continue down the conservative path and just preach abstinence.

If you REALLY want to see your theory deflated, watch this YouTube clip on Freakonomics, abortion and the crime rate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw

Crime started dropping in the US around 1988, just about 15 years after Roe v. Wade (in 1973). Fifteen is about the age when teenage boys starts causing trouble.

No other factor has as strong a correlation to the reduction in crime that we have seen as legal abortion. Not community policing, not mandatory sentences, not poverty programs, nada.

On average, abortion gets rid of more future criminals than future law-abiding taxpayers. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yes...it is called free early term abortion, mandatory sex-ed classes. Free morning after pill and condoms.

Or we could continue down the conservative path and just preach abstinence. Originally Posted by WTF

I beat you to the punch.

But I'm waiting to hear Bertie state that we need to cut down on births in bad neighborhoods - through birth control or abortion. Just for the record.

Another lousy comparison.

Can Verizon arrest you?

Can Walmart take more and more of your income without giving you anything because other customers say they can?

Private businesses and government are not and never can be equivalent. Private businesses have competitors. If you don't like the one you are dealing with, you can go to a competitor for a better deal.

None of that applies to government. They are the only game in town.

So if they decide to squander tax money on Midnight Basketball and other stupid programs that have accomplished NOTHING, I can't take my tax money away and go patronize another government that is less wasteful, can I?

Government has gotten so big it is its own interest group. It opposes any restriction on its size in order to maximize its power. Just check the agenda of AFSCME or any other public employee union. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Why is it a lousy comparison - I said either government or business can do good or evil, depending on the people involved.