If people had jobs, they may not have time to commit crimes, or maybe they would be too tired to commit them. Also, not everyone on welfare is a criminal, and not everyone who is a criminal on welfare. What am I saying, not so sure, but there is no proof that increased welfare spending stops criminal behavior.

i have no statistics to back me up - but my personal experience teaching in an inner-city school where 75% of the students lived in public housing lead me to believe that welfare creates people who are MORE likely to commit crime. there are probably many reasons for this, but here are a few possiblities:

- people who depend on welfare for their existence grow to believe that there must be something wrong with them that they aren't capable of supporting themselves. of course that person is more likely to believe that the only way they'll be able to have "stuff" is to commit crimes to obtain it.

- people who are given money and have done nothing to earn it don't appreciate the value of working for something so they don't really appreciate the damage they do when they steal from others.

- people on welfare often begin to believe that they are "owed" something by people who have something.

again, i have no statistics to back this up, but i'm quite sure that if you took the percentage of people on welfare who commit crime and those who are not on welfare who commit crime the former would be a much higher percentage.

Yes.
The above comments notwithstanding, Dave's question is clearly posed:
Given: Proper social spending often reduces crime.
Question: ...would you be more willing to support welfare spending?

Thus, the answer for anyone whose goal is reduced crime is "yes." If the given condition is untrue, then the answer might change. But I see no reason to reject the premise that increased spending reduces crime -- it seems clear to me that this would be so. It also seems clear to me that there is a vast array of factors in any social issue, and so the inner city school kids (of the 2d comment above) may have other stressors that are impacting their lives. In fact, it seems possible to me that the problem could be *insufficient* welfare spending for those inner city kids.

(PS: is it possible that kids who feel they are "owed" something possible ARE owed something? It is certainly my own contention that the world damn well better treat me with decency and respect. Are the standards different for them because they are poor?)

"Thus, the answer for anyone whose goal is reduced crime is "yes."

so anything that reduces crime is a good thing? if that's true we should lock up all men between the ages of 18-30 as most crimes are committed by people in this demographic. why not - it would undoubtedly reduce crime!

"is it possible that kids who feel they are "owed" something possible ARE owed something? It is certainly my own contention that the world damn well better treat me with decency and respect. Are the standards different for them because they are poor?"

who said they didn't deserve decency and respect? i loved those kids and showed them a great deal of decency and respect and would go off on anyone who didn't. i think the welfare system shows a great deal of disrespect to people in general. it's like saying "ok, you are not capable so we're going to force everyone to support you." you think these kids don't know that everyone is being forced to support them? what kind of a complex do you think that creates? talk about guilt. and they did nothing to get them where they are! but welfare creates this whole culture of people who don't appreciate anything - why should they when they didn't have to work for it? and this culture is passed on to the kids. so very, very sad.

sorry - i got a little off subject but i feel extremely passionate about this subject. i think it's wrong for money or property to be taken by force from one person and given to another who is deemed more worthy by the government. don't care if it reduces crime or abortion or any other social scourge. it is wrong for the government to decide who should get my money or yours. crime and abortion and other social scourges are personal choices made by the individuals and have nothing to do with how much of my money they get. surely you don't think anyone commits crime in order to get the necessities of life. that is just not the case so i'm not sure how welfare would play a part in their decision to commit crime. but even if it did, it doesn't justify the government taking money from one individual to give it to another.

Mare, I find this an intriguing belief, that I've seen many people espouse: "It is wrong for the government to decide who should get my money or yours." Who is the government -- some menacing entity out there, distinct from we the people? Or simply the collective will of all of us?

It's curious to me that your assumption is that a person is "forced" to share their wealth. Obviously, this is only true for those who are on the losing side of a political debate (eg, a pro-tax politician winning over a no-tax one). If you don't want to share your money, vote for the politicians who pledge to dismantle all our nation's welfare systems. Meanwhile, you will be opposed by those who see otherwise and are willing to share their wealth via taxation in the belief (right or wrong) that it will help needy people. And one side will win, and the other side will simply have to deal with that. That's just the way our system works.

If we are keeping the current system (it's done fairly well for over 2 centuries), then your current task to is to convince people like me that less welfare is better than more. And this is fine -- I myself am not "wedded" to any particular ideology -- if the facts support one course over another, that's fine with me.

Our current system is designed for people to be totally dependant on it. There are people on public assistance that have jobs but need the assistance because they can't afford health insurance or they are just making enough to barely get by with housing costs and bills. I don't necessarily think that people on elfare are more likely to commit crimes, there are plenty of people that were rich and college educated and that had everything in life who would go out and commit murder or another violent crime, just for the hell of it. I do agree that if people had jobs then they would not have time to commit crimes, I totally agree with that statement. Instead of the welfare system, training people or providing classes where they learn trades or other skills needed to get jobs, they'd rather just cut them a check every month and keep them dependant, I think it is wrong, and also more jobs need to be created with higher wages, the cost of living goes up all of the time, there is no way a person can live off of $6 an hour working 40hrs a week when they have rent and bills to pay adn children to clothe and feed. The system should be geared more toward job training and placement and our government needs to quit outsourcing thousands of jobs every year so that these people don't have to turn to the welfare sytstem to survive. As far as crime is concerned,crime is everywhere and more in some areas than others, but there are a lot of factors that contribute to crime, and I think being a welfare recipient is only a small factor.

It's also interesting to wonder: What is crime? Man-made rules, crafted by...the rich! And how does "crime" vary from "morality" -- a guy shoplifting a candy bar is a "criminal", yet a CEO making 100 million a year on the backs of poor sweatshop laborers in Honduras is NOT a criminal, yet which is morally worse?

Furthermore, what enables that CEO to burn the lives of the poor for his own greedy gain? The mass of middle class who march into their local WalMart for cheap imported goods without so much as a twinge of conscience. Then, later, this mass of willfull ignoramuses sits around and bitches about "those welfare bums" whose poverty threatens their own WalMart spending potential.

Good Lord: do we think the world is plummed with ripe luscious trees of opportunity? We dump judgment and scorn on those born in the barren desert for their untidy dustiness. We throw a few coins or an apple core or two, with resentment, and then wonder why they haven't transformed their barren lands into a lush shire, and this is, to us, all the proof we need to condemn them, that we might better protect our own wallets and bank accounts.

First, as Ringsabre already pointed out, I did not ask the question, "Should we increase welfare spending in order to reduce crime?". What I asked was this:

If you knew that spending money on welfare would reduce crime, and in turn reduce the funds needed to fight crime, would you be more willing to support more welfare spending?

This assumes that proper welfare spending would decrease crime. On top of that, most studies have found that a well structured and well funded welfare program will reduce crime.

Mare:so anything that reduces crime is a good thing?

Come on...this is not what was said. We are talking about one specific thing, not "anything that reduces crime".

crime and abortion and other social scourges are personal choices made by the individuals and have nothing to do with how much of my money they get.

This is an interesting argument. Do you realize that crime takes more of your tax dollars than welfare does? And not just by a small ammount. So you would rather have your tax dollars spend on fighting and prosecuting crime than on reducing crime? That does not make any sense to me.

Mare: but my personal experience teaching in an inner-city school where 75% of the students lived in public housing lead me to believe that welfare creates people who are MORE likely to commit crime.

Mare, you would have a really difficult time supporting this with any data. First of all, the crime rates across income levels are relatively equal, though they are slightly skewed towards the poor. For some reason, the poor get arrested, tried, and convicted disproportionately more than they should based on the crime rates.

You also need to realize that I am talking about our current "welfare" system. As I said in the original post, I am talking about more spending. And proper spending - spending money on childcare for those that cannot afford it. Spending money on job programs. Spending money on education, etc.

Like abortion and healthcare and so many other things, I think we often treat the symptoms and not the actual problem.

Can you cite your sources Dave?

What sources are you looking for?

"If you knew that spending money on welfare would reduce crime, and in turn reduce the funds needed to fight crime, would you be more willing to support more welfare spending?"

"Do you realize that crime takes more of your tax dollars than welfare does?"

It's interesting, sounds logical, sounds aboot right to me.

the reason people are against the idea of locking up all males between the ages of 18-30 is because that would violate many people's constitutional right to liberty. i don't understand why the same doesn't hold true to the welfare system violating people's constitutional right to property. i do believe in helping the poor and we give quite a bit to organizations that we feel do a good job helping the poor - but i believe that the government welfare system is not only not the best way to help the poor, i strongly believe that it hurts the poor. this is based on my personal experience working closely with kids and adults in very poor neighborhoods for 4 years. so why am i forced to participate in this system? why can't i decide that i want that money to go to my church - or some other church who i can see are doing great things to help the poor? why am i forced to participate in something that i think destroys people and communities? many were upset when the recent eminent domain decision was made by the supreme court - and rightly so. the government does not have the right to take property from an individual against their will and give it to another individual. the exact same principle is true of welfare. hell, at least in the eminent domain example there is compensation for the seizure of property.

Mare...would you rather have the government spending your taxes fighting crime or to help the poor escape poverty? I find it odd that you have such a huge problem with welfare spending, yet have no problem with the money that we spend on "fighting crime". Yet studies have continued to show (Gringo...I will try to find the data) that proper welfare spending will decrease crime among the poor, which would in turn decrease the prison population (the fastest growing business in the US right now is the prison industry), and decrease the funds needed to fight crime.

the government does not have the right to take property from an individual against their will and give it to another individual.

This is not true. The government does have the right to take property (i.e. taxes) and give it to someone else. You may not like it, but the government does have the right to take out money and distribute how they see fit.

so why am i forced to participate in this system?

I don't agree with the war or the way that our military is used. Should I be allowed to not participate in this system? You bring up an interesting point, because I think that I believe that I should not have to pay for the war in Iraq. Yet can we really make a distinction between each and every thing that we spend money on. I am not sure. And this is a much larger discussion that I want to have on this comment thread. But it is something to think about.

So you're saying welfare does more harm than good? Can you cite your source for that... sounds interesting.

Me? I didn't say that...but that is what Mare says based on her limited personal experience of teaching at a low-income school.

"So you would rather have your tax dollars spend on fighting and prosecuting crime than on reducing crime? That does not make any sense to me."

you SUGGESTED that welfare reduces crime yet gave nothing to back that up. if there were statistics to indicate that certain measures would reduce crime i would be all for them - as long as they don't violate anyone's rights to life, liberty and property in the process. i'm sure you wouldn't support the patriot act if there were parts of it that clearly violated people's constitutional rights. even if it could be shown without a doubt that it reduced terrorism. no matter how effective it is, if it was 100% effective in preventing terrorism, i would not support it if it violated anyone's rights. how is this different? i don't think reducing crime is the most important thing a government can do. i think respecting and protecting it's citizens rights is.

Yeah, I'm asking you both to cite your sources for your arguments.

Mare hasn't cited any either (since she seemed to get on your case of not backing up your perspective), likewise she hasn't either.

i think i made it quite clear that my opinion of welfare was based on what i saw working with a high welfare population. if you'd like to read more about my experiences and the opinions i formed based on my experiences you can check out this piece on my blog.

Remembering Julia

If there were statistics to indicate that certain measures would reduce crime i would be all for them - as long as they don't violate anyone's rights to life, liberty and property in the process.

But you just said that you didn't want the government using your money to help others. Does any taxation violate your right to "property"?

I am working to find my sources. I have been in several different criminology books over the last week. I will do what I can. But I can assure you that I am not making the data up, nor am I basing it off of individual experiences.

It seems like one key idea lurking here is that of Constitutional law, which means we are probably all in over our heads. What is the role of government, and does it have the right to control you and your property. I dare say it currently has that right, whether we like it or not.

The irony is that, for this discussion, it's one or the other: either we are asking the government to control the bodies of certain indigent scallawags, or the property of decent upstanding citizens. We can let the have-nots rot in the interest of keeping our property; or we can share it risking its waste. Meanwhile some of us (but clearly not all) are genuinely interested in finding the best way to help the needy.

So I think one key question is: are you willing to share, or only up to a point, and where is that point? This, of course, is what Dave was bringing up in the 1st place: are you willing to put your money where your mouth is, if that clearly IS the necessary course of action?

I say: Yes. Maybe life will prove me a hypocrit even moments from now, but right now, I say yes.

How many TRILLIONS of dolalrs have we spent on wealth redistribution? Yet there are more poor people now than ever.

The war on poverty is a QUAGMIRE!!! We need an EXIT SRATEGY!! What is the TIMELINE??

;-)

Here are a couple of articles, with real basic summaries:

• Family, welfare, and delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice v. 32 no. 6 (November/December 2004) p. 565-76 - "Results indicated that there were no direct effects of female headship and welfare experience on either prevalence or frequency of juvenile delinquency."
• Brown, V. L., et. al., Trends of Criminal Activity and Substance Use in a Sample of Welfare Recipients. Crime & Delinquency v. 50 no. 1 (2004) p. 6-23 - "Findings revealed that a minority of welfare recipients were involved in criminal activity, ... both criminal activity and substance use declined over time."

Here's MY exit strategy: While some outright charity is needed to rescue people, the goal is dignified labor that meets a person's economic needs. Thus I say abandon the WalMarts of the world-- seek out the honest work of those in your midst and pay them fairly for it. I assume Mare is right that those inner city kids lose hope when life is nothing but a paltry handout. So let's give them hope, let's give them a real, honest, fair local economy.

How? I'm not sure, but probably a start would be for each and every one of us to reject, inasmuch as possible, imported sweatshop-made goods. There's someone in the inner city right now with an idea, a product he wants to make, a shop she wants to open. As long as the rest of us race to WalMart in a lustful, greedy orgy of thrift, that honest idea rots in the slum.

Reject cheapness. Seek out the honest labor of your neighbor, and pay him fairly for it. Let's destroy welfare -- not because we are selfish, but because our hearts are big enough to honor our neighbors, and the work they can do.

ringsabre - i like it! and i completely support charity. charity is COMPLETELY different from government welfare. charity is given out of love and/or caring. the recipient knows the giver wasn't forced to give it so there is much more accountability on the recipient's part. when it's viewed as an entitlement then there is no accountability - what you do with the money is your own damn business. but many people need help due to misfortunate situations. i've certainly received this kind of help before - but i never felt i was entitled to it. i felt grateful and was therefore more likely to make smart decisions with what was given to me. government welfare has become a lifestyle that is passed on from generation to generation and it is sick and wrong. trust me - i loved the kids i worked with and want nothing but the best for them. welfare is the worst!

i made this point on my blog once but i'll repeat it here. kids who grow up in abusive homes grow up believing that there is something inherently wrong with them and that they don't deserve or are not capable of anything else. that's why many of these kids grow up to marry abusers or become abusers themselves. welfare is the same thing. kids who grow up on welfare believe that there must be something inherently wrong with them. they don't believe that they are capable
or worthy of supporting themselves. this belief leads to many self-destructive behaviors - including CRIME!

"Let's destroy welfare.."

That's a real rosey picture there. We're expecting charity to pick up the slack? We're honestly saying welfare does more harm than good here? Certainly it needs reform but we're saying "Let's destroy it.." Wow. And to think of it that some of us are concerned with wealth redistrubtion (which purposefully sounds incredibly negative). How many of us have college loans? How many of us have received a pell grant? And I hate to remind you folk but we live in America, the 1st or 2nd wealthiest nation in the world and we're griping and *suggesting* that welfare contributes to crime when in fact our prisons are bloated already? It just sounds like another right wing myth to get out there... God forbid one takes unemployment, might drive them to selling to crack or raping and pillaging. And instead we're suggesting churches pick up the slack when they aren't even doing their supposed fair share now? Churches? Charity? Soley? Wow. I'm not arguing against reformation but I am arguing against abolition...

kids who grow up on welfare believe that there must be something inherently wrong with them. they don't believe that they are capable or worthy of supporting themselves.

Do you have anything to support your opinions on this?

And I will point out, again, that I am not talking about "welfare" as we know it. I am taking about more. I am talking about adult education, I am talking about after school programs for kids, I am talking about childcare, I am talking about job trainging. It goes much deeper than food stamps and cheap housing.

Gringo, since you're quoting me, I feel I should respond: it sounds like you may not be fully reading my comments, unless you are deliberately intending to misquote me. If you attentively read my words above, you clearly saw that I am not advocating abolition of welfare.

By using the rhetorical phrase "let's destroy welfare" I was, I thought, obviously aiming for a lofty ideal, an ideal that I will stand solidly upon, and assert boldly still: that we might eradicate the need for welfare by giving people real outlets for their honest labor and creative energy. I don't see how anyone can argue against that.

In the meanwhile, we shall do what we must, and once again I will return to Dave's initial question, lest their be any doubt, and assert that my answer is an unapologetic YES, that I am unabashedly willing to spend more money on welfare.

Dave, I think it's worth wondering whether kids who grow up on welfare might feel unworthy because of the welfare, or because of the way others are treating them. In other words, the attitudes of the "resentful affluent" (for lack of a better term) may be what makes them feel unworthy, not the welfare itself. It's all subjective: I grew up solidly middle class because of a father who worked for the Defense Dept. Yet, to some, this source of income might be a viewed with shame and repugnance.

If you are poor, and there's nothing you can do about it, why should you feel unworthy? I don't make a million dollars and have to make economic decisions that some rich folk might see as embarrasing -- do I feel unworthy about this? No.

Maybe this concern is as much to do with how the givers are treating the receivers. And those this both supports and disputes Mare's points: on one hand, maybe it's not really the welfare that makes kids feel unworthy, but the social stigma placed on it by others; on the other hand, maybe this is simply inevitable, and so rearranging the system (if we can) would be necessary.

Either way, we all can agree on seeking to end welfare, which is why I harp on the economic angle: spend your money in an ethical way, not a cheap way.

"Do you have anything to support your opinions on this?"

once again - yes i have my years of working with, talking with, and spending lots and lots of time with kids living on welfare. spend some time with kids who's mom's and grandma's were on welfare. they have no doubt but that that's where they'll end up too. and in most cases they are tragically correct.

"I think it's worth wondering whether kids who grow up on welfare might feel unworthy because of the welfare, or because of the way others are treating them. In other words, the attitudes of the "resentful affluent" (for lack of a better term)."

i have to say - these kids are surrounded by people in the "non welfare world" who want nothing but the best for them. most teachers who work in inner-city schools are there because they want to make a difference. they treat the kids with a lot of dignity and respect. sure there are some losers - but are so are there in the burbs.

also, we had lots of people volunteer their time at our school. we were near a navy base and lots of the sailors came and spent time helping in the classroom and working one on one with the kids. we had businesses who gave their employees time to come work with the kids in the classroom. growing up, i had a horse and loved horses. i started an equestrian club at one of the housing projects and worked with horse owners who volunteered their time and horses so kids could develop relationships with horses, learn about them, and experience them. when i went to the housing office to reserve their meeting space it was actually hard to find a date because so many organizations, individuals and businesses also had different programs to work with the kids. i was amazed to become aware of this outpouring. many local business and professionals were also very generous opening up their businesses and letting kids spend a day with them to see what the work world was like. these were all the very positive experiences that kids had with the "resentful affluent."

and in their neighborhoods, everyone else is on welfare too so they don't have affluent peole to treat them badly there. do they encounter people who look down their noses at them? undoubtedly they do, but i'm here to tell you that the vast majority of the interactions that these kids have with the "outside world" are positive.

yet despite all the efforts of so many people, why do such a high percentage of of these kids grow up to follow in the welfare system or move on to the prison system? and don't ask me for stats - i'm telling you i saw it with my own eyes over and over again. if you don't believe me - you find the stats to prove me wrong. i'm here to tell you that it's because welfare and the welfare culture destroys psyches.

Mare, thanks for sharing your own experiences. I truly hope that people with this kind of experience, like yourself, are able to find creative ways to help lift up the inner-city poor. I know little about the urban variety of poor but am certainly willing to support reform.

Meanwhile, in my more rural setting, I am convinced that I am on the right track by striving to keep my spending in my home town, or close to it, and into the hands of real individuals, not monolithic corporations. There are poor people here too, even though it's a small town, and like anyone, they need hope that they can pursue a dream. Everytime a home-grown mom-and-pop type business opens, this is cause for hope for anyone with a dream. Everytime one such business fails...well. And why do they fail? Because most people are unable to resist the Great God Thrift, and will pilgrimmage many miles out of their way to those big-box shrines that suck their money out of their communities and into the pockets of high-priced executives and wealthy investors.

I don't really know the ins and outs of Economics, but I have neighbors -- real people I can see and know -- and it's a simple choice: will I value the creativity and labor of my neighbors, or will I drive a half-hour to Walmart?

How many empty store-fronts do I want in my home town, anyway?

I can't help wonder if this principle applies in the city: what if a company that currently outsources to China were to open up a plant in one of our own cities? If enough of us consumers indicate we want "Made-in-USA" goods, then SOMEBODY will capitalize on that, and then those plants will open.

What will I do? What will you do? The choice is ours.

ringsabre - i comepletely agree with you. i'm a big fan of small businesses!

No no no, don't get me wrong if you think I was deliberately misquoting you. But what I'm reading... you and Mare are saying two different things. She says she agrees with you but with what you said last is quite the contrary to what she is advocating.

"and don't ask me for stats"...

Yeah, I'm going to have to ask you for stats and a few factual figures there. Sure would help clear the murky waters.

Mare...I have already pointed out two studies - one that found no increase in crime due to welfare, and the other found a decrease in crime due to welfare.

I really think that the ball is in your court in terms of backing up your assertions. You CANNOT base an ideology solely on one person's individual experience. I do not doubt the validity of your experience, but I do doubt the generalizability.

Gringo, maybe there's a difference in viewpoint between Mare and myself, but maybe we've found a common ground: that gainful, creative, dignified employment is the ultimate solution to the needs of the poor. Obviously, people can disagree about what to do in the meantime, but it is good to see the common ground of a common vision, and thus a common goal.

Dave, "generalizability" -- you made that up! But why not? I like it. :)

I did not make it up!!! I promise. Take a look.

Wow...Nice use of existing language, then! An important trait for the bloggability of a blogger's blog.

"Mare...I have already pointed out two studies - one that found no increase in crime due to welfare, and the other found a decrease in crime due to welfare."

you absolutely did no such thing. you posted two vague little blurbs that said there was no increase in juvenile delinquency among welfare recipients and one that said that crime and substance abuse went down over time. neither of those indicates there is a correlation between welfare and decrease in crime. i don't know what period of time was covered in the second article you referred to, but i know crime and substance abuse has gone down in general in the US. you've shown nothing that says welfare reduces crime.

i'm not sure the obsession with figures here. i think people's personal experiences are very important in any discussion and i value hearing about others'. i value hearing about ringsabre's experiences with the poor in a rural setting. she didn't make any statements like "Welfare reduces crime." that would require some facts to back it up. she just shared her experiences and the opinions she drew from them. i was sharing my experiences and the opinions i drew from them. i never made any statements of fact that weren't clearly stated as opinions based on my experiences. are experiences and opinions not welcome in the discussion here or do i have to dredge up numbers everytime i want to contribute? you can learn a lot from my experiences and i can learn a lot from all of yours. i welcome the sharing of experiences and the opinions formed from those experiences. if dave said, "i believe that welfare reduces crime." and went on to share personal experiences - i think that's valid. unless, of course, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that whatever is stated is just not so. then it's appropriate to point out SEVERAL studies or statistics that would point to the contrary.

i love talking about big ideas with people. is that OK here or is this just a statistical bank ("my numbers are better than your numbers")?

"Sure would help clear the murky waters."

not sure what's murky. i think i've been quite clear about my opinions, my experiences, and what i've based my opinions on. let me know what's murky and i'll try to clear it up for you.

"she" -- For the record, Ringsabre's a "he"...

What -- do I not write manly enough?

hee hee :)

"Mare...I have already pointed out two studies - one that found no increase in crime due to welfare, and the other found a decrease in crime due to welfare."

Speaking of murky. The second study doesn't show a decrease in crime due to welfare. It shows a decrease in crime among those on welfare. I think that's consistent with crime rates nationwide. They've been going down. It doesn't show that those living in the projects commit less crime than those who don't. I doubt we'll ever see those kind of results.

Twain said it best, " . . . lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I would be interested to see if you can pull out some studies on achievement, health, and happiness of those who are third generation welfare (or more) and those who are not. (You know the system is working when it becomes the family trade.)

Matt

(I'm sure Mare left this discussion on the computer just to suck me in.)

The second study doesn't show a decrease in crime due to welfare. It shows a decrease in crime among those on welfare.

Right...I never said it was because of welfare. Mare said that welfare led to more crime. I found two different studies that showed that it did not.

"Mare said that welfare led to more crime. I found two different studies that showed that it did not."


WHAT!!??!!

you should pay much closer attention. i was very clear in saying that based on my experience it is my OPINION that welfare creates people who are more likely to commit crime. i did not say that welfare leads to more crime - like it's a fact.

geesh! you're so nit picky with numbers but you sure don't pay very close attention to words!

i haven't heard a response from you yet dave. since this is your blog do you feel people's experiences are valuable to a discussion or do we need to have facts and figures every time we make a comment? i'm quite serious because i will not be commenting here again if my experiences are discounted as invalid because i have no study to back it up. i'm certainly not going to spend my time looking up studies for everything i have an opinion on. i think all of you and your reader's experiences are very valuable and i look forward to hearing about more of them. sometimes actually experiencing life can be much more educational than just reading about it.

And can both forms of input be valuable: the factual, and the experiential?

I think so, since facts are limited by our own capacities for generating them and understanding them, while experience is limited by our own biases and uniqueness of perspective (ie, you are only seeing a "slice").

another problem with facts is correlation. after all, i read that 90% of people who commit crime had bread within 24 hours of commiting that crime so obviously bread is to blame.

But was it white, wheat, rye etc?

And I bet you'd find that in most cases it wasn't organic -- thus non-organic bread is to blame!

Still, I'm hedging: I want to value both facts and experience (and I think I can, and should).

I think in either case, we need to question much and assume little.

"she" -- For the record, Ringsabre's a "he"...

oops! your comments were so insightful and well-reasoned that i thought you must be a woman;)

"Right...I never said it was because of welfare. Mare said that welfare led to more crime. I found two different studies that showed that it did not."

but alas there is this comment:

Comment from: Dave [Member] · http://brendoman.com/hippydave
Mare...I have already pointed out two studies - one that found no increase in crime due to welfare, and the other found a decrease in crime due to welfare.

I really think that the ball is in your court in terms of backing up your assertions. You CANNOT base an ideology solely on one person's individual experience. I do not doubt the validity of your experience, but I do doubt the generalizability."

so is the reduction in crime is DUE to welfare or not.

i haven't heard a response from you yet dave.

I believe that you are referring to this comment. Sorry...I missed that post - I can assure you that I was not ignoring you. I will make sure that it will never happen again! Here is a reply:

i think people's personal experiences are very important in any discussion and i value hearing about others'.

I agree. Like I said above, "I do not doubt the validity of your experience, but I do doubt the generalizability."

you can learn a lot from my experiences and i can learn a lot from all of yours. i welcome the sharing of experiences and the opinions formed from those experiences.

Again, I agree.

i love talking about big ideas with people. is that OK here or is this just a statistical bank ("my numbers are better than your numbers")

Of course it is okay. But I think it is dangerous to base the foundation of your opinion on welfare on limited personal experience, just as I think that it is dangerous to base a similar opinion solely on statistical data. Neither tell the whole story.

i was very clear in saying that based on my experience it is my OPINION that welfare creates people who are more likely to commit crime. i did not say that welfare leads to more crime - like it's a fact.

Sorry...you at least implied that a belief that welfare led to more crime. Yes, you based it on your experience, but is also seemed to be more generalized. I apologize if I took this out inaccurately.

since this is your blog do you feel people's experiences are valuable to a discussion or do we need to have facts and figures every time we make a comment?

Yes...I do think that others' experiences are valuable. I do not need facts and figures for everything. But I will say this again. Many studies show that welfare is not responsible for creating more people likely to commit crime. In actuality poverty is a much better indicator than being a welfare recipient.

i'm quite serious because i will not be commenting here again if my experiences are discounted as invalid because i have no study to back it up.

As I have said over and over again, I do not thing that your experience is invalid. I do believe that it is limited, and a general theory about welfare cannot be formed on limited experiences.

i'm certainly not going to spend my time looking up studies for everything i have an opinion on.

You do not have to. But I recommend it! Again, you can learn a ton from experience, but you can also learn a ton from scientific research. Both are needed, and both are extremely valuable.

i think all of you and your reader's experiences are very valuable and i look forward to hearing about more of them. sometimes actually experiencing life can be much more educational than just reading about it.

I agree. That is why I do this. That is why I ask these questions. That is why I put up with Roland! :)

Mare...again, I am not discrediting your experience. I enjoy hearing your experiences, and I learn from them. But I just have a problem when limited experience leads to a general theory about anything - in this case that welfare is terrible.

And I will als say this again. This post was not talking about "welfare" as we know it. I am taking about more. I am talking about adult education, I am talking about after school programs for kids, I am talking about childcare, I am talking about job trainging. It goes much deeper than food stamps and cheap housing.

another problem with facts is correlation. after all, i read that 90% of people who commit crime had bread within 24 hours of commiting that crime so obviously bread is to blame.

Of course correlation is a "problem". But any half decent, peer-reviewed article in an academic journal will deal properly with correlation. You cannot shrug off an an article because of the problem of correlation. Very, very few articles get published that do show incorrect correlations.

I said:

"Right...I never said it was because of welfare. Mare said that welfare led to more crime. I found two different studies that showed that it did not."

And I said earlier:

Mare...I have already pointed out two studies - one that found no increase in crime due to welfare, and the other found a decrease in crime due to welfare.

I really think that the ball is in your court in terms of backing up your assertions. You CANNOT base an ideology solely on one person's individual experience. I do not doubt the validity of your experience, but I do doubt the generalizability."

Mare said:

so is the reduction in crime is DUE to welfare or not.

You are correct. I did say, "due to welfare". And I was mistaken when I said this. These studies do not show that it was "due to welfare". But they do show that welfare did not lead to more crime. I apologize for my poor wording.

"Very, very few articles get published that do show incorrect correlations."

i'm not saying that the studies themselves will identify inaccurate correlation - but those reading the study often jump to incorrect conclusions. you stated that the article showed a decline in crime due to welfare. you later corrected yourself that you had misspoken, but what can often happen is that people reading figures, statistics, and studies can assume an incorrect correlation. then years later they swear they read a study once that showed that welfare led to a decline in crime. these are some of the things that can happen with facts.

and, let's face it. ALL of us have reached our conclusions based on limited experience and knowledge. neither you nor i have read every study dealing with welfare and crime. neither you nor i have spent time in every housing project talking with every welfare recipient. you say that you value my experiences and opinions and that they are valid - but then you turn around and say they are limited so they shouldn't be used to form an opinion. but at least i have based my opinions on SOMETHING. i have yet to figure out what you are basing your opinion on when you claim that welfare reduces crime. sounds like we all have some serious limitations.

ALL of us have reached our conclusions based on limited experience and knowledge.

I agree with you here. But I will say that I continue to expand my limited experience and knoweldge.

then you turn around and say they are limited so they shouldn't be used to form an opinion.

I don't think I said this. I did say that you cannot use limited personal experience and generalize it to greater society. You can have all the opinions you want regarding your classroom experience and that community that you taught in.

i have yet to figure out what you are basing your opinion on when you claim that welfare reduces crime

Like I said, there are many studies that support this. Increasing social programs reduces several factors that reduce crime. Read some of these:

• The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison
• Invisible Woman
• The Color of Justice

All of them discuss this idea. I cannot discuss every study that is cited in these books. But I can assure you that I am not making the data up. And I have definitely based my opinions on a fairly decent ammount of research.

wish i had time to read those books, they look interesting. you aren't able to post here just a few of the statistics any of these books give? just the ones that would show that welfare re