I worry about feminism. It seems to rob so many women of simple joy.

[Jermayn]

Have you talked to women about your theories?
Have you looked at any surveys?
How do you define a feminist?
I don't know any women who label themselves as such.
I just know women who want to respect and fairness.

Before we go any further, can you, or anyone else reading this, give us a clear definition of "woman". Thanks.

 

[The Barbarian]

I already did a couple of times.

The data, such as it was, did not control for poverty, which is a good predictor of crime. Sowell merely assumed what he set out to prove.

The fact that single-parent families have increased at the same time crime has declined, clearly refutes the idea that such families significantly increase crime.

Clearly, something else is driving crime rates. Interesting, though that the steep decline in violent crime tracks Bill Clinton's welfare reforms.
How Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform Changed America

Correlation is not necessarily causation, but it's worth investigating.

 

[The Barbarian]

Before we go any further, can you, or anyone else reading this, give us a clear definition of "woman". Thanks.

There's a biological definition:
An adult human with no Y chromosome.

And yes, I know that it's possible for minds and bodies to fail to line up consistently. I honestly don't know what, if anything, to do about that. I think such people should be treated with respect and compassion, and be allowed to live their lives as best works for them, so long as they don't impose on other people.

 

[The Barbarian]

I actually think the women of yesteryear were much stronger than the women today.

If you think so, you don't know my two daughters. One of them at age 20, took on the dean of a college who didn't like a charity event she set up to help finance a group going to Central America to help rebuild homes. It seems the fast-food place that was sponsoring the event has a major stockholder who is an outspoken homophobe. She argued that it didn't matter, so long as the company didn't actually discriminate (it doesn't). She won. I was never so proud of her.

Another daughter, with her husband, runs a major soccer club, is on the state coaching staff, takes care of her daughter including lots of activities, and manages very well. My granddaughter is more interested in dance and singing, but Mom encourages and supports her.

You don't want to mess with either of them.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The data, such as it was, did not control for poverty, which is a good predictor of crime. Sowell merely assumed what he set out to prove.

The fact that single-parent families have increased at the same time crime has declined, clearly refutes the idea that such families significantly increase crime.

Clearly, something else is driving crime rates. Interesting, though that the steep decline in violent crime tracks Bill Clinton's welfare reforms.
How Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform Changed America

Correlation is not necessarily causation, but it's worth investigating.

And this is one of the reasons that the Democrats lost the House of Representatives and
Newt Gingrich became speaker.

Spin the data the way you wish, but the welfare state was created in the 1960's and
we saw how it created more slums and violent crime than before.

Again, Thomas Sowell shows the data which refutes yours and is about the current violent crime rates. Even the new mayor of Boston is at a loss on what to do as we've had violent random attacks on innocent people in just a week.

 

[The Barbarian]

Clearly, something else is driving crime rates. Interesting, though that the steep decline in violent crime tracks Bill Clinton's welfare reforms.
How Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform Changed America

And this is one of the reasons that the Democrats lost the House of Representatives and
Newt Gingrich became speaker.

No. Clinton actually got his welfare reforms passed after Gingrich became Speaker. Remember, that Gingrich was so opposed to the plan that he shut down the government to force Clinton to drop it? And it was only after pretty much everyone took Clinton's side that Gingrich folded.

Spin the data the way you wish, but the welfare state was created in the 1960's and
we saw how it created more slums and violent crime than before.

I'm just pointing out that the number of single-parent families has grown while crime has dropped dramatically. That's not proof that single-parent families prevent crime, but it is proof that crime is not caused by single-parent families. As you know, there is a strong correlation between poverty and crime, and since poverty declined after welfare reform, that might be the reason. Notice the decline in crime began about the time Clinton's welfare reform package was signed into law.

The idea behind the "war on poverty" was a good one, but structurally, it led to people becoming dependent on help. Clinton's approach was to limit welfare and to use incentives to get training and find jobs. It worked.

And that seems to have reduced the crime rate. A good result, I think.

And yes, there has been a "Trump bump" in violent crime in recent years:

Partially, it's the increase in right-wing terrorism (which is now the major domestic terrorism concern), but also due to an increase in hate crimes against minorities generally. It's not even close to the rates we had 20 years ago, though.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Clearly, something else is driving crime rates. Interesting, though that the steep decline in violent crime tracks Bill Clinton's welfare reforms.
How Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform Changed America



No. Clinton actually got his welfare reforms passed after Gingrich became Speaker. Remember, that Gingrich was so opposed to the plan that he shut down the government to force Clinton to drop it? And it was only after pretty much everyone took Clinton's side that Gingrich folded.



I'm just pointing out that the number of single-parent families has grown while crime has dropped dramatically. That's not proof that single-parent families prevent crime, but it is proof that crime is not caused by single-parent families. As you know, there is a strong correlation between poverty and crime, and since poverty declined after welfare reform, that might be the reason. Notice the decline in crime began about the time Clinton's welfare reform package was signed into law.

The idea behind the "war on poverty" was a good one, but structurally, it led to people becoming dependent on help. Clinton's approach was to limit welfare and to use incentives to get training and find jobs. It worked.

And that seems to have reduced the crime rate. A good result, I think.

And yes, there has been a "Trump bump" in violent crime in recent years:

Partially, it's the increase in right-wing terrorism (which is now the major domestic terrorism concern), but also due to an increase in hate crimes against minorities generally. It's not even close to the rates we had 20 years ago, though.

Study: Crime rates linked to out-of-wedlock births
Study: Crime rates linked to out-of-wedlock births (phys.org)

 

[The Barbarian]

Study: Crime rates linked to out-of-wedlock births

As you see, they failed to control for economic status. Single-parent families tend to be poor. That's why, after 1990's welfare reform, violent crime dropped, even though the percentage of single-parent families increased.

 

[The Barbarian]

The results are clear. After the unconditional payments began, there was “a change in violent crime that amounts to 350 fewer violent crimes per 100,000 people compared to other towns.” Dauphin’s violent crime levels averaged 600 per 100,000 people so “[t]he magnitude of the effect is quite large.” Further, the total number of crimes dropped “to 1,400 fewer total crimes per 100,000 people” compared to an overall crime rate that “averaged about 8,000 per 100,000 people.” There was also a substantial drop in property crimes.

Putting aside the politically controversial idea of Universal Basic Income, the importance of this data is apparent. There appears to be a link between poverty and violent crime. It has long been theorized that, at least from a rational choice perspective, a causal link exists between poverty and property crimes because generating wealth reduces the benefit-to-cost ratio of committing crimes. This hypothesis is further confirmed from data in Alaska, whose eligible citizens have been receiving a cash dividend since the 1980s. In other words, most property crime is committed by people who feel they need to do so out of survival. However, the link between income and violent crime is less straightforward.
How Poverty Drives Violent Crime

It's not that complicated. But often people refuse to see the facts when the facts don't fit their preconceptions.

 

[Jermayn]

As you see, they failed to control for economic status. Single-parent families tend to be poor. That's why, after 1990's welfare reform, violent crime dropped, even though the percentage of single-parent families increased.

Violent crime dropped in the 90's because of stronger law enforcement policies/funding of police and abortion being legalized in 1973 meant less teens and 20 something year-olds from unwanted pregnancies, who were at greater risk of committing crime.

 

[The Barbarian]

Violent crime dropped in the 90's because of stronger law enforcement policies/funding of police

Hmm...
Bill Clinton overstated the effect of the crime bill he signed in 1994 when he said, “because of that bill we had a 25-year low in crime, a 33-year low in the murder rate.” Independent analyses have found that the bill had a modest effect on crime rates.
Bill Clinton and the 1994 Crime Bill - FactCheck.org

On the other hand...

Welfare reform pushed people of the dole and (most importantly) into job programs that made them employable. And poverty rates dropped rapidly. And so did crime rates, starting at the same time. It's true that correlation is not necessarily causation. But it's well-established that poverty causes crime. And here's more evidence.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As you see, they failed to control for economic status. Single-parent families tend to be poor. That's why, after 1990's welfare reform, violent crime dropped, even though the percentage of single-parent families increased.

You also fail to admit that Congress was controlled by the GOP after 1992, when Clinton made the changes to welfare, which didn't go into effect until 1993.

Also, look at who the mayors were of the large cities like NYC and Los Angeles in 1993, they were Republicans, who didn't take any crap from the left who wanted to coddle criminals.

Again, poverty doesn't drive the crime rates, but lack of values which are given best by a mother and father in the family.

Remove the fathers and many boys grown into barbarians, which is what we see today. They are the adults of the broken family system created by the government.

 

[The Barbarian]

You also fail to admit that Congress was controlled by the GOP after 1992, when Clinton made the changes to welfare, which didn't go into effect until 1993.

That was an interesting time. The republicans, angered by Clinton's insistence that limiting welfare include job training incentives, shut down the government to get their way. Newt Gingrich suffered a humiliating defeat when Clinton held firm and the public blamed republicans. Ultimately, they caved and gave Clinton the bill he wanted. And the rest is history. Welfare rolls were trimmed back, poverty declined an the economy boomed.

How Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform Changed America
Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign placed welfare reform at its center, claiming that his proposal would “end welfare as we have come to know it.”
How Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform Changed America

Also, look at who the mayors were of the large cities like NYC and Los Angeles in 1993, they were Republicans, who didn't take any crap from the left who wanted to coddle criminals.

Turns out the decline continued even as voters removed republican mayors. As you see, the decline in crime matches welfare reforms that put people back to work and reduced poverty.

Again, poverty doesn't drive the crime rates,

Data show that it does. The decline in poverty in America was matched by a decline in crime. As you have seen, studies have repeatedly confirmed that poverty causes crime.

but lack of values which are given best by a mother and father in the family.

Notice that as the number of single-parent familes grew, crime declined. So the data show that is a false assumption.

Remove the fathers and many boys grown into barbarians, which is what we see today. They are the adults of the broken family system created by the government.

Limiting the time a family can be on welfare seems to have been a good idea, when linked to job training incentives. Not only did poverty decline, so did crime. That's a good result, I think.

Now that poverty is again rising after the Trump debacle, we'll see what the result is for crime.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That was an interesting time. The republicans, angered by Clinton's insistence that limiting welfare include job training incentives, shut down the government to get their way. Newt Gingrich suffered a humiliating defeat when Clinton held firm and the public blamed republicans. Ultimately, they caved and gave Clinton the bill he wanted. And the rest is history. Welfare rolls were trimmed back, poverty declined an the economy boomed.

How Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform Changed America
Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign placed welfare reform at its center, claiming that his proposal would “end welfare as we have come to know it.”
How Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform Changed America



Turns out the decline continued even as voters removed republican mayors. As you see, the decline in crime matches welfare reforms that put people back to work and reduced poverty.



Data show that it does. The decline in poverty in America was matched by a decline in crime. As you have seen, studies have repeatedly confirmed that poverty causes crime.



Notice that as the number of single-parent familes grew, crime declined. So the data show that is a false assumption.



Limiting the time a family can be on welfare seems to have been a good idea, when linked to job training incentives. Not only did poverty decline, so did crime. That's a good result, I think.

Now that poverty is again rising after the Trump debacle, we'll see what the result is for crime.

The thing you fail to mention was, according to this article, Clinton's welfare reform didn't take place until 1996 when he had no choice but sign the bill, because the GOP controlled the House.

Welfare Reform at 20: Why Bill Clinton Signed the Bill | Time

As the article shows, welfare recipients increased before Clinton was elected and why he promised reform.

President Clinton had promised as much during his first run for the White House in 1992, coming out of a recession that had led to a 33% increase, between 1989 and 1994, in the number of households receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

 

[The Barbarian]

The thing you fail to mention was, according to this article, Clinton's welfare reform didn't take place until 1996 when he had no choice but sign the bill, because the GOP controlled the House.

As you learned, Newt Gingrich tried to force him to sign a bill without job training incentives, but Clinton refused to budge and Newt ultimately folded and gave him the bill he wanted.

Here's how he got a republican house to fold and give him the bill he wanted:
CLINTON IN WIN-WIN SITUATION ON WELFARE REFORM

From your link:
The decisive breakthrough began in early June, when two obscure G.O.P. Congressmen—John Ensign, a freshman from Las Vegas, and Dave Camp, a third termer from Michigan—conferred after a meeting of Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee. Says Ensign: “We both looked at each other and said, ‘This is crazy!’ ” What was crazy, they thought, was a decision of the G.O.P. congressional leadership to keep welfare reform combined in a single bill with drastic changes in Medicaid. That bill would be guaranteed to draw a third Clinton veto.

Ensign and Camp, however, wanted some real, popular legislation to present to their constituents. They got 52 House colleagues to sign a letter to Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate majority leader Trent Lott urging that welfare reform and Medicaid be decoupled. Gingrich refused, but meanwhile Ensign was getting calls—30 in a few days, he says—from lawmakers who wanted to join his group. He and Camp got more than 100 House G.O.P. signatures on a second letter, and on July 11 the G.O.P. leadership gave in.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As you learned, Newt Gingrich tried to force him to sign a bill without job training incentives, but Clinton refused to budge and Newt ultimately folded and gave him the bill he wanted.

Here's how he got a republican house to fold and give him the bill he wanted:
CLINTON IN WIN-WIN SITUATION ON WELFARE REFORM

From your link:
The decisive breakthrough began in early June, when two obscure G.O.P. Congressmen—John Ensign, a freshman from Las Vegas, and Dave Camp, a third termer from Michigan—conferred after a meeting of Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee. Says Ensign: “We both looked at each other and said, ‘This is crazy!’ ” What was crazy, they thought, was a decision of the G.O.P. congressional leadership to keep welfare reform combined in a single bill with drastic changes in Medicaid. That bill would be guaranteed to draw a third Clinton veto.

Ensign and Camp, however, wanted some real, popular legislation to present to their constituents. They got 52 House colleagues to sign a letter to Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate majority leader Trent Lott urging that welfare reform and Medicaid be decoupled. Gingrich refused, but meanwhile Ensign was getting calls—30 in a few days, he says—from lawmakers who wanted to join his group. He and Camp got more than 100 House G.O.P. signatures on a second letter, and on July 11 the G.O.P. leadership gave in.

In other words, Clinton signed the GOP bill in 1996, not 1992 as you previously posted. He also signed in order to keep Bob Dole from getting the points among the voters in the 1996 election.

If not for Newt Gingrich's GOP control of Congress, Clinton would've continued his record spending as he did the first two years of his presidency, driven by his wife Hillary.

He was able to sign the 1996 bill because Hillary was out of Washington, and everyone knew that she was a major influence on his decision making.

 

[The Barbarian]

In other words, Clinton signed the GOP bill in 1996, not 1992 as you previously posted. He also signed in order to keep Bob Dole from getting the points among the voters in the 1996 election.

To keep essential parts of the bill in place. That's where the GOP leadership caved and gave him what he wanted.

If not for Newt Gingrich's GOP control of Congress, Clinton would've continued his record spending as he did the first two years of his presidency, driven by his wife Hillary.

Actually, Clinton did what no republican since Hoover did: reduce deficits:

It's true that Obama also reduced deficits, but he inherited a wildly out of control spending problem from G.W. Bush, and so, it wasn't that hard to turn things around.

As you probably know, Trump ballooned the deficit. Would you like to see that?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

To keep essential parts of the bill in place. That's where the GOP leadership caved and gave him what he wanted.



Actually, Clinton did what no republican since Hoover did: reduce deficits:

It's true that Obama also reduced deficits, but he inherited a wildly out of control spending problem from G.W. Bush, and so, it wasn't that hard to turn things around.

As you probably know, Trump ballooned the deficit. Would you like to see that?

I agree, Bush/Cheney and the GOP Congress without Gingrich, blew the surplus that was given to them, and got us into two unfunded wars after 9/11. The facts behind 9/11 haven't all been revealed and the fact that we got into Iraq, maded me skeptical of Bush/Cheney.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's a secret that neither republicans nor democrats want their followers to know. Democrats tend to lower deficits. Businesses tend to do better under democrats.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Here is an interview Dr Jorden Peterson gave with Dr Newt Gingrich, that was just posted on YouTube. Newt Gingrich gives the history of how the Contract With America came into being, and why Clinton had no choice but sign it. Also, Newt Gingrich says how they got four balanced budgets while he was Speaker of the House, and then why the GOP blew it under Dubya and Cheney. The video is an hour and a half long, so make time to watch it.

(156) Politics: Tradition and Vision | Newt Gingrich | #301 - YouTube