It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Maslo
You are using anecdotal evidence to deny statistics. Thats a logical fallacy.
What 'statistics'? There haven't been any statistics presented to deny!
There is a direct correlation between poverty and criminality (Kelly, 2000; Block and Heineke, 1975). Becker’s economic theory of crime (1968) assumes that people resort to crime only if the costs of committing the crime are lower than the benefits gained. Those living in poverty, therefore, have a much greater chance of committing property crime (Kelly, 2000, Chiu and Madden, 1998) than the general population. Property crime is defined as burglary, larceny, or theft (O’Connor, 2005).
Poor people make up the overwhelming majority of those behind bars as 53% of those in prison earned less than $10,000 per year before incarceration.
Sociologist and criminal justice scholars have found a direct correlation between poverty and crime. One economic theory of crime assumes that people weigh the consequences of committing crime. They resort to crime only if the cost or consequences are outweighed by the potential benefits to be gained. The logical conclusion to this theory is that people living in poverty are far more likely to commit property crimes such as burglary, larceny, or theft.
The city of Detroit, in which I live and work, is the poorest large city in America. Michigan has the nation’s worst economy of any state. Detroit has the poorest economy in Michigan. The neighborhood in which this ministry is located is one of Detroit’s poorest. I see first hand every day the effects of poverty and crime. In an environment of extreme poverty, system failures abound. For instance, Detroit Public Schools graduate only between 25-40% of its students depending on which report you believe. Low education rates, by the way, are also linked to high crime rates.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Bravo Obama...good for you. Maybe some conservatives can take some notes on how to make a statement on the issue while staying above the pettiness.
And this is the difference between liberals and conservatives.
Liberal view on women using contraception: It is their right to be able to plan their future with contraception, it is a medical issue and thus should be covered under health insurance.
Conservative view on women using contraception: They are whores and sluts who should keep their legs closed.
The same type of thinking goes for homosexuals, the poor, and immigrants.
Liberals on homosexuals: They are people too, government shouldn't rule who you should love. Their HUMAN rights should be protected.
Conservatives on homosexuals: Screw em, They are disgusting perverts and should be shamed into conforming to MY views.
Liberals on the poor: We should help people who have fallen on hard times.
Conservatives on the poor: Screw em, they are lazy idiots that just want to leech off of us.
Liberals on immigrants: We should be accepting to people who want to come here and make a better life for themselves, we should make it easier on them to come here legally.
Conservative on immigrants: Screw em...they look different, speak different, and act different than "true" Americans...we got here first...they can go back to where they came from.
I really think people who have voted Republican for decades may finally be waking up to the fact that they have been decieved to vote against their own, and fellow countrymens, interests.edit on 2-3-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by Maslo
Because after all it is the unethical decisions of the rich which create poverty, and lead to most of the criminal activity you talk about.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Insurance doesn't pay for everything. Likely she still has to pay an out of pocket deductible before anything else can get covered and there may be a separate co-pay for prescriptions.
Originally posted by Brian2384
Originally posted by arbiture
Originally posted by Brian2384
Originally posted by arbiture
reply to post by Brian2384
No, birth control should never be mandatory. I'm pro-choice
Pro-choice for who? You? nobody else matters right?
Oh give it a rest huh? I don't know about you but no matter how hard I try I can't get pregnant.
Lucky you, or is there aspirin in the equation?
Originally posted by MidnightTide
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by MidnightTide
Nobody is asking you to pay for anyone's birth control. It about negotiating an insurance policy with an employer or educator that includes women's reproductive services.edit on 3-3-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)
She wants insurance to pay for her birth control correct? So everyone who pays the insurance company will be paying for it....there is no free stuff. Insurance is for injuries, illnesses. If you want birth control, pay for it. If the health insurance industry has to cover preventative treatments such birth control I think the auto insurance industry should be required to cover my tires, brakes and windshield wipers.
But by all means, if this woman privately wants to negotiate a deal with her private insurance to include birth control - then go for it. But by no means should the government get involved in this, or tax payer dollars.
edit: Ok, her employer pays for her insurance I believe. Therefore her employment has every right to dictate what is covered. She doesn't like it then tough, find a job with the insurance package she prefers.
edit on 3-3-2012 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)
What a shock!
It was all a BIG PRODUCTION!
The Democrat’s token abused college coed is actually a 30 year-old hardcore women’s rights activist.
Sandra Fluke is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.www.thegatewaypundit.com...
Originally posted by Pigraphia
reply to post by Xcalibur254
Insurance companies should not be forced to provide something that is not a medical necessity.