Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I personally know of many minority families who can attribute thier exodus from poverty to one of those three initiatives I mentioned; each one of which was initiated by the Democratic Party.
I know of many more minority familes who never made an exodus because of the democratic party.
I know of many more minority familes who never made an exodus because of the democratic party.
All I can say is that there are many types of educational grants available to economically disadvantaged minorities. There are housing programs that were started by HUD also. The list goes on, ad infinitum. I think we both are talking in too simple terms. Whether or not a minority family makes it out of living in poverty in an inner-city is not wholly because of any political party.
I am neither a republican or a democrat. The two-party system of the US is a sham in my opinion. When you get down to brass tacks, there is not much difference between the two. However, it is a fact that one of the major educational grant programs aimed at helping economically disadvantaged minorities was sponsored by a democratic senator and supported and implemented by efforts of the democratic party. There are thousands of success stories that got started by Pell grants.
Wasn't it a democratic president called Bill Clinton who put limits on welfare programs? Most welfare recipients cannot stay on welfare indefinetely anymore because of Ol' Slick Willy.
Instead of blaming the problems of poor inner-city minorities on a political party, I think we should be focusing on the breakdown of the basic familial structure that is occuring in these communities, which is having a devastating effect.
Instead of blaming the problems of poor inner-city minorities on a political party, I think we should be focusing on the breakdown of the basic familial structure that is occuring in these communities, which is having a devastating effect.
All I can say is that there are many types of educational grants available to economically disadvantaged minorities. There are housing programs that were started by HUD also. The list goes on, ad infinitum. I think we both are talking in too simple terms. Whether or not a minority family makes it out of living in poverty in an inner-city is not wholly because of any political party.
I am neither a republican or a democrat. The two-party system of the US is a sham in my opinion. When you get down to brass tacks, there is not much difference between the two. However, it is a fact that one of the major educational grant programs aimed at helping economically disadvantaged minorities was sponsored by a democratic senator and supported and implemented by efforts of the democratic party. There are thousands of success stories that got started by Pell grants.
Wasn't it a democratic president called Bill Clinton who put limits on welfare programs? Most welfare recipients cannot stay on welfare indefinetely anymore because of Ol' Slick Willy.
Instead of blaming the problems of poor inner-city minorities on a political party, I think we should be focusing on the breakdown of the basic familial structure that is occuring in these communities, which is having a devastating effect.
Gotta disagree.
Whether or not a minority family makes it out of living in poverty in an inner-city is not wholly because of any political party.
If the party continues to push programs that encourage people to rely on government, the party is directly hurting the people they are trying to help.
I am neither a republican or a democrat. The two-party system of the US is a sham in my opinion. When you get down to brass tacks, there is not much difference between the two.
While there is little difference as far as corruption, special interest influence, and arrogance, there is much difference between how each feels government should be run.
Wasn't it a democratic president called Bill Clinton who put limits on welfare programs? Most welfare recipients cannot stay on welfare indefinetely anymore because of Ol' Slick Willy.
This is not exactly how welfare reform came about. History is being rewritten here. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Instead of blaming the problems of poor inner-city minorities on a political party, I think we should be focusing on the breakdown of the basic familial structure that is occuring in these communities, which is having a devastating effect
I agree that the blame game solves nothing. I was just pointing out that just as some of the core thinking on the left was very wrong then, much is still wrong today.
As far as rebuilding familes, it is a beautiful concept. And, I agree that it would fix a lot. However, it is not realistic. You are not going to change the 30-year-old who has five children with five separate women and refused to pay child support.
I cannot imagine the government ever being able to rebuild familes.
Whether or not a minority family makes it out of living in poverty in an inner-city is not wholly because of any political party.
If the party continues to push programs that encourage people to rely on government, the party is directly hurting the people they are trying to help.
I am neither a republican or a democrat. The two-party system of the US is a sham in my opinion. When you get down to brass tacks, there is not much difference between the two.
While there is little difference as far as corruption, special interest influence, and arrogance, there is much difference between how each feels government should be run.
Wasn't it a democratic president called Bill Clinton who put limits on welfare programs? Most welfare recipients cannot stay on welfare indefinetely anymore because of Ol' Slick Willy.
This is not exactly how welfare reform came about. History is being rewritten here. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Instead of blaming the problems of poor inner-city minorities on a political party, I think we should be focusing on the breakdown of the basic familial structure that is occuring in these communities, which is having a devastating effect
I agree that the blame game solves nothing. I was just pointing out that just as some of the core thinking on the left was very wrong then, much is still wrong today.
As far as rebuilding familes, it is a beautiful concept. And, I agree that it would fix a lot. However, it is not realistic. You are not going to change the 30-year-old who has five children with five separate women and refused to pay child support.
I cannot imagine the government ever being able to rebuild familes.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Regarding one comment: I never said that the government should be rebuilding families. I was talking about the socio-economic conditions that exist in many crime ridden areas of large American cities. These conditions have played are large role in the breaking down of many nuclear family units.There seems to be a sentiment that many Americans have, and that is: that people are poor because of their own fault. That is not always the case. It would take a "thinking-outside-of-the-box" attitude to change these situations. The current mayor of Newark, NJ seems to espouse an attitude like this. I really think that Corey Booker is on to something and he is worth keeping an eye on.
He alerted the nation to that idiot Bush's plans to turn over the Newark/Elizabeth Port to Dubai at a time when we were (supposedly, if you believe the Bush administration) on "high alert" for terrorism from any such countries. He has also brought a lot of Federal funding to NJ for our infrastructure, including the port.
If you really want to know what he has done all you need to do is search a little.
Senator Robert Menendez | Newsroom (http://menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/ - broken link)
HA, this is exactly why I don't like Menendez. That whole Dubai thing was a pile of bs used for political purposes. A company called Arab Shipping has been on the Port Elizabeth docks for 25 years and no one was ever concerned about it. The contract with a Brit firm was bought out by a Dubai firm and suddenly that was twisted into "we're giving our ports to DUBAI!"
It's not a Democrat thing. I hate most politicians equally.
Whether or not a minority family makes it out of living in poverty in an inner-city is not wholly because of any political party.
If the party continues to push programs that encourage people to rely on government, the party is directly hurting the people they are trying to help.
I am neither a republican or a democrat. The two-party system of the US is a sham in my opinion. When you get down to brass tacks, there is not much difference between the two.
While there is little difference as far as corruption, special interest influence, and arrogance, there is much difference between how each feels government should be run.
Wasn't it a democratic president called Bill Clinton who put limits on welfare programs? Most welfare recipients cannot stay on welfare indefinetely anymore because of Ol' Slick Willy.
This is not exactly how welfare reform came about. History is being rewritten here. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Instead of blaming the problems of poor inner-city minorities on a political party, I think we should be focusing on the breakdown of the basic familial structure that is occuring in these communities, which is having a devastating effect
I agree that the blame game solves nothing. I was just pointing out that just as some of the core thinking on the left was very wrong then, much is still wrong today.
As far as rebuilding familes, it is a beautiful concept. And, I agree that it would fix a lot. However, it is not realistic. You are not going to change the 30-year-old who has five children with five separate women and refused to pay child support.
I cannot imagine the government ever being able to rebuild familes.
Excellent post. Too bad I can't rep you anymore, CD is telling me to spread the love around. By the way, IIRC welfare reform was pushed by Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America" when the GOP took over Congress in 1994. Bill Clinton had no choice but to go along. He was wise not to fight it.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Regarding one comment: I never said that the government should be rebuilding families. I was talking about the socio-economic conditions that exist in many crime ridden areas of large American cities. These conditions have played are large role in the breaking down of many nuclear family units.There seems to be a sentiment that many Americans have, and that is: that people are poor because of their own fault. That is not always the case. It would take a "thinking-outside-of-the-box" attitude to change these situations. The current mayor of Newark, NJ seems to espouse an attitude like this. I really think that Corey Booker is on to something and he is worth keeping an eye on.
I agree that government can do some things in poor areas. Utilizing police to make a neighborhood safer is a great first step. I also agree that Booker is an interesting case example worth watching.
But I feel very strongly that government should avoid creating anything that encourgages reliance on government.
I'm also a big fan of outside-the-box approaches to long running problems. Mayor Giuliani completely turned NYC around with this approach.
I agree that government can do some things in poor areas. Utilizing police to make a neighborhood safer is a great first step. I also agree that Booker is an interesting case example worth watching.
But I feel very strongly that government should avoid creating anything that encourgages reliance on government.
I'm also a big fan of outside-the-box approaches to long running problems. Mayor Giuliani completely turned NYC around with this approach.
It is interesting that you mention Rudy G. He is more liberal concerning social issues than some Democrats. Because of this he would not be able to win a national election as a Republican. The traditional right wing base of the Republican party would never go for a pragmatic candidate like Giulliani. He is an example of a politician that could have really broadened the base of the GOP. Sadly, the Republican party seems to be comfortable with zealots like Rush Limbaugh as their de facto mouthpieces.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
