The Liberal Welfare State Policies Has Done to Black Americans What Slavery Could Not Have Done’ (unemployment, generation)

[JazzyTallGuy]

Originally Posted by nighttrain55

Can somebody explain to me why republicans care about what liberal policies have done to blacks?

Because Republicans have used the hatred of Blacks to unify bigoted Whites for their political gain. This only works if they continue to degrade, demonize, and make every attempt possible to disenfranchise Black Americans.

That's why it's going to be so hard for the Republcan Party to change they are addicted to bigotry, hatred, ignorance and fear. Without it they have very limited power.

In the end it will also be their destruction.

[detwahDJ]

Love these repub complaints about lower-class "entitlements", and how they (not we) must "tighten their belts". Folks, here's (part of) the republican "entitlement mentality" in all its glory.
Rich CEOs aim to shift $134 billion in tax payments onto poor and middle-class Americans - The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur // Current TV

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/03-7

The Worst Welfare Benefits the Best-Off: Corporations - Reason.com

Corporations are getting more from the government than Romney's 47% of citizens.
From the year 2006, the government spends $59 billion (3% of its total budget) on social welfare and $92 billion (5% of total budget) on corporate welfare. Now perhaps more.
And they talk about "liberal" handouts to minorities.

[chirack]

Originally Posted by malamute

If poverty has decreased, why are there reports that 50 million people in the USA are living in poverty?

The population of the US is 314 million or so. 50 million is about 16% of the population. To determine if poverty has increased or decreased you need a frame of reference(what was the previous level of poverty).

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3/Figure1.png

While no data exists for the years 1960-1965, the poverty rate in 1959 was 55.1 for blacks vs. 27.4 in 2010. It is on the whole on the decline. Which really isn't surprising considering most blacks where share croppers before the 50ies. Also the data suggests that the 1950ies were a tale of two races....white poverty levels while also on the decline are not as high as black(less than 20% vs. over 50%). It appears that the 50ies are not quite all Ozzy and Harriet.

[simetime]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

I fail to see how my post contradicts what is bolded or is indicative of my supposed hatred of African Americans.

I only question if giving people money qualifies as lifting them out of poverty, if they will merely fall back into poverty if the money is taken away.

Money has very little to do with it. You can give a million dollars to someone who does not have the education as to what to do with it and they would be broke within the year. This is why welfare programs exist but funding for better education in schools do not. I see republicans clamoring to cut social benefits and at the same time tells people to get a job but yet cut the basic foundation of getting there through education off

[simetime]

Originally Posted by detwahDJ

Love these repub complaints about lower-class "entitlements", and how they (not we) must "tighten their belts". Folks, here's (part of) the republican "entitlement mentality" in all its glory.
Rich CEOs aim to shift $134 billion in tax payments onto poor and middle-class Americans - The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur // Current TV

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/03-7

The Worst Welfare Benefits the Best-Off: Corporations - Reason.com

Corporations are getting more from the government than Romney's 47% of citizens.
From the year 2006, the government spends $59 billion (3% of its total budget) on social welfare and $92 billion (5% of total budget) on corporate welfare. Now perhaps more.
And they talk about "liberal" handouts to minorities.

It is easy to demonize the poor because they do not have the money (lobbyist) to fight back. A defense contractor gets millions in subsidies to build weapons for what? We are at war with damn near second world country, why in the hell do we need more submarines mitt?

[detwahDJ]

Originally Posted by simetime

It is easy to demonize the poor because they do not have the money (lobbyist) to fight back. A defense contractor gets millions in subsidies to build weapons for what? We are at war with damn near second world country, why in the hell do we need more submarines mitt?

** This is the right-wing trillion-dollar American world empire, while repubs complain about their taxes going into domestic programs like deteriorating infrastructure and to the poor.
** Let's see, there's a word for someone picking on people who can't fight back, it rhymes with "bully".

[Mr.XXX]

Money has very little to do with it. You can give a million dollars to someone who does not have the education as to what to do with it and they would be broke within the year. This is why welfare programs exist but funding for better education in schools do not. I see republicans clamoring to cut social benefits and at the same time tells people to get a job but yet cut the basic foundation of getting there through education off

The problem today with African-Americans is the breakdown of the black family...My parents immigrated here with no money, no education, no skill... didn't know the language...yet they achieved the American dream...not only them but their relatives, friends..etc....You want know why they succeeded..it wasn't education, money or whatever...it was "old fashion values" a strong nuclear family!!!....something the left has been trying to destroy for generations...and they've done a good job with black families!!!!

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Mr.XXX

The problem today with African-Americans is the breakdown of the black family...My parents immigrated here with no money, no education, no skill... didn't know the language...yet they achieved the American dream...not only them but their relatives, friends..etc....You want know why they succeeded..it wasn't education, money or whatever...it was "old fashion values" a strong nuclear family!!!....something the left has been trying to destroy for generations...and they've done a good job with black families!!!!

That may be you theory but much of the developed world seems to do quite well without your 1950s values of a a "strong nuclear family."

% of Children Born to Unmarried Parents in 2010
Iceland.................64.3
Estonia................59.1."
Slovenia................55.7
France...................55.0
Norway.................54.8
Sweden.................54.2
Bulgaria.................54.1
France....................54.1
Denmark ................47.3
United Kingdom......46.9
Belgium................. 46.2
Netherlands...........44.3
Latvia.....................44.1
Portugal.................41.3
Finland...................41.1
Hungary.................40.8
Czech Republic.......40.3
Austria....................40.1

By contrast, in Syria, marriage is valued so highly that the share of children born to unmarried parents is nearly 0 percent.

A society doesn't have to revolve around a nuclear family to be productive. Many people are finding it unnecessary to live in a married relationship or to have children.

[Mr.XXX]

Many people are finding it unnecessary to live in a married relationship or to have children.

Just curious if everyone felt it was unnecessary to have children----what would happen?

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Mr.XXX

Just curious if everyone felt it was unnecessary to have children----what would happen?

What would happen if birds flew out of my butt?

The world's problem is not lack of births. The world's problem is an alarming overpopulation problem. There is no risk that too many will choose no children and many of those who stay single still have children, just not in traditional family roles.