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.
And you missed where I already answered that very same question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
No it did not. You mistakenly think that "Great society" ( the OP is talking about) and "welfare for single mothers" is one and the same thing.
In reality it's not.
No I don't. You made that up. What I said was FDR got the welfare state going.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
One doesn't go without the other. They go hand in hand.
If you look specifically into the history of AFDC ( "Aid to Dependent Children" - that SPECIFIC part of the welfare program,) you'll notice that America governed by Whites resisted it as long as it could - and for a good reason, taking in consideration White Christian background of the country. The people on top were afraid of precisely what you are talking about I assume - potential rise of children born out of wedlock, and children of color in particular.
No they don't go hand in hand. That's just your racist beliefs thinking white christians don't want black children. You conventiently forgot about how whites taught non whites about Christianity and were trying to convert them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Wrong again. Plenty of low-income women benefited from it in the US - both White and Black.
You're incorrect yet again. Many have not benefitted since they are stuck on welfare and cannot grow. Overall it has hurt the poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Yes they are, and since I am politically-incorrect person, I see two reasons for that;
reason number one - Blacks don't fair well in the hi-tech world built by Whites,
and number two - they are poorer than Whites to begin with, as a direct result of the slavery legacy.
Since the COL in the US ( and other developed countries) is rather high ( particularly when it comes to raising children,) it's quite natural that Blacks would end up on public assistance.
It's not that you are "politically-incorrect" it's that you are showing your racism. You think blacks are inferior since they can't make it in modern times. That's absurd. And that you think slavery which ended 150 years ago is somehow responsible for the extreme rise in single parent for blacks is every bit as absurd. We're somehow more prejudice now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
When it comes to developed countries, ( and US in particular,) this would be definitely a case, because of financial situation alone ( but not limited to it.) The US overall is not well-equipped for dealing with the whole "women emancipation" issue ( see the White Christian background of the country.)
Something else you made up because YOU think it sounds right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Yes I do, but unlike you, I key in the poverty factor as well. And when I key that poverty factor in, the difference between a child born into one-parent family and a child born into two-parents family is not all that big. In fact I understand Black ( or any women at the bottom of society); why putting up with infidelity/abuse? It's not worth it, and they fair better being single mothers. It's a different story for women protected by money of course.
Unlike you I use facts. The key to becoming middle class or higher, what gives a person a 75 percent chance of success is to finish high school, work full time, and don't get married and have kids until you're 21. Living off of welfare isn't working full time.
And the chance that a child succeeds increases with a 2 parent family vs a 1 parent family when each is on welfare.
Again Only 8 percent of black married-couple families live in poverty. Among black families in which both the husband and wife work full time, the poverty rate is under 5 percent. Poverty in black families headed by single women is 37 percent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
So what are you trying to say here?
That Black women are somehow miraculously avoiding those happy marriages with successful Black males and prefer to have children all alone instead?
Or your point is that Black women shouldn't have children unless they are married ( successfully at that?)
In this case it would be convenient from YOUR point of view, but not from THEIR point of view. Because there are not enough of successful, financially-stable, marriage-minded Black men to go around, so these women will end up having no husband and no children at all ( which would be convenient from your point of view as I've said, but not theirs.)
And if you'd like to make it a rule for Blacks to not to have children born out of wedlock, then on which ground? Based on Christian beliefs? But then you'll have to go back to the square one and look where the whole "sexual revolution" thing came from.
You didn't say anything. One more time in hopes you'll get it, when you give human beings money and they don't have to work for it, they'll take that money and not work. How hard is that to understand when the examples are all around us?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Oh, race has a lot to do with it.
No it doesn't. That's just you falsely playing the race card. It's about how welfare hurts the growth of individuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Look even how people of color identify what family is, vs the typical White American understanding of what "family" is. So all these Hillary claims "it takes a village to raise a child" is foreign ( and false) to White America concept. But it's a right concept for Africa.
Another thing - when you are talking about "single parent" family, your statement is correct, unless we are talking about an educated woman with tonnes of money. Then the outlook changes all of a sudden. See how this works, and how the way you are connecting dots becomes faulty?
LMAO you bought into something hillary clinton said??? And on top of that you think that means she speaks for an entire contingent of people?? Your problem is you don't see the individual. Plus you make things up and apply them incorrectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
My reasoning is that not all women are the same, and Black women are more compatible with ideas of matriarchate, being in charge of the family, children, and so on. So when she has the marriage-minded man around - fine, but if not, she'll go ahead and do what's natural for her.
No they're not. Nothing to do with the race of a person. That's just something you made up. The best part is you saying it's natural for a women to go on welfare. Which is kind of my point. When you give a human money for not working, they'll take it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
I mean it has been mentioned here, that there was no "marriage institution" in Africa, the way it has been established in Christian Europe, no?
It's funny how you make things up. You base it on something you pulled out of thin air called "marriage institution" as if a piece of paper is a big deal. I guess all through the ages all those examples of a man and women living their lives together and raising children means they weren't "married"? lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
All this of course goes against the very foundation of the US, but I never said that White American culture and Black American culture are compatible at their very core.
lol You keep making things up. As if there is difference in white and black culture when it comes to welfare and being succesful. When did this culture difference start? answer - When welfare kicked in. Because when you give the poor free money they'll take it and become dependent on it. Blacks are poor so they are affected at a much higher percentage.
Again The key to becoming middle class or higher, what gives a person a 75 percent chance of success is to finish high school, work full time, and don't get married and have kids until you're 21. Somehow black culture doesn't get this or want this? You have to quit saying blacks are inferior and different. They're the same as everyone else.
And you missed where I already answered that very same question.
No I don't. You made that up. What I said was FDR got the welfare state going.
No they don't go hand in hand. That's just your racist beliefs thinking white christians don't want black children. You conventiently forgot about how whites taught non whites about Christianity and were trying to convert them.
You're incorrect yet again. Many have not benefitted since they are stuck on welfare and cannot grow. Overall it has hurt the poor.
It's not that you are "politically-incorrect" it's that you are showing your racism. You think blacks are inferior since they can't make it in modern times. That's absurd. And that you think slavery which ended 150 years ago is somehow responsible for the extreme rise in single parent for blacks is every bit as absurd. We're somehow more prejudice now?
Something else you made up because YOU think it sounds right.
Unlike you I use facts. The key to becoming middle class or higher, what gives a person a 75 percent chance of success is to finish high school, work full time, and don't get married and have kids until you're 21. Living off of welfare isn't working full time.
And the chance that a child succeeds increases with a 2 parent family vs a 1 parent family when each is on welfare.
Again Only 8 percent of black married-couple families live in poverty. Among black families in which both the husband and wife work full time, the poverty rate is under 5 percent. Poverty in black families headed by single women is 37 percent.
You didn't say anything. One more time in hopes you'll get it, when you give human beings money and they don't have to work for it, they'll take that money and not work. How hard is that to understand when the examples are all around us?
No it doesn't. That's just you falsely playing the race card. It's about how welfare hurts the growth of individuals.
LMAO you bought into something hillary clinton said??? And on top of that you think that means she speaks for an entire contingent of people?? Your problem is you don't see the individual. Plus you make things up and apply them incorrectly.
No they're not. Nothing to do with the race of a person. That's just something you made up. The best part is you saying it's natural for a women to go on welfare. Which is kind of my point. When you give a human money for not working, they'll take it.
It's funny how you make things up. You base it on something you pulled out of thin air called "marriage institution" as if a piece of paper is a big deal. I guess all through the ages all those examples of a man and women living their lives together and raising children means they weren't "married"? lol
lol You keep making things up. As if there is difference in white and black culture when it comes to welfare and being succesful. When did this culture difference start? answer - When welfare kicked in. Because when you give the poor free money they'll take it and become dependent on it. Blacks are poor so they are affected at a much higher percentage.
Again The key to becoming middle class or higher, what gives a person a 75 percent chance of success is to finish high school, work full time, and don't get married and have kids until you're 21. Somehow black culture doesn't get this or want this? You have to quit saying blacks are inferior and different. They're the same as everyone else.
Of course FDR started a "welfare state," since laissez-faire ( i.e. "wild capitalism") is a failure concept. And of course welfare programs helped a great deal of people, ( Blacks and Whites alike) who otherwise would be worked to death and then disposed of, like a waste. That's capitalism 101 for you. And of course choosing between jobs that pay pennies and keep you in the grinder day in and day out, and "free money" that cover the same necessities as that meager check does, the majority of people probably choose the latter. It's only natural. But since you apparently like to promote fairy-tales about "equal opportunities" and "hard work" that "brings success" - why should I even waste my time here further?
There does seem to be an increase in single parent homes since 1964 and black households seem to be the hardest hit.
It's no myth and very clear from the graph just how damaging the Great Society Program was to the black family. It was meant well but it didn't give good results. Better schools and job opportunities are what will improve the black community imo.
It's no myth and very clear from the graph just how damaging the Great Society Program was to the black family. It was meant well but it didn't give good results. Better schools and job opportunities are what will improve the black community imo.
Let's see here..
The war on poverty
"The most ambitious and controversial part of the Great Society was its initiative to end poverty. The Kennedy Administration had been contemplating a federal effort against poverty. Johnson, who, as a teacher, had observed extreme poverty in Texas among Mexican-Americans, launched an "unconditional war on poverty" in the first months of his presidency with the goal of eliminating hunger, illiteracy, and unemployment from American life. The centerpiece of the War on Poverty was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which created an Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee a variety of community-based antipoverty programs.
Federal funds were provided for special education schemes in slum areas, including help in paying for books and transport, while financial aid was also provided for slum clearances and rebuilding city areas. In addition, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 created jobs in one of the most impoverished regions of the country.[citation needed] The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 provided various methods through which young people from poor homes could receive job training and higher education.[11]"
Education
...The most important educational component of the Great Society was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, designed by Commissioner of Education Francis Keppel. It was signed into law on April 11, 1965, less than three months after it was introduced. It ended a long-standing political taboo by providing significant federal aid to public education, initially allocating more than $1 billion to help schools purchase materials and start special education programs to schools with a high concentration of low-income children. During its first year of operation, the Act authorized a $1.1 billion program of grants to states, for allocations to school districts with large numbers of children of low income families, funds to use community facilities for education within the entire community, funds to improve educational research and to strengthen state departments of education, and grants for purchase of books and library materials.[16] The Act also established Head Start, which had originally been started by the Office of Economic Opportunity as an eight-week summer program, as a permanent program.
Welfare
A number of improvements were made to the Social Security program in terms of both coverage and adequacy of benefits. The Tax Adjustment Act of 1966 included a provision for special payments under the social security program to certain uninsured individuals aged 72 and over. The Social Security Amendments of 1965 included a 7% increase in cash benefits, a liberalization of the definition of disability, a liberalization of the amount a person can earn and still get full benefits (the so-called retirement test), payment of benefits to eligible children aged 18–21 who are attending school, payment of benefits to widows at age 60 on an actuarially reduced basis, coverage of self-employed physicians, coverage of tips as wages, liberalization of insured-status requirements for persons already aged 72 or over, an increase to $6,600 the amount of earnings counted for contribution and benefit purposes (the contribution and benefit base), and an increase in the contribution rate schedule.[14]
The Food Stamp Act of 1964 made the program permanent, while the Social Security Amendments of 1967 specified that at least 6% of monies for maternal and child health should be spent on family planning. By 1967, the federal government began requiring state health departments to make contraceptives available to all adults who were poor. Meal programs for low-income senior citizens began in 1965, with the federal government providing funding for "congregate meals" and "home-delivered meals."[22] The Child Nutrition Act, passed in 1966, made improvements to nutritional assistance to children such as in the introduction of the School Breakfast Program.[23]
Too bad Moynihan didn't do a little more research of his own.
Yes, black were deep into poverty in 1965. But their poverty was even worse just after WWII - something Moynihan was unaware of. Blacks had been steadily working their way OUT of that horrific poverty during the entire period. Thy still had a long way to go before equaling the prosperity of other races, but they had made a lot of progress. And all without the slightest help from government.
Then the "help" that Moynihan was crying for, got enacted... and the progress blacks were making came to a screeching halt.
See the chart above.
There is one little thing you didn't think about. The drug war. That likely played a role in slowing down income growth.
It's no myth and very clear from the graph just how damaging the Great Society Program was to the black family. It was meant well but it didn't give good results. Better schools and job opportunities are what will improve the black community imo.
And those who were able to get out of the ghetto did just that, went where the pickings were better. One thing the Great Society programs did was criminalize discrimination. People were free to move wherever they wanted. Want better schools? Move somewhere else. Many Blacks started doing that.
I'd say that it was LBJ's Great Society that had the most disastrous effect on black families. For instance, paying single unskilled mothers to have more children while encouraging fathers to abandon the family.
Min. wage laws also did their part by removing entry level jobs from the marketplace. And on and on with govt solutions.
Liberals so love the poor that they make more of them. Of course you dont see any conservatives rolling the programs back either.
The "(No) Man in the House" rule was a product of Southern Democrats who were lifers in Congress and, as such, chaired the committees through which legislation had to pass.
Can you point me please, what do you see as particularly damaging in these programs?
Those programs where great but how effective were they overall? I think Green_mariner explained the most effective part of the plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
And those who were able to get out of the ghetto did just that, went where the pickings were better. One thing the Great Society programs did was criminalize discrimination. People were free to move wherever they wanted. Want better schools? Move somewhere else. Many Blacks started doing that.
It was a buy off by the democrats for votes. LBJ said as he expanded welfare. " I will have those ni***ers voting democrat for the next 200 years. LBJ the racist was right. LBJ the democratic president bought their vote with tax payer monies.
Show me the money and I will show you who bought the power.
It's not about your one example. It's about the truth.
Once again, that likely true for at least half of those in the denomination. So that's far more than one example.
Again, do you want to discuss Hindus?
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.
