Welfare? The Reason For Black Family Break-Up

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,863
60,200
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. Some argue that today’s weak black-family structure is a ‘legacy’ of slavery. But this view loses credibility when one examines evidence from the past.

2. During slavery, where marriage was forbidden, most black children lived in biological two-parent families. In ¾ of slave families, all of the children had the same mother and father. Herbert Gutman, “ The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925,” p. 10.

a. In NYC, 1925, 85% of kin-related black households were two-parent households. Gutman, Ibid, ix.


3. Before anyone attempt to explain today’s black family in terms of slavery and discrimination, realize that years ago there were only slight differences in family structure between racial groups. The % of nuclear families were: black (75.2), Irish (82.2), German (84.5), and naïve white American (73.1). Kenneth L. Kusmer, “From Reconstruction to the Great Migration,1877-1917.” Vol 4, part II, p. 72-96.

4. Ex-slave families were more likely than free-born to be two-parent families. Furstenberg, Jr., Hershberg, and Modell, “The Origins of the Female-Headed Black Family: the Impact of the Urban Experience,” p.211-233. 'But it is a fine place to make money': migration and African-American families in Cleveland, 1915-1929 - page 12 | Journal of Social History

5. “Going back a hundred years, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery, we find that census data of that era showed that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. This fact remained true in every census from 1890 to 1940.” Sowell, “The Vision,” p. 81 (Prior to 1890, the question was not part of the census.)



6. Coupled with the dramatic breakdown of black family structure has been the astonishing growth of illegitimacy: 19% in 1940, skyrocketing in the late 60’s, to 68% in 2000- and over 80% in some cities. See the National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Report, vol. 50

"...skyrocketing in the late 60’s,..."
LBJ.....'War on Poverty'....


7. So, if not slavery or discrimination, where to look for the root of the problem? Black propensity? Genetics? Racial differences? Clearly the stats above show this not to be the case. Get ready……studies show that welfare programs are a major contributor to behavioral poverty.

8. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were given a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.



9. Despite frequent assertions to the contrary, many seemingly intractable poroblems encountered by a significant number of black Americans do not result from racial discrimination, but rather from the policies, regulations, and restrictions emanating from federal, state, and local government.


From “Race & Economics,” by Walter E. Williams.
 
Williams, as much historian as he is economics guru, has done exhaustive research on the history of black America as has also his friend Thomas Sowell who concurs with all those facts plus a lot more.

Primary source - the many writings of both gentlemen plus Starr Parker, Shelby Steele, and others:

When the traditional nuclear family was the norm for blacks, blacks were also the most rapidly advancing demographic in the country. All that came to a screeching halt as LBJ's great society was implemented and the welfare state swelled into full bloom. And of course the reason is, when you reward single parenthood and out of wedlock children born, you encourage more of the same. Couple that with punishing families in which the father is present, and you have a prescription for generations of welfare mothers and children born into a permanent culture of poverty.
 
Well welfare gives you a check every month and a roof over your head as long as you don't have a man living with you, thats incentive right there to be a single mother and collect benefits especially if you are desperate. I don't have a problem with helping people but welfare shouldn't be a life style.
 
Well welfare gives you a check every month and a roof over your head as long as you don't have a man living with you, thats incentive right there to be a single mother and collect benefits especially if you are desperate. I don't have a problem with helping people but welfare shouldn't be a life style.

Exactly. Which is why welfare should be no higher than a state program and preferably a local community program so that agencies can work together, provide incentives for people not to work the system, and learn how to wean themselves off of it. That will never be done via a federal one-size-fits-all throw money at the problem program.
 
Walter Williams is great when he subs for Rush!

He has some great content but I have to focus more to hear it as he isn't as good as Rush as getting in a point that you can grab hold of even when you hear just a little bit. Probably because Williams is a college professor and is used to developing a thesis for the points he makes. :)

But I would sure pay good money to sit in one of his classes, or have the younger ones in the family do so.
 
white families did the same thing as slave families and got paid too.They are still enjoying the benefits of welfare.
 
Sounds like most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse?

It's crazy.

Welcome to the board, guy....

There is a point in your post worthy of elucidation.

Your point about human nature is totally correct.
While, of course, for many reasons, lots of folks aim higher, still, an understanding of human nature explains "most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse..."

Maybe many, if not most.


Which brings up the query of why a certain political perspective, and many elected officials, support this lowest common denominator.

And, why those who know the facts of the OP continue to support and endorse same.

Is Liberalism out and out evil?
 
Sounds like most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse?

It's crazy.

Welcome to the board, guy....

There is a point in your post worthy of elucidation.

Your point about human nature is totally correct.
While, of course, for many reasons, lots of folks aim higher, still, an understanding of human nature explains "most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse..."

Maybe many, if not most.


Which brings up the query of why a certain political perspective, and many elected officials, support this lowest common denominator.

And, why those who know the facts of the OP continue to support and endorse same.

Is Liberalism out and out evil?

Welcome to my new board, girl...

Your query is an interesting one but as a Constitutionalist I'm not in a position to answer it or react to what I'm assuming was the literary equivalent of tossing red meat into a lion's cage.

Moreover, I see both parties as simply different sides of the same corrupt coin.

Those who entertain either party as being a 'difference-maker' or 'better than the other' are the intellectual equivalents of fruit flies.

Sorry to disappoint you. Love your Av, princess
 
Sounds like most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse?

It's crazy.

Welcome to the board, guy....

There is a point in your post worthy of elucidation.

Your point about human nature is totally correct.
While, of course, for many reasons, lots of folks aim higher, still, an understanding of human nature explains "most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse..."

Maybe many, if not most.


Which brings up the query of why a certain political perspective, and many elected officials, support this lowest common denominator.

And, why those who know the facts of the OP continue to support and endorse same.

Is Liberalism out and out evil?

Welcome to my new board, girl...

Your query is an interesting one but as a Constitutionalist I'm not in a position to answer it or react to what I'm assuming was the literary equivalent of tossing red meat into a lion's cage.

Moreover, I see both parties as simply different sides of the same corrupt coin.

Those who entertain either party as being a 'difference-maker' or 'better than the other' are the intellectual equivalents of fruit flies.

Sorry to disappoint you. Love your Av, princess

I didn't see that PC referred to political parties. She did refer to political perspective that is a much different thing. It was political perspective, not necessarily a political party, that sowed the seeds of modern day progressivism or liberalism. It was political perspective that initiated the first seeds of the modern welfare state. It is political perspective that has continued, expanded, and grown that welfare state and that that produces a lack of will to initiate any real reforms or rein in the worst effects of it.

Which brings us to the current sorry state in which our government rewards those who forego the nuclear family, punishes those who embrace it, and produces generations of children trapped in permanent poverty.

And the thesis of the thread that the black family has been especially decimated and torn apart by this syndrome.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the board, guy....

There is a point in your post worthy of elucidation.

Your point about human nature is totally correct.
While, of course, for many reasons, lots of folks aim higher, still, an understanding of human nature explains "most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse..."

Maybe many, if not most.


Which brings up the query of why a certain political perspective, and many elected officials, support this lowest common denominator.

And, why those who know the facts of the OP continue to support and endorse same.

Is Liberalism out and out evil?

Welcome to my new board, girl...

Your query is an interesting one but as a Constitutionalist I'm not in a position to answer it or react to what I'm assuming was the literary equivalent of tossing red meat into a lion's cage.

Moreover, I see both parties as simply different sides of the same corrupt coin.

Those who entertain either party as being a 'difference-maker' or 'better than the other' are the intellectual equivalents of fruit flies.

Sorry to disappoint you. Love your Av, princess

I didn't see that PC referred to political parties. She did refer to political perspective that is a much different thing. It was political perspective, not necessarily a political party, that sowed the seeds of modern day progressivism or liberalism. It was political perspective that initiated the first seeds of the modern welfare state. It is political perspective that has continued, expanded, and grown that welfare state and that that produces a lack of will to initiate any real reforms or rein in the worst effects of it.

Which brings us to the current sorry state in which our government rewards those who forego the nuclear family, punishes those who embrace it, and produces generations of children trapped in permanent poverty.

And the thesis of the thread that the black family has been especially decimated and torn apart by this syndrome.

Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394

I know, I almost missed it too because the Av is so hot.

I as well doubt she was referring to any specific political party. Thank you for weighing in.
 
Sounds like most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse?

It's crazy.

Welcome to the board, guy....

There is a point in your post worthy of elucidation.

Your point about human nature is totally correct.
While, of course, for many reasons, lots of folks aim higher, still, an understanding of human nature explains "most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse..."

Maybe many, if not most.


Which brings up the query of why a certain political perspective, and many elected officials, support this lowest common denominator.

And, why those who know the facts of the OP continue to support and endorse same.

Is Liberalism out and out evil?

Read my sig and then decide. I think that the intentions were good, but some of the results were bad when it was allowed to devolve into a multi-generational lifestyle for many of the recipients of that program.
 
Sounds like most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse?

It's crazy.

Welcome to the board, guy....

There is a point in your post worthy of elucidation.

Your point about human nature is totally correct.
While, of course, for many reasons, lots of folks aim higher, still, an understanding of human nature explains "most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse..."

Maybe many, if not most.


Which brings up the query of why a certain political perspective, and many elected officials, support this lowest common denominator.

And, why those who know the facts of the OP continue to support and endorse same.

Is Liberalism out and out evil?

Read my sig and then decide. I think that the intentions were good, but some of the results were bad when it was allowed to devolve into a multi-generational lifestyle for many of the recipients of that program.

But again, a sociopoliical perspective with a particular label may be very different from a dictionary or encyclopedia definition. And your definition in yiour sig line bears little or no resemblance to modern day American liberalism. Which is why modern day American conservatives are increasingly referred to as classical liberals which do more closely fit your definition.

I won't presume to speak for PC, but I'd bet a nice BLT (that I am about to go make) that she had modern day American liberalism in mind in the referenced statement.
 
I thnk shelby steele hits it here as well;



...Trayvon's sad fate clearly sent a quiver of perverse happiness all across America's civil rights establishment, and throughout the mainstream media as well. His death was vindication of the "poetic truth" that these establishments live by. Poetic truth is like poetic license where one breaks grammatical rules for effect. Better to break the rule than lose the effect. Poetic truth lies just a little; it bends the actual truth in order to highlight what it believes is a larger and more important truth.

The civil rights community and the liberal media live by the poetic truth that America is still a reflexively racist society, and that this remains the great barrier to black equality. But this "truth" has a lot of lie in it. America has greatly evolved since the 1960s. There are no longer any respectable advocates of racial segregation. And blacks today are nine times more likely to be killed by other blacks than by whites.

If Trayvon Martin was a victim of white racism (hard to conceive since the shooter is apparently Hispanic), his murder would be an anomaly, not a commonplace. It would be a bizarre exception to the way so many young black males are murdered today. If there must be a generalization in all this—a call "to turn the moment into a movement"—it would have to be a movement against blacks who kill other blacks. The absurdity of Messrs. Jackson and Sharpton is that they want to make a movement out of an anomaly. Black teenagers today are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites.

Shelby Steele: The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin - WSJ.com

and last year he had an article where in he explained that in is view, whites ( liberals there by us) surrendered a moral high ground due to guilt, no on bu other blacks and even then, were allowed to critique the black 'experience' since the 1960s in America , after the great society and civil rights that signaled an admission of past grievances we lost the 'right' to say hey thats not right, or this is self destructive etc etc ...no matter the object or subject becasue whites had had blacks as slaves, simply put.

And that has been exploited like all get out.
 
Welcome to the board, guy....

There is a point in your post worthy of elucidation.

Your point about human nature is totally correct.
While, of course, for many reasons, lots of folks aim higher, still, an understanding of human nature explains "most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse..."

Maybe many, if not most.


Which brings up the query of why a certain political perspective, and many elected officials, support this lowest common denominator.

And, why those who know the facts of the OP continue to support and endorse same.

Is Liberalism out and out evil?

Read my sig and then decide. I think that the intentions were good, but some of the results were bad when it was allowed to devolve into a multi-generational lifestyle for many of the recipients of that program.

But again, a sociopoliical perspective with a particular label may be very different from a dictionary or encyclopedia definition. And your definition in yiour sig line bears little or no resemblance to modern day American liberalism. Which is why modern day American conservatives are increasingly referred to as classical liberals which do more closely fit your definition.

I won't presume to speak for PC, but I'd bet a nice BLT (that I am about to go make) that she had modern day American liberalism in mind in the referenced statement.

I only know a few "modern day conservatives" that could be referred to as Classical Liberals, one being Ron Paul. Who are the "modern Liberals" that refer to themselves as Liberals?
 
Read my sig and then decide. I think that the intentions were good, but some of the results were bad when it was allowed to devolve into a multi-generational lifestyle for many of the recipients of that program.

But again, a sociopoliical perspective with a particular label may be very different from a dictionary or encyclopedia definition. And your definition in yiour sig line bears little or no resemblance to modern day American liberalism. Which is why modern day American conservatives are increasingly referred to as classical liberals which do more closely fit your definition.

I won't presume to speak for PC, but I'd bet a nice BLT (that I am about to go make) that she had modern day American liberalism in mind in the referenced statement.

I only know a few "modern day conservatives" that could be referred to as Classical Liberals, one being Ron Paul. Who are the "modern Liberals" that refer to themselves as Liberals?

Just about everybody left of center on USMB for starters.
 
But again, a sociopoliical perspective with a particular label may be very different from a dictionary or encyclopedia definition. And your definition in yiour sig line bears little or no resemblance to modern day American liberalism. Which is why modern day American conservatives are increasingly referred to as classical liberals which do more closely fit your definition.

I won't presume to speak for PC, but I'd bet a nice BLT (that I am about to go make) that she had modern day American liberalism in mind in the referenced statement.

I only know a few "modern day conservatives" that could be referred to as Classical Liberals, one being Ron Paul. Who are the "modern Liberals" that refer to themselves as Liberals?

Just about everybody left of center on USMB for starters.

Really? What about your conservative politicians, how many of them refer to themselves as Liberals, classical or otherwise?
 
Sounds like most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse?

It's crazy.

Welcome to the board, guy....

There is a point in your post worthy of elucidation.

Your point about human nature is totally correct.
While, of course, for many reasons, lots of folks aim higher, still, an understanding of human nature explains "most folks, if given the chance, would rather have sex and go fishing than work in a warehouse..."

Maybe many, if not most.


Which brings up the query of why a certain political perspective, and many elected officials, support this lowest common denominator.

And, why those who know the facts of the OP continue to support and endorse same.

Is Liberalism out and out evil?

Read my sig and then decide. I think that the intentions were good, but some of the results were bad when it was allowed to devolve into a multi-generational lifestyle for many of the recipients of that program.

Thoughtful post, and sig, Pheonie....


but, let's remember that "modern Liberal" is not the same as the classical Liberals who established this great nation.
The modern version is based on John Dewey co-opting the word for the group know more correctly as Progressives. The classical Liberals are today known as conservatives.



1. "In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book "Individualism Old and New" argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.

a. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”

2. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the word ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.

a. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
Ending the Liberal Confusion, by Jim Peron
 
You can't really solve a problem until you understand what the problem is. Until that milestone is achieved vis a vis the black underclass, the bureucrats in D.C. will just continue to throw money around and make things worse.
 

Forum List

Back
Top