Welfare? The Reason For Black Family Break-Up

[Moonglow]

Based on your political perspective, this post was a pretty thoughtful response to the OP.

Let me give a general answer....

...if one believes in the ability of our black brothers and sisters, it seems logical to subscribe to the view of Fredrick Douglass, who said the following in April, 1865. His speech was called “What the Black Man Wants."


"Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, "What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us!

Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall!

I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!

If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don't disturb him! [Applause.] If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,--your interference is doing him a positive injury.”


Does it seem to you that Liberal programs have followed that prescription?

yes, but years of oppression by society and race hating ruined what Douglas stated.

While the period you refer to certainly included what you state, Douglass spoke in 1865.

The OP covers a period beyond that, during which blacks competed successfully sans government programs.

Then came the 1960's and the "War on Poverty."

I'll bet you would agree that the 'War' did not produce the results that were promised.


NY Democrat Senator, the brilliant Daniel Patrick Moynihan, called for the same things as Douglass, calling it 'benign neglect' of blacks.


I suggest that Liberal politicians also realize the truth of the Douglass-Moynihan ideas, but have an ulterior agenda, one that is not based on benefiting blacks.


Ya' think?

I suggest that you stop pointing fingers and realize that you are attempting to blame democrats for the reason why many blacks are not a social success.

First of all, other races have laggers or failures.
Secondly, no republican or conservative has removed welfare while in office and when they had a monopoly of the government branches.
Thirdly, the blacks have the opprotunity to do something but they lack the desire, if they had not welfare they would still not work because many are unemployable.
I have degrees and experience and it is still difficult to get hired in the field I want to work in.

 

[Foxfyre]

I frankly cannot see how a thoughtful discussion of how welfare programs may or may not contribute to the demise of the black family is 'race baiting'.

In my opiinion, to divert the topic to slavery or segregation or the KKK or other such topics IS race baiting as the topic in no way refers to or endorses any of those things. So if we could focus on the specific issue of the pros and cons of government programs intended to address poverty, and the effects of that on the black family, that would be much appreciated.

Quoted from writings of Walter Williams, a contemporary of Thomas Sowell:

. . . ."We lived in the Richard Allen housing projects" in Philadelphia, says Mr. Williams. "My father deserted us when I was three and my sister was two. But we were the only kids who didn't have a mother and father in the house. These were poor black people and a few whites living in a housing project, and it was unusual not to have a mother and father in the house. Today, in the same projects, it would be rare to have a mother and father in the house."

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren't permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do," Mr. Williams says. "And that is to destroy the black family." . . . .
The Weekend Interview with Walter Williams: The State Against Blacks - WSJ.com

and?

. . .and, the fact is that the single largest component of poverty is the single parent. While there are wonderful single parents who do a great job and who are able to adequately support their family, the fact is that the largests reason for poverty among children is not having two parents in the home. The one largest factor that gives a child the best possible chance to not live in poverty, to not get involved in gangs or illegal activity, to gradute from highschool and to perhaps have even higher ambitions is a mother AND father in the home.

Our American welfare policies do seem to encourage single parenthood by rewarding it with extra benefits, most especailly with attention to black single parents, and withdrawing support support if there are two parents in the home.

Isn't it worth looking at such unintended negative consequences of policies intended to be helpful? Most especially if we suspect that the negative consequences may not be wholly unintended or there are benefits to some by maintaining the current status quo?

 

[PoliticalChic]

yes, but years of oppression by society and race hating ruined what Douglas stated.

While the period you refer to certainly included what you state, Douglass spoke in 1865.

The OP covers a period beyond that, during which blacks competed successfully sans government programs.

Then came the 1960's and the "War on Poverty."

I'll bet you would agree that the 'War' did not produce the results that were promised.


NY Democrat Senator, the brilliant Daniel Patrick Moynihan, called for the same things as Douglass, calling it 'benign neglect' of blacks.


I suggest that Liberal politicians also realize the truth of the Douglass-Moynihan ideas, but have an ulterior agenda, one that is not based on benefiting blacks.


Ya' think?

I suggest that you stop pointing fingers and realize that you are attempting to blame democrats for the reason why many blacks are not a social success.

First of all, other races have laggers or failures.
Secondly, no republican or conservative has removed welfare while in office and when they had a monopoly of the government branches.
Thirdly, the blacks have the opprotunity to do something but they lack the desire, if they had not welfare they would still not work because many are unemployable.
I have degrees and experience and it is still difficult to get hired in the field I want to work in.

1. While 'First' is true, you'd be silly to argue success rates vs. races.

2. 'Secondly' (sic) is incorrect.
"President Clinton signed historic welfare legislation yesterday that rewrites six decades of social policy, ending the federal guarantee of cash assistance to the poor and turning welfare programs over to the states....Republicans, who had prodded Clinton for months to sign a welfare bill,..."
Washingtonpost.com: Clinton Signs Welfare Bill Amid Division

And, the Republican welfare reform was wildly successful.

3. Your 'Thirdly' (sic) is proven incorrect via the OP.


Let me remind you of the experiment called 'Sime-Dime.'


The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give 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.

c. For each dollar increase in welfare payment, low-income persons reduced labor earnings by eighty cents. Christensen and Williams, “Welfare Family Cohesiveness and Out of Wedlock Birth,” p. 398.

d. A 50 % increase in the monthly values of welfare benefits led to a 43 % increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.
Hill and O’Neill, “Underclass Behavior in the United States: Measurement and Analysis Determinants,” in http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf


Since Liberal Democrats must know this, as well....there can only be one reason to continue such deleterious policy is continued: power.

 

[PoliticalChic]

notwithstanding the race-baiting and the high-fiving you got for it...

there are far more reasons than "welfare" for issues in the black community...

you can start with poverty... which initially came from lack of education and opportunity... separate but equal if you will, not being equal.

you can also add a lack of value on education in some quarters because the truly successful people in high-poverty areas aren't successful because of education

you can also add the systematic removal of male blacks from the community by means of a purported "war on drugs" which, amazingly, impacts black youth far more intensely than it does white youth despite the fact that drug use in the black community is essentially no greater than drug use in the white community.

then try getting a job if you have a criminal record.

if you have a criminal record (e.g., for drugs) and your family is in public housing, their benefits and housing are cut off if you remain in the apartment... which separates teens at their most vulnerable from their parents.

but you can pretend it's welfare if you want to.

Based on your political perspective, this post was a pretty thoughtful response to the OP.

Let me give a general answer....

...if one believes in the ability of our black brothers and sisters, it seems logical to subscribe to the view of Fredrick Douglass, who said the following in April, 1865. His speech was called “What the Black Man Wants."


"Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, "What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us!

Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall!

I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!

If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don't disturb him! [Applause.] If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,--your interference is doing him a positive injury.”


Does it seem to you that Liberal programs have followed that prescription?

frederick douglas was speaking to different issues.

moreover, you didn't address the issues i raised which DO impact on black families. I'm not saying there is no responsibility and no truth at all in your points... because there is on both counts. but that is a simplistic way of looking at a very complex problem.

i would direct you to The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander

I am not saying you will agree with everything Michelle Alexander says, but you can't ignore the issues she raises either.

What we do know is that programs like Head Start benefit poor kids. We should know that a parent who never had education and lives in poverty isn't going to have the parenting skills to do what i did when my son was born, which was read to him from the day we came home from the hospital, or the resources to care for him and pay for day care, the sitters, the tae kwondo, the piano, the soccer, the fencing, the saxophones, the oboe, the music lessons, the math tutor... yadda, yadda, yadda...

and whether my family were a two-parent home or not, i would still have been able to do all of those things...

because i was educated and employed and had family resources as well as my own.

big difference.

1. I haven't read the book. On your recommendation, I read the rather detailed review at

BOOK REVIEW: THE NEW JIM CROW: MASS INCARCERATION IN THE AGE OF COLORBLINDNESS, IS AN ENLIGHTENING READ | East County Magazine

It was quite positive. I sense you would agree with it.


2. I went to Amazon, to read a variety of reviews, and found one by 'Firestarter'
a reader who gave it one star....

...which was quite the opposite.


3. The experience Ms. Alexander and her son went through certainly explains much of her passion.
As for you and I, the two reviews might represent our perspectives. Glad you brought it up.


4. Unlike the differences above, our history of our experiences with our children is remarkably similar.


5. As far as having the family structure you and I both had/have, if you are suggesting that the black nuclear family fell apart due either to discrimination, or history or Jim Crow....I'd be able to document dissolution caused by welfare...see the Sime-Dime study.

Be well.

 

[Emanamana]

First of all, other races have laggers or failures.
Secondly, no republican or conservative has removed welfare while in office and when they had a monopoly of the government branches.
Thirdly, the blacks have the opprotunity to do something but they lack the desire, if they had not welfare they would still not work because many are unemployable.
I have degrees and experience and it is still difficult to get hired in the field I want to work in.
-------------------------------------------------------
Imagine that you do finally get a job in your chosen field, at the same time that an affirmative-actioned person is hired (with no experience) as your co-worker.

Chances are, you will end up "baby-sitting"/compensating for that person. And, they know that they can't be fired.

Eventually, that person gets promoted- now is your boss. And you'd still have to "baby-sit".

I've seen it a hundred times. Especially in government jobs.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thesis of the thread suggests that if there was no welfare or at least much less welfare targeting demographics such as black people, there would be far less decimation of the black family and consequently far fewer black people who are 'unemployable.'

There is no reason to believe that the traditional black family, left to its own abilities to prosper, would be any less successful in that than any other traditional family. In fact, the data suggests that the traditional nuclear black family gets along very well with the children enjloying a HS graduation rate comparable to or better than others and with about the same percentage of applications for college.

Further, to discuss the issue to determine if government policies are a negative factor in the equation is in no way racist, while attempts to deflect or stop the discussion could very well be racist.

If the traditional family is a proven asset to American society in all aspects: stability, prosperity, aesthetically, and quality of life, it would logically follow that policies that in effect applauded, encouraged, and supported the traditional family should be the goal. And policies that did the opposite should be discontinued.

 

[Huey]

First of all, other races have laggers or failures.
Secondly, no republican or conservative has removed welfare while in office and when they had a monopoly of the government branches.
Thirdly, the blacks have the opprotunity to do something but they lack the desire, if they had not welfare they would still not work because many are unemployable.
I have degrees and experience and it is still difficult to get hired in the field I want to work in.
-------------------------------------------------------
Imagine that you do finally get a job in your chosen field, at the same time that an affirmative-actioned person is hired (with no experience) as your co-worker.

Chances are, you will end up "baby-sitting"/compensating for that person. And, they know that they can't be fired.

Eventually, that person gets promoted- now is your boss. And you'd still have to "baby-sit".

I've seen it a hundred times. Especially in government jobs.

usually the one you have to babysit is white,got that job for his privlege.
Too lazy to learn the job been there years before you and still dont know the job.

 

[Foxfyre]

First of all, other races have laggers or failures.
Secondly, no republican or conservative has removed welfare while in office and when they had a monopoly of the government branches.
Thirdly, the blacks have the opprotunity to do something but they lack the desire, if they had not welfare they would still not work because many are unemployable.
I have degrees and experience and it is still difficult to get hired in the field I want to work in.
-------------------------------------------------------
Imagine that you do finally get a job in your chosen field, at the same time that an affirmative-actioned person is hired (with no experience) as your co-worker.

Chances are, you will end up "baby-sitting"/compensating for that person. And, they know that they can't be fired.

Eventually, that person gets promoted- now is your boss. And you'd still have to "baby-sit".

I've seen it a hundred times. Especially in government jobs.

usually the one you have to babysit is white,got that job for his privlege.
Too lazy to learn the job been there years before you and still dont know the job.

And that is relevant to exploring whether welfare policies have been helpful or detrimental to the black family HOW?

There are poor people in China.
There are poor people in Southeast Asia.
There are poor people in Mexico.
There are poor people in Africa.
And there are poor people who are not black in the USA.

There are probably almost as many reasons for poverty existing as there are people.

Anti poverty programs have been proposed, have been implemented, and/or have been retained through a lot of adminsitrations, some controlled by Republicans, some controlled by Democrats. There are any number of threads on USMB addressing that at length, casting blame, accusing, or hashing out who was responsible, etc.

And not any of that has ANYTHING to do with whether government policies addressing poverty have hurt or helped the black family in America more.

 

[Huey]

The thesis of the thread suggests that if there was no welfare or at least much less welfare targeting demographics such as black people, there would be far less decimation of the black family and consequently far fewer black people who are 'unemployable.'

There is no reason to believe that the traditional black family, left to its own abilities to prosper, would be any less successful in that than any other traditional family. In fact, the data suggests that the traditional nuclear black family gets along very well with the children enjloying a HS graduation rate comparable to or better than others and with about the same percentage of applications for college.

Further, to discuss the issue to determine if government policies are a negative factor in the equation is in no way racist, while attempts to deflect or stop the discussion could very well be racist.

If the traditional family is a proven asset to American society in all aspects: stability, prosperity, aesthetically, and quality of life, it would logically follow that policies that in effect applauded, encouraged, and supported the traditional family should be the goal. And policies that did the opposite should be discontinued.

There are a hellava lot of Black Americans that aren't on welfare,as there are a hellava lot of white americans on welfare.These Black families are two parent homes,the family is strong,as some white families are in breakup.

 

[gallantwarrior]

white families did the same thing as slave families and got paid too.They are still enjoying the benefits of welfare.

Irrelevant deflection, given the title of the OP.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

It would seem that the problem, and it's root cause, are more than amply described. The failure comes when both the problem and the root cause are exploited as a convenience for political expediency and the obvious solution is ignored.

 

[GodSaveAmerica]

When we compare whites and blacks who come from the same kind of stable and affluent background we still see the same achievement gap, which debunks the idea that government interventions are holding blacks back. If we do not restrict the inquiry to America, and look elsewhere around the world, we find that every black population of significant size displays the same familiar pattern of underachievement vis- a- vis whites. It’s pretty ironic that half a century after the government’s effort to uplift blacks first began we are still scratching our heads trying to figure the right solution as if the answer were not blatantly obvious.

 

[Huey]

The thesis of the thread suggests that if there was no welfare or at least much less welfare targeting demographics such as black people, there would be far less decimation of the black family and consequently far fewer black people who are 'unemployable.'

There is no reason to believe that the traditional black family, left to its own abilities to prosper, would be any less successful in that than any other traditional family. In fact, the data suggests that the traditional nuclear black family gets along very well with the children enjloying a HS graduation rate comparable to or better than others and with about the same percentage of applications for college.

Further, to discuss the issue to determine if government policies are a negative factor in the equation is in no way racist, while attempts to deflect or stop the discussion could very well be racist.

If the traditional family is a proven asset to American society in all aspects: stability, prosperity, aesthetically, and quality of life, it would logically follow that policies that in effect applauded, encouraged, and supported the traditional family should be the goal. And policies that did the opposite should be discontinued.

Well drop welfare,and we will see who will be screaming the most.

 

[Huey]

I frankly cannot see how a thoughtful discussion of how welfare programs may or may not contribute to the demise of the black family is 'race baiting'.

In my opiinion, to divert the topic to slavery or segregation or the KKK or other such topics IS race baiting as the topic in no way refers to or endorses any of those things. So if we could focus on the specific issue of the pros and cons of government programs intended to address poverty, and the effects of that on the black family, that would be much appreciated.

Quoted from writings of Walter Williams, a contemporary of Thomas Sowell:

. . . ."We lived in the Richard Allen housing projects" in Philadelphia, says Mr. Williams. "My father deserted us when I was three and my sister was two. But we were the only kids who didn't have a mother and father in the house. These were poor black people and a few whites living in a housing project, and it was unusual not to have a mother and father in the house. Today, in the same projects, it would be rare to have a mother and father in the house."

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren't permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do," Mr. Williams says. "And that is to destroy the black family." . . . .
The Weekend Interview with Walter Williams: The State Against Blacks - WSJ.com

and?

Leave Black Americans alone,they are not sufferring like white people are in this day and times.Leave us the Hell alone.

 

[squeeze berry]

First of all, other races have laggers or failures.
Secondly, no republican or conservative has removed welfare while in office and when they had a monopoly of the government branches.
Thirdly, the blacks have the opprotunity to do something but they lack the desire, if they had not welfare they would still not work because many are unemployable.
I have degrees and experience and it is still difficult to get hired in the field I want to work in.
-------------------------------------------------------
Imagine that you do finally get a job in your chosen field, at the same time that an affirmative-actioned person is hired (with no experience) as your co-worker.

Chances are, you will end up "baby-sitting"/compensating for that person. And, they know that they can't be fired.

Eventually, that person gets promoted- now is your boss. And you'd still have to "baby-sit".

I've seen it a hundred times. Especially in government jobs.

usually the one you have to babysit is white,got that job for his privlege.
Too lazy to learn the job been there years before you and still dont know the job.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thesis of the thread suggests that if there was no welfare or at least much less welfare targeting demographics such as black people, there would be far less decimation of the black family and consequently far fewer black people who are 'unemployable.'

There is no reason to believe that the traditional black family, left to its own abilities to prosper, would be any less successful in that than any other traditional family. In fact, the data suggests that the traditional nuclear black family gets along very well with the children enjloying a HS graduation rate comparable to or better than others and with about the same percentage of applications for college.

Further, to discuss the issue to determine if government policies are a negative factor in the equation is in no way racist, while attempts to deflect or stop the discussion could very well be racist.

If the traditional family is a proven asset to American society in all aspects: stability, prosperity, aesthetically, and quality of life, it wou of ld logically follow that policies that in effect applauded, encouraged, and supported the traditional family should be the goal. And policies that did the opposite should be discontinued.

Well drop welfare,and we will see who will be screaming the most.

Unfortunately 50% of all Americans are now dependent either a little or a lot on government checks/benefits. And it is a given that almost ALL of these like getting those government checks/benefits and will scream a bit if they no longer get them. In some cases, it would be extremely cruel and a grievous breach of faith to just stop the checks.

But it is also cruel to continue policies that are detrimental to large segments of society, most especially when the ONLY reason to do so is to increase the power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes of those voting the money.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The thesis of the thread suggests that if there was no welfare or at least much less welfare targeting demographics such as black people, there would be far less decimation of the black family and consequently far fewer black people who are 'unemployable.'

There is no reason to believe that the traditional black family, left to its own abilities to prosper, would be any less successful in that than any other traditional family. In fact, the data suggests that the traditional nuclear black family gets along very well with the children enjloying a HS graduation rate comparable to or better than others and with about the same percentage of applications for college.

Further, to discuss the issue to determine if government policies are a negative factor in the equation is in no way racist, while attempts to deflect or stop the discussion could very well be racist.

If the traditional family is a proven asset to American society in all aspects: stability, prosperity, aesthetically, and quality of life, it wou of ld logically follow that policies that in effect applauded, encouraged, and supported the traditional family should be the goal. And policies that did the opposite should be discontinued.

Well drop welfare,and we will see who will be screaming the most.

Unfortunately 50% of all Americans are now dependent either a little or a lot on government checks/benefits. And it is a given that almost ALL of these like getting those government checks/benefits and will scream a bit if they no longer get them. In some cases, it would be extremely cruel and a grievous breach of faith to just stop the checks.

But it is also cruel to continue policies that are detrimental to large segments of society, most especially when the ONLY reason to do so is to increase the power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes of those voting the money.

Can you imagine, Foxy, if we had a government that followed the United States Constitution, and restricted itself to the enumerated powers??

Would have been no mortgage meltdown, nor years-long current recession....and FDR wouldn't have extended the Depression by 7-10 years.


"Private sector or government bureaucracy? In 1887, Congress passed a bill appropriating money to Texas farmers who were suffering thorough a catastrophic drought. President Grover Cleveland’s veto included this response:

“And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Cleveland was correct: “So he challenged private citizens to come forward. And here’s perhaps the weirdest part: They responded. A number of newspapers adopted the relief campaign and in the end Americans donated not $10,000 but $100,000 to the afflicted farmers.”
Obama's plan to stimulate the economy should be to do nothing.

 

[Foxfyre]

And that is how the Founders knew it should work PC. They weren't cruel, heartless men but most almost all of them were devout men of faith. They all were advocates of personal charity, and while, to a man, they knew it would be deadly to our freedoms and our society should the federal government become a dispenser of charity, they did not write into the Constitution any prohibition that such could not be conducted at the state and local levels.

Benjamin Franklin, who said:

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

"That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

also said:

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

 

[Huey]

The thesis of the thread suggests that if there was no welfare or at least much less welfare targeting demographics such as black people, there would be far less decimation of the black family and consequently far fewer black people who are 'unemployable.'

There is no reason to believe that the traditional black family, left to its own abilities to prosper, would be any less successful in that than any other traditional family. In fact, the data suggests that the traditional nuclear black family gets along very well with the children enjloying a HS graduation rate comparable to or better than others and with about the same percentage of applications for college.

Further, to discuss the issue to determine if government policies are a negative factor in the equation is in no way racist, while attempts to deflect or stop the discussion could very well be racist.

If the traditional family is a proven asset to American society in all aspects: stability, prosperity, aesthetically, and quality of life, it wou of ld logically follow that policies that in effect applauded, encouraged, and supported the traditional family should be the goal. And policies that did the opposite should be discontinued.

Well drop welfare,and we will see who will be screaming the most.

Unfortunately 50% of all Americans are now dependent either a little or a lot on government checks/benefits. And it is a given that almost ALL of these like getting those government checks/benefits and will scream a bit if they no longer get them. In some cases, it would be extremely cruel and a grievous breach of faith to just stop the checks.

But it is also cruel to continue policies that are detrimental to large segments of society, most especially when the ONLY reason to do so is to increase the power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes of those voting the money.

Now SS is not welfare,American workers paid for SS every working day of their working life.So dont be bad talking about SS.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well drop welfare,and we will see who will be screaming the most.

Unfortunately 50% of all Americans are now dependent either a little or a lot on government checks/benefits. And it is a given that almost ALL of these like getting those government checks/benefits and will scream a bit if they no longer get them. In some cases, it would be extremely cruel and a grievous breach of faith to just stop the checks.

But it is also cruel to continue policies that are detrimental to large segments of society, most especially when the ONLY reason to do so is to increase the power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes of those voting the money.

Now SS is not welfare,American workers paid for SS every working day of their working life.So dont be bad talking about SS.

If SS had remained as the FDR administration had implemented it, it still would have been a bad idea, but wouldn't have been as bad as it has become. We all know that if eveybody had been encouraged or even mandated to pay into their own privately owned retirement account all that time, those who did so would be hugely better off than they will ever be under social security. Go into any social security office in the country and you will see far more younger people than you will see old folks. Social Security has become just another welfare program as an enormous entitlement that is both economy draining and unsustainable. And most who depend only on Social Security for their income will be living below the poverty line.

And as for Obamacare, I don't think anybody can improve on this: