a True Patriot

[jreeves]

Affirmative action was not a Nixon mandate. What I said was that white reaped most of the benefits of racial inequality...until the mid to late 1970's when Nixon destroyed the Bretton Woods system.

This created an ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. It was the middle class who were hit the hardest...white working class people.

When Affirmative Action came along, whites hated it because for the first time in American history they felt what black people had been going through for decades.

Whites screamed bloody murder and to this day denounce affirmative action. Where were those cries when it was blacks experiencing these inequities?

Why, is this generation responsible for what their ancestors did?

 

[Taomon]

If that was in fact true, then whoever it is you are calling "the poor" would have disappeared between the adoption of the Bretton Woods Agreements and our withdrawal from them. Setting a global standard for currency with gold as its base doesn't equate to elevating the poor in this nation to middle class, so perhaps you need to explain where you see the correlation.

Your claim that whites reaped the most benefits of racial inequality during the period the US was part of the Bretton Woods Agreements is kind of a lopsided one since the vast majority of the time the US participated in Bretton Woods was pre-Civil Rights era.

No one is saying the US was never a racist country. Obviously, it was. Racism does not exist legally, and the only reason it exists at all is because of people on both sides of the racial argument keeping it alive.

Ideologically, "elevating the poor" when they have done nothing to deserve nor earn such elevation is, for lack of a better term, ka-ka.

I bust my ass to earn what I have I will openly admit that I am more than resentful that legal thievery is practiced every day on my wallet to support those who think they are entitled and those who enable them in their thinking. In ANY other facet of life in this country, if you take from someone what they earned without their permission it's called theft, plain and simple.

And you might wish to rethink your socialist utopia ideology and look at it in practical application. Socialist nations don't have a poor classe elevated to middle class. They have a poor class and a ruling class.

Actually, blacks busted their asses too. I dare say that they probaly worked harder and longer than you ever did, and for less wages and even less opportunities to advance.

But in your capitalist utopia, everyone who works hard enough can succeed and the poor are poor because they are lazy. But the reality is that had the slaves been accepted as people after emancipation, we would not be looking at generations of poverty-police brutality-addiction-despair-bigotry-and violence.

You seem at ease to blame the victims of our social constructions against them. How very telling of your ethics.

 

[Taomon]

Why, is this generation responsible for what their ancestors did?

I did not say it was. But to deny that whites are at fault for today's situation is just ignoring the roots of a problem.

How will we ever resolve these issues if we do not first acknowledge our own culpability in them? You and I did not create bigotted social constructions, but lying about the fact that they exist today because of a greedy race of whites just makes the problem fester.

 

[jreeves]

I did not say it was. But to deny that whites are at fault for today's situation is just ignoring the roots of a problem.

How will we ever resolve these issues if we do not first acknowledge our own culpability in them? You and I did not create bigotted social constructions, but lying about the fact that they exist today because of a greedy race of whites just makes the problem fester.

How are today's social constructions bigotted?

 

[Taomon]

How are today's social constructions bigotted?

The system has not changed at all, other than it is more class-centric. So if you are black or white, but poor, you are treated equally...you are treated as blacks were treated back in the post-civil war eras, as second class citizens.

 

[jreeves]

The system has not changed at all, other than it is more class-centric. So if you are black or white, but poor, you are treated equally...you are treated as blacks were treated back in the post-civil war eras, as second class citizens.

BS....you call over half the budget dedicated to the poor is the government throwing up the middle finger at the poor.....that's non sense sorry

 

[Taomon]

BS....you call over half the budget dedicated to the poor is the government throwing up the middle finger at the poor.....that's non sense sorry

Over half the budget huh? Not even. In fact, social programs like education, social security, Medicare, and welfare are experiencing budget cuts that have been chipping away at them for a very long time.

Take a look at the appropriations for the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan and tell me again how much of the budget goes to the poor. How are those people doing in the FEMA trailers?

Are you sure you have your facts straight?

 

[jreeves]

Over half the budget huh? Not even. In fact, social programs like education, social security, Medicare, and welfare are experiencing budget cuts that have been chipping away at them for a very long time.

Take a look at the appropriations for the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan and tell me again how much of the budget goes to the poor. How are those people doing in the FEMA trailers?

Are you sure you have your facts straight?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698

Yet, last year, the federal government spent more than $477 billion on some 50 different programs to fight poverty. That amounts to $12,892 for every poor man, woman, and child in this country. And it does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments. For all the talk about Republican budget cuts, spending on these social programs has increased an inflation-adjusted 22 percent since President Bush took office.

Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies and author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society.

More by Michael D. Tanner
Despite this government largesse, 37 million Americans continue to live in poverty. In fact, despite nearly $9 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where it was when we began, more than 40 years ago.

Clearly we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient. But government welfare programs have torn at the social fabric of the country and been a significant factor in increasing out-of-wedlock births with all of their attendant problems. They have weakened the work ethic and contributed to rising crime rates. Most tragically of all, the pathologies they engender have been passed on from parent to child, from generation to generation.

Welfare reform was supposed to fix all that. And, indeed, it has had some positive effects. Welfare rolls are down. Since 1996, roughly 2.5 million families have left the program, a 57 percent decline. Critics predicted that welfare reform would throw millions into greater poverty. Instead, it led to modest reductions in poverty, particularly for children, black children, and single-mother households. Most of those who left welfare found work, and of them, the vast majority work full-time. As you would expect, studies show that as former welfare recipients gain work experience, their earnings and benefits increase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007

$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare

 

[jreeves]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698

Yet, last year, the federal government spent more than $477 billion on some 50 different programs to fight poverty. That amounts to $12,892 for every poor man, woman, and child in this country. And it does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments. For all the talk about Republican budget cuts, spending on these social programs has increased an inflation-adjusted 22 percent since President Bush took office.

Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies and author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society.

More by Michael D. Tanner
Despite this government largesse, 37 million Americans continue to live in poverty. In fact, despite nearly $9 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where it was when we began, more than 40 years ago.

Clearly we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient. But government welfare programs have torn at the social fabric of the country and been a significant factor in increasing out-of-wedlock births with all of their attendant problems. They have weakened the work ethic and contributed to rising crime rates. Most tragically of all, the pathologies they engender have been passed on from parent to child, from generation to generation.

Welfare reform was supposed to fix all that. And, indeed, it has had some positive effects. Welfare rolls are down. Since 1996, roughly 2.5 million families have left the program, a 57 percent decline. Critics predicted that welfare reform would throw millions into greater poverty. Instead, it led to modest reductions in poverty, particularly for children, black children, and single-mother households. Most of those who left welfare found work, and of them, the vast majority work full-time. As you would expect, studies show that as former welfare recipients gain work experience, their earnings and benefits increase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007

$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare

I will post more later I have to go to work for now.....that was incomplete post

 

[ReillyT]

Let's look at what you posted critically. I am not saying that it is wrong. It might be right, but let's look at this critically nonetheless.

More by Michael D. Tanner
Despite this government largesse, 37 million Americans continue to live in poverty. In fact, despite nearly $9 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where it was when we began, more than 40 years ago.

No obvious problems there. I didn't double-check the numbers, but I will assume they are accurate.

Clearly we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.

Doesn't follow from what was previously posted because it assumes that the poverty rate would have remained the same absent the government intervention. In truth, it may have remained the same, or it may have decreased or increased.

But government welfare programs have torn at the social fabric of the country and been a significant factor in increasing out-of-wedlock births with all of their attendant problems.

I don't know how one tests statistically for "t[earing] at the social fabric of society." Has it been statistically confirmed that government programs are a causal factor in the increase of out-of-wedlock births? Could these births have occurred anyway, and if so, in what numbers in our parallel universe? Have out-of-wedlock births increased in persons not recieving government assistance?

They have weakened the work ethic and contributed to rising crime rates. Most tragically of all, the pathologies they engender have been passed on from parent to child, from generation to generation.

Once again, don't know how one would test statistically for a decreased work ethic. Assuming the work ethic has decreased, what are the other possible factors contributing to the decrease?

Crime rates can be measured, but how do we separate government largesse as a causal factor?

How do we test for the "pathology" that government programs engender? What other pathologies may have resulted in the absence of government programs? How do we test for the generational transmission of pathology?

Welfare reform was supposed to fix all that. And, indeed, it has had some positive effects. Welfare rolls are down. Since 1996, roughly 2.5 million families have left the program, a 57 percent decline. Critics predicted that welfare reform would throw millions into greater poverty. Instead, it led to modest reductions in poverty, particularly for children, black children, and single-mother households. Most of those who left welfare found work, and of them, the vast majority work full-time. As you would expect, studies show that as former welfare recipients gain work experience, their earnings and benefits increase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007

Might be correct, but how do we establish a causal link between welfare reform and declines in poverty? Might a strong economy also be a factor?

 

[jreeves]

Let's look at what you posted critically. I am not saying that it is wrong. It might be right, but let's look at this critically nonetheless.



No obvious problems there. I didn't double-check the numbers, but I will assume they are accurate.



Doesn't follow from what was previously posted because it assumes that the poverty rate would have remained the same absent the government intervention. In truth, it may have remained the same, or it may have decreased or increased.



I don't know how one tests statistically for "t[earing] at the social fabric of society." Has it been statistically confirmed that government programs are a causal factor in the increase of out-of-wedlock births? Could these births have occurred anyway, and if so, in what numbers in our parallel universe? Have out-of-wedlock births increased in persons not recieving government assistance?



Once again, don't know how one would test statistically for a decreased work ethic. Assuming the work ethic has decreased, what are the other possible factors contributing to the decrease?

Crime rates can be measured, but how do we separate government largesse as a causal factor?

How do we test for the "pathology" that government programs engender? What other pathologies may have resulted in the absence of government programs? How do we test for the generational transmission of pathology?



Might be correct, but how do we establish a causal link between welfare reform and declines in poverty? Might a strong economy also be a factor?

First off 9 trillion dollars is no problem?? Oh ok....
Poverty decreased when spending decreased....