Laying The Blame

[NYcarbineer]

So how would never having started Medicaid made black Americans better off today?

I know it is hard for you to comprehend, but NO ONE IS SUGGESTING COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF THE SAFETY NET.

Why is it always black or white with you leftists?

You need to get informed. Do you really think a nation can survive as a welfare state when 20% of households are on food stamps, nearly 100 million working age Americans are not working, invasion of illiterate third worlders, and so many other facts that your kind refuse to accept.

No one is suggesting we eliminate the programs that people like you keep calling a complete failure?

lol. You people don't know what you want.

Medicaid is the single biggest part of the so-called war on poverty, so logically you people must be arguing that it is the single biggest contributor to what you call this 'failure'.

But every time it's brought up, you people don't want to get rid of it.

That is how you lose an argument, you, PC, and all the rest of the RW yakkers on this subject.

1. I never lose an argument, because I don't argue. I simply explain why I'm right...and never resort to lies, as you do.


2. "All this spending has not bought an appreciable reduction in poverty. … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of 1996).

And, since 2006, poverty rates have risen despite a massive increase in spending. Census Bureau, “Table 5–Percent of People by Ratio of Income to Poverty Level: 1970–2010,”
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov5.xls.


3. Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.
Scribd

So the poverty programs have held the line against the US's ongoing decline in the world. How about that?
You are aware of the job losses to foreign countries aren't you? You are aware of the stagnation of US wages for decades, aren't you?

You have yet to produce one iota of evidence that America's poverty rate would be lower today if no aid to the poor had ever been instituted.

btw: You do understand that government assistance makes a poor person less poor don't you?

"You have yet to produce one iota of evidence that America's poverty rate would be lower today if no aid to the poor had ever been instituted."

Yet you have accidentally agreed that $22 trillion has not resulted in a commensurate decrease in 'poverty.'


The rest of your post is covered by this:

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.

The spending on poverty has kept a bad situation from getting much much worse.

That is a success, not a failure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you actually have no substantive evidence that the war on poverty has been a failure.

You are a leftist cliche (hey I like that...leftist cliche...now that is good)...and describes you to a tee.

When informed of the evidence, just claim the evidence does not exist. Leftism in one sentence.

You are a leftist cliche (hey I like that...leftist cliche...now that is good)...and describes you to a tee.

When informed of the evidence, just claim the evidence does not exist. Leftism in one sentence.

The evidence doesn't exist. You have no idea whatsoever where poverty in America would be today if there had been no anti-poverty programs ever created in the last 50 years.

Poverty could very easily be much worse today than it is.

So THAT'S why you are known as the NYLiar!!!

Prove that there would be less poverty in America today if programs like Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, housing assistance, etc., etc., had never been started.

Prove it.

Am I correct, then, that you have given up trying to deny that $ trillions has not resulted in a diminution of the problem?




Take notes:

"This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]


Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America



"Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."

You have set an interpretation of success or failure of the war on poverty that suites your agenda of being able to call it a failure. However, everyone does not share your interpretation of success or failure. The war on poverty has greatly reduced the amount of suffering poor people have to endure. People living in poverty today have a quality of life that can not be compared to the quality of life before and when the war on poverty began. Viewed and judged on that level, the war on poverty has been an overwhelming huge success.

Yet you have accidentally agreed that $22 trillion has not resulted in a commensurate decrease in 'poverty.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are a leftist cliche (hey I like that...leftist cliche...now that is good)...and describes you to a tee.

When informed of the evidence, just claim the evidence does not exist. Leftism in one sentence.

The evidence doesn't exist. You have no idea whatsoever where poverty in America would be today if there had been no anti-poverty programs ever created in the last 50 years.

Poverty could very easily be much worse today than it is.

So THAT'S why you are known as the NYLiar!!!

Prove that there would be less poverty in America today if programs like Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, housing assistance, etc., etc., had never been started.

Prove it.

Am I correct, then, that you have given up trying to deny that $ trillions has not resulted in a diminution of the problem?




Take notes:

"This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]


Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America



"Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."

You falsely assume that you are measuring against an unchanging economy.

Years ago I got a very good paying job in industry. Only 15 people showed up to apply for it.

Today you get 1000's showing up to apply for low paying jobs at Walmart.

Are you taking those economic realities into account in your calculations, or are such details too complicated for you?

"Years ago I got a very good paying job in industry."

That's quite an oblique way of referring to being a greeter at Wal-Mart.

That's the tell that you've lost the argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know it is hard for you to comprehend, but NO ONE IS SUGGESTING COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF THE SAFETY NET.

Why is it always black or white with you leftists?

You need to get informed. Do you really think a nation can survive as a welfare state when 20% of households are on food stamps, nearly 100 million working age Americans are not working, invasion of illiterate third worlders, and so many other facts that your kind refuse to accept.

No one is suggesting we eliminate the programs that people like you keep calling a complete failure?

lol. You people don't know what you want.

Medicaid is the single biggest part of the so-called war on poverty, so logically you people must be arguing that it is the single biggest contributor to what you call this 'failure'.

But every time it's brought up, you people don't want to get rid of it.

That is how you lose an argument, you, PC, and all the rest of the RW yakkers on this subject.

1. I never lose an argument, because I don't argue. I simply explain why I'm right...and never resort to lies, as you do.


2. "All this spending has not bought an appreciable reduction in poverty. … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of 1996).

And, since 2006, poverty rates have risen despite a massive increase in spending. Census Bureau, “Table 5–Percent of People by Ratio of Income to Poverty Level: 1970–2010,”
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov5.xls.


3. Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.
Scribd

So the poverty programs have held the line against the US's ongoing decline in the world. How about that?
You are aware of the job losses to foreign countries aren't you? You are aware of the stagnation of US wages for decades, aren't you?

You have yet to produce one iota of evidence that America's poverty rate would be lower today if no aid to the poor had ever been instituted.

btw: You do understand that government assistance makes a poor person less poor don't you?

"You have yet to produce one iota of evidence that America's poverty rate would be lower today if no aid to the poor had ever been instituted."

Yet you have accidentally agreed that $22 trillion has not resulted in a commensurate decrease in 'poverty.'


The rest of your post is covered by this:

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.

The spending on poverty has kept a bad situation from getting much much worse.

That is a success, not a failure.

So......the basis for your post is.....what.....the Magic 8-Ball?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are a leftist cliche (hey I like that...leftist cliche...now that is good)...and describes you to a tee.

When informed of the evidence, just claim the evidence does not exist. Leftism in one sentence.

The evidence doesn't exist. You have no idea whatsoever where poverty in America would be today if there had been no anti-poverty programs ever created in the last 50 years.

Poverty could very easily be much worse today than it is.

So THAT'S why you are known as the NYLiar!!!

Prove that there would be less poverty in America today if programs like Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, housing assistance, etc., etc., had never been started.

Prove it.

Am I correct, then, that you have given up trying to deny that $ trillions has not resulted in a diminution of the problem?




Take notes:

"This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]


Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America



"Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."

You have set an interpretation of success or failure of the war on poverty that suites your agenda of being able to call it a failure. However, everyone does not share your interpretation of success or failure. The war on poverty has greatly reduced the amount of suffering poor people have to endure. People living in poverty today have a quality of life that can not be compared to the quality of life before and when the war on poverty began. Viewed and judged on that level, the war on poverty has been an overwhelming huge success.

Yet you have accidentally agreed that $22 trillion has not resulted in a commensurate decrease in 'poverty.'

Can we include the 16 years of Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr., in the causes of the failure to lower the poverty rate?

Or do you have some other dumb quotes that pretend to refute that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one is suggesting we eliminate the programs that people like you keep calling a complete failure?

lol. You people don't know what you want.

Medicaid is the single biggest part of the so-called war on poverty, so logically you people must be arguing that it is the single biggest contributor to what you call this 'failure'.

But every time it's brought up, you people don't want to get rid of it.

That is how you lose an argument, you, PC, and all the rest of the RW yakkers on this subject.

1. I never lose an argument, because I don't argue. I simply explain why I'm right...and never resort to lies, as you do.


2. "All this spending has not bought an appreciable reduction in poverty. … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of 1996).

And, since 2006, poverty rates have risen despite a massive increase in spending. Census Bureau, “Table 5–Percent of People by Ratio of Income to Poverty Level: 1970–2010,”
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov5.xls.


3. Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.
Scribd

So the poverty programs have held the line against the US's ongoing decline in the world. How about that?
You are aware of the job losses to foreign countries aren't you? You are aware of the stagnation of US wages for decades, aren't you?

You have yet to produce one iota of evidence that America's poverty rate would be lower today if no aid to the poor had ever been instituted.

btw: You do understand that government assistance makes a poor person less poor don't you?

"You have yet to produce one iota of evidence that America's poverty rate would be lower today if no aid to the poor had ever been instituted."

Yet you have accidentally agreed that $22 trillion has not resulted in a commensurate decrease in 'poverty.'


The rest of your post is covered by this:

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.

The spending on poverty has kept a bad situation from getting much much worse.

That is a success, not a failure.

So......the basis for your post is.....what.....the Magic 8-Ball?

I used your 'logic', and you fell for it. lolol

 

[Ravi]

"It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience"

Slavery was an immigration experience?

 

[ClosedCaption]

It isn't any 'legacy of slavery' that has hurt the group.......

Slavery has nothing to do with it but welfare programs do? According to what? The Sowell book of say so? Just silly shit.

Oh, making it illegal to learn to read didnt mean nothing!

Not allowed to have property or property where you wanted didnt mean anything!

Its all welfares fault! I'm starting to see why you guys like this Sowell guy. His head is in the clouds and nothing is at fault....except welfare

OK...ok....I am remiss.

After all the empty non-posts about which I have berated you.....you actually made a stab at confronting the facts of the thread.

Bravo!

And it only took you two replies to the same post to comprehend. Congrats!

Of course, your post would be more believable if you were able to indicate multitudes for whom it was made "illegal to learn to read."

False, my post is believable because people being not allowed to learn to read is real and factual. You dont even disagree with it you just want names or something to believe what you already do not disagree with.

And, the same applies to this fabrication: "Not allowed to have property or property where you wanted didnt (sic) mean anything!"

LOL!!! Oh yeah, redlining, steering, housing discrimination and all that stuff is just a figment of my imagination! I'm seeing a pattern of denying reality and just screaming "not true"

Now, so that no one leaps to the conclusion that you post stems from Liberal indoctrination and propaganda.....
...can you name several of Dr. Sowell's books that you've read?

If there are none....well, you can see why some might consider you no more than a Liberal windbag.

Thanks but your entire post is summed up in emotions.

You didnt point out any lie I told, all you did was scream liar and run.

You didnt disagree with anything I said, all you did was scream "liberal" and thought that was a point.

Then after not being able to point out any lie, falsehood, etc etc you turn to your last ditch effort of asking me about how many books I've read.

I feel good about that because you didnt have one come back that made sense

1. "...my post is believable because people being not allowed to learn to read is real and factual."

But we're speaking of modern history.

Living people.

You're refusing to learn to read is purely voluntary.

Sorry, you're the one that brought up slavery. Now you want to dial it back because once again, I was right and you have nothing.

2. "all you did was scream liar and run."

Run?

Whose post is this?


3. And speaking of running (and hiding) where is your explanation for the lack of educational materials in black households?

That would be the study I provided in post #17....

Here is the amazing consequence of half a century of indoctrination:

Yes you just screamed liar and now you're switching the subject to black what black homes do.

Overall, white homes had 2.5 times as many books as black homes.

But the most surprising finding is that the top quintile of black homes reported having fewer books (69) than the bottom quintile of white homes (71).

Report Negligent Parenting Hurts Black Students Performance



"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes."

Erasmus



And yes.....I blame Liberal indoctrination.

Yeah, of course you blame liberals. But you seemed to abandon your stance and now going on a rant about books. Quoting Erasmus and talking about slavery....then saying I cant bring up history because you said so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one is suggesting we eliminate the programs that people like you keep calling a complete failure?

lol. You people don't know what you want.

Medicaid is the single biggest part of the so-called war on poverty, so logically you people must be arguing that it is the single biggest contributor to what you call this 'failure'.

But every time it's brought up, you people don't want to get rid of it.

That is how you lose an argument, you, PC, and all the rest of the RW yakkers on this subject.

1. I never lose an argument, because I don't argue. I simply explain why I'm right...and never resort to lies, as you do.


2. "All this spending has not bought an appreciable reduction in poverty. … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of 1996).

And, since 2006, poverty rates have risen despite a massive increase in spending. Census Bureau, “Table 5–Percent of People by Ratio of Income to Poverty Level: 1970–2010,”
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov5.xls.


3. Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.
Scribd

So the poverty programs have held the line against the US's ongoing decline in the world. How about that?
You are aware of the job losses to foreign countries aren't you? You are aware of the stagnation of US wages for decades, aren't you?

You have yet to produce one iota of evidence that America's poverty rate would be lower today if no aid to the poor had ever been instituted.

btw: You do understand that government assistance makes a poor person less poor don't you?

"You have yet to produce one iota of evidence that America's poverty rate would be lower today if no aid to the poor had ever been instituted."

Yet you have accidentally agreed that $22 trillion has not resulted in a commensurate decrease in 'poverty.'


The rest of your post is covered by this:

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.

The spending on poverty has kept a bad situation from getting much much worse.

That is a success, not a failure.

So......the basis for your post is.....what.....the Magic 8-Ball?

No, this is:

Hundreds Line Up To Apply For Just 20 Jobs NorthEscambia.com

All across America this has been happening for decades.

So tell us all about that 'disincentive to work' that's plaguing America?

... would you line up all day for a slight chance of getting a job?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It isn't any 'legacy of slavery' that has hurt the group.......

Slavery has nothing to do with it but welfare programs do? According to what? The Sowell book of say so? Just silly shit.

Oh, making it illegal to learn to read didnt mean nothing!

Not allowed to have property or property where you wanted didnt mean anything!

Its all welfares fault! I'm starting to see why you guys like this Sowell guy. His head is in the clouds and nothing is at fault....except welfare

OK...ok....I am remiss.

After all the empty non-posts about which I have berated you.....you actually made a stab at confronting the facts of the thread.

Bravo!

And it only took you two replies to the same post to comprehend. Congrats!

Of course, your post would be more believable if you were able to indicate multitudes for whom it was made "illegal to learn to read."

False, my post is believable because people being not allowed to learn to read is real and factual. You dont even disagree with it you just want names or something to believe what you already do not disagree with.

And, the same applies to this fabrication: "Not allowed to have property or property where you wanted didnt (sic) mean anything!"

LOL!!! Oh yeah, redlining, steering, housing discrimination and all that stuff is just a figment of my imagination! I'm seeing a pattern of denying reality and just screaming "not true"

Now, so that no one leaps to the conclusion that you post stems from Liberal indoctrination and propaganda.....
...can you name several of Dr. Sowell's books that you've read?

If there are none....well, you can see why some might consider you no more than a Liberal windbag.

Thanks but your entire post is summed up in emotions.

You didnt point out any lie I told, all you did was scream liar and run.

You didnt disagree with anything I said, all you did was scream "liberal" and thought that was a point.

Then after not being able to point out any lie, falsehood, etc etc you turn to your last ditch effort of asking me about how many books I've read.

I feel good about that because you didnt have one come back that made sense

1. "...my post is believable because people being not allowed to learn to read is real and factual."

But we're speaking of modern history.

Living people.

You're refusing to learn to read is purely voluntary.

Sorry, you're the one that brought up slavery. Now you want to dial it back because once again, I was right and you have nothing.

2. "all you did was scream liar and run."

Run?

Whose post is this?


3. And speaking of running (and hiding) where is your explanation for the lack of educational materials in black households?

That would be the study I provided in post #17....

Here is the amazing consequence of half a century of indoctrination:

Yes you just screamed liar and now you're switching the subject to black what black homes do.

Overall, white homes had 2.5 times as many books as black homes.

But the most surprising finding is that the top quintile of black homes reported having fewer books (69) than the bottom quintile of white homes (71).

Report Negligent Parenting Hurts Black Students Performance



"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes."

Erasmus



And yes.....I blame Liberal indoctrination.

Yeah, of course you blame liberals. But you seemed to abandon your stance and now going on a rant about books. Quoting Erasmus and talking about slavery....then saying I cant bring up history because you said so.

Notice how she works in subtle claim that poor blacks are the problem not poor whites.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It isn't any 'legacy of slavery' that has hurt the group.......

Slavery has nothing to do with it but welfare programs do? According to what? The Sowell book of say so? Just silly shit.

Oh, making it illegal to learn to read didnt mean nothing!

Not allowed to have property or property where you wanted didnt mean anything!

Its all welfares fault! I'm starting to see why you guys like this Sowell guy. His head is in the clouds and nothing is at fault....except welfare

OK...ok....I am remiss.

After all the empty non-posts about which I have berated you.....you actually made a stab at confronting the facts of the thread.

Bravo!

And it only took you two replies to the same post to comprehend. Congrats!

Of course, your post would be more believable if you were able to indicate multitudes for whom it was made "illegal to learn to read."

False, my post is believable because people being not allowed to learn to read is real and factual. You dont even disagree with it you just want names or something to believe what you already do not disagree with.

And, the same applies to this fabrication: "Not allowed to have property or property where you wanted didnt (sic) mean anything!"

LOL!!! Oh yeah, redlining, steering, housing discrimination and all that stuff is just a figment of my imagination! I'm seeing a pattern of denying reality and just screaming "not true"

Now, so that no one leaps to the conclusion that you post stems from Liberal indoctrination and propaganda.....
...can you name several of Dr. Sowell's books that you've read?

If there are none....well, you can see why some might consider you no more than a Liberal windbag.

Thanks but your entire post is summed up in emotions.

You didnt point out any lie I told, all you did was scream liar and run.

You didnt disagree with anything I said, all you did was scream "liberal" and thought that was a point.

Then after not being able to point out any lie, falsehood, etc etc you turn to your last ditch effort of asking me about how many books I've read.

I feel good about that because you didnt have one come back that made sense

1. "...my post is believable because people being not allowed to learn to read is real and factual."

But we're speaking of modern history.

Living people.

You're refusing to learn to read is purely voluntary.

Sorry, you're the one that brought up slavery. Now you want to dial it back because once again, I was right and you have nothing.

2. "all you did was scream liar and run."

Run?

Whose post is this?


3. And speaking of running (and hiding) where is your explanation for the lack of educational materials in black households?

That would be the study I provided in post #17....

Here is the amazing consequence of half a century of indoctrination:

Yes you just screamed liar and now you're switching the subject to black what black homes do.

Overall, white homes had 2.5 times as many books as black homes.

But the most surprising finding is that the top quintile of black homes reported having fewer books (69) than the bottom quintile of white homes (71).

Report Negligent Parenting Hurts Black Students Performance



"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes."

Erasmus



And yes.....I blame Liberal indoctrination.

Yeah, of course you blame liberals. But you seemed to abandon your stance and now going on a rant about books. Quoting Erasmus and talking about slavery....then saying I cant bring up history because you said so.

You keep pretending that I have backtracked or given up on anything.

Of course, I haven't.


"...then saying I cant bring up history because you said so."
I did no such thing.
I simply pointed out that it is bogus to claim modern households lack the desire for education because somewhere, way back in history, reading was forbidden.

The one thing has nothing.....nothing.....to do with the other.


Your arguments and attitude are jejune to say the least.

 

[gipper]

I know it is hard for you to comprehend, but NO ONE IS SUGGESTING COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF THE SAFETY NET.

Why is it always black or white with you leftists?

You need to get informed. Do you really think a nation can survive as a welfare state when 20% of households are on food stamps, nearly 100 million working age Americans are not working, invasion of illiterate third worlders, and so many other facts that your kind refuse to accept.

No one is suggesting we eliminate the programs that people like you keep calling a complete failure?

lol. You people don't know what you want.

Medicaid is the single biggest part of the so-called war on poverty, so logically you people must be arguing that it is the single biggest contributor to what you call this 'failure'.

But every time it's brought up, you people don't want to get rid of it.

That is how you lose an argument, you, PC, and all the rest of the RW yakkers on this subject.

1. I never lose an argument, because I don't argue. I simply explain why I'm right...and never resort to lies, as you do.


2. "All this spending has not bought an appreciable reduction in poverty. … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of 1996).

And, since 2006, poverty rates have risen despite a massive increase in spending. Census Bureau, “Table 5–Percent of People by Ratio of Income to Poverty Level: 1970–2010,”
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov5.xls.


3. Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.
Scribd

So the poverty programs have held the line against the US's ongoing decline in the world. How about that?
You are aware of the job losses to foreign countries aren't you? You are aware of the stagnation of US wages for decades, aren't you?

You have yet to produce one iota of evidence that America's poverty rate would be lower today if no aid to the poor had ever been instituted.

btw: You do understand that government assistance makes a poor person less poor don't you?

"You have yet to produce one iota of evidence that America's poverty rate would be lower today if no aid to the poor had ever been instituted."

Yet you have accidentally agreed that $22 trillion has not resulted in a commensurate decrease in 'poverty.'


The rest of your post is covered by this:

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.

The spending on poverty has kept a bad situation from getting much much worse.

That is a success, not a failure.

Prove it and BE SPECIFIC.

 

[Camp]

I

a. It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived. Coulter, "Mugged," chapter 7

Also luckily for the ethnic groups being compared is they were white and able to blend in to the population, marry into the population, take a piss or a crap in a public restroom with the rest of the population and generally speaking, not be discriminated against on the same level as blacks were discriminated against after the Civil War and the following 100 years. Immigrants being compared by the OP were able to transition in a single generation. Interestingly, in the case of Black Americans who were born in America and fought in America's wars and whose families go back hundred of years, are still being compared to immigrants.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one is suggesting we eliminate the programs that people like you keep calling a complete failure?

lol. You people don't know what you want.

Medicaid is the single biggest part of the so-called war on poverty, so logically you people must be arguing that it is the single biggest contributor to what you call this 'failure'.

But every time it's brought up, you people don't want to get rid of it.

That is how you lose an argument, you, PC, and all the rest of the RW yakkers on this subject.

1. I never lose an argument, because I don't argue. I simply explain why I'm right...and never resort to lies, as you do.


2. "All this spending has not bought an appreciable reduction in poverty. … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of 1996).

And, since 2006, poverty rates have risen despite a massive increase in spending. Census Bureau, “Table 5–Percent of People by Ratio of Income to Poverty Level: 1970–2010,”
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov5.xls.


3. Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.
Scribd

So the poverty programs have held the line against the US's ongoing decline in the world. How about that?
You are aware of the job losses to foreign countries aren't you? You are aware of the stagnation of US wages for decades, aren't you?

You have yet to produce one iota of evidence that America's poverty rate would be lower today if no aid to the poor had ever been instituted.

btw: You do understand that government assistance makes a poor person less poor don't you?

"You have yet to produce one iota of evidence that America's poverty rate would be lower today if no aid to the poor had ever been instituted."

Yet you have accidentally agreed that $22 trillion has not resulted in a commensurate decrease in 'poverty.'


The rest of your post is covered by this:

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.

The spending on poverty has kept a bad situation from getting much much worse.

That is a success, not a failure.

Prove it and BE SPECIFIC.

I posted that to show how you and PC are posting. You fell for it.

You haven't proven anything you claimed. We're still waiting for that proof.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I

a. It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived. Coulter, "Mugged," chapter 7

Also luckily for the ethnic groups being compared is they were white and able to blend in to the population, marry into the population, take a piss or a crap in a public restroom with the rest of the population and generally speaking, not be discriminated against on the same level as blacks were discriminated against after the Civil War and the following 100 years. Immigrants being compared by the OP were able to transition in a single generation. Interestingly, in the case of Black Americans who were born in America and fought in America's wars and whose families go back hundred of years, are still being compared to immigrants.

More to the point, what the fuck does that Coulter quote even mean?

 

[ClosedCaption]

You keep pretending that I have backtracked or given up on anything.

Of course, I haven't.


"...then saying I cant bring up history because you said so."
I did no such thing.
I simply pointed out that it is bogus to claim modern households lack the desire for education because somewhere, way back in history, reading was forbidden.

The one thing has nothing.....nothing.....to do with the other.


Your arguments and attitude are jejune to say the least.

Yes, but we werent talking about modern households. In the OP you said that history has nothing to do with the the state of black America.

I pointed out that not being allowed to educate yourself or own property is a hinderance.

You relied that not being allowed to read was a lie...then started talking about the number of books in black houses, which was not the topic at all

 

[katsteve2012]

In their tireless thirst for power, Liberals/Democrats lay the groundwork for the end of America.

The divide-and-conquer, the grievance doctrines, the 'blame-America-first' methodology is aimed at keeping Americans glaring at each other.

1. Black Americans, contrary to the view that they are inferior to other groups, as advanced by Liberals, were actually about to advance along the same path as other Americans.....until they were 'helped out.'

a. It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived. Coulter, "Mugged," chapter 7

b. In fact, black Americans were doing better in individual pursuits than many immigrants. Barone compared their American journey to the Irish: “Both rise smartly in hierarchies (government bureaucracies, the military) but haven't fared as well in free-market commerce.” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/941114/archive_013670.htm




2. But Liberal welfare policies, clear failures, have provided not a safety net, but a weakening of the attempt by black Americans to fight their way to the top. And....instead of accepting the so-sorely-deserved blame, Liberals point to the ephemeral 'legacy of slavery.'

"Discussions of racial problems almost invariably bring out the cliche of "a legacy of slavery."
....whether fatherless children, crime or whatever -...

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catch phrase could stop thinking for fifty years. Catch phrases about slavery have stopped people from thinking, even longer than that.

3..... the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race.

[Not] Africans, Asians, Polynesians nor the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere saw anything wrong with slavery, even after small segments of British and American societies began to condemn slavery as morally wrong in the 18th century.

What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage.





4. ... the "legacy of slavery" as an explanation of social problems in black American communities today, anyone who was serious about the truth -- as distinguished from talking points -- would want to check out the facts.
Were children raised with only one parent as common at any time during the first 100 years after slavery as in the first 30 years after the great expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s?

As of 1960, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent, usually the mother. Thirty years later, two-thirds of black children were being raised without a father present."
A Legacy of Cliches - Thomas Sowell - Page full

Poor little brown asian girl so hard trying to be white as your avitar

In their tireless thirst for power, Liberals/Democrats lay the groundwork for the end of America.

The divide-and-conquer, the grievance doctrines, the 'blame-America-first' methodology is aimed at keeping Americans glaring at each other.

1. Black Americans, contrary to the view that they are inferior to other groups, as advanced by Liberals, were actually about to advance along the same path as other Americans.....until they were 'helped out.'

a. It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived. Coulter, "Mugged," chapter 7

b. In fact, black Americans were doing better in individual pursuits than many immigrants. Barone compared their American journey to the Irish: “Both rise smartly in hierarchies (government bureaucracies, the military) but haven't fared as well in free-market commerce.” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/941114/archive_013670.htm




2. But Liberal welfare policies, clear failures, have provided not a safety net, but a weakening of the attempt by black Americans to fight their way to the top. And....instead of accepting the so-sorely-deserved blame, Liberals point to the ephemeral 'legacy of slavery.'

"Discussions of racial problems almost invariably bring out the cliche of "a legacy of slavery."
....whether fatherless children, crime or whatever -...

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catch phrase could stop thinking for fifty years. Catch phrases about slavery have stopped people from thinking, even longer than that.

3..... the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race.

[Not] Africans, Asians, Polynesians nor the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere saw anything wrong with slavery, even after small segments of British and American societies began to condemn slavery as morally wrong in the 18th century.

What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage.





4. ... the "legacy of slavery" as an explanation of social problems in black American communities today, anyone who was serious about the truth -- as distinguished from talking points -- would want to check out the facts.
Were children raised with only one parent as common at any time during the first 100 years after slavery as in the first 30 years after the great expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s?

As of 1960, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent, usually the mother. Thirty years later, two-thirds of black children were being raised without a father present."
A Legacy of Cliches - Thomas Sowell - Page full

Poor little brown asian girl so hard trying to be white as your avitar

This forum never ceases to amaze. Now we have an Asian girl with an identity crisis who has read Thomas Sowell and become a street corner philisopher on the "plight" of Black Americans?

The variety here beats the hell out of a trip to the zoo.

What your post shows is that, in actuality, I beat the heck out of you Liberals.


Couldn't find a single item in my posts to contest, could you.

In their tireless thirst for power, Liberals/Democrats lay the groundwork for the end of America.

The divide-and-conquer, the grievance doctrines, the 'blame-America-first' methodology is aimed at keeping Americans glaring at each other.

1. Black Americans, contrary to the view that they are inferior to other groups, as advanced by Liberals, were actually about to advance along the same path as other Americans.....until they were 'helped out.'

a. It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived. Coulter, "Mugged," chapter 7

b. In fact, black Americans were doing better in individual pursuits than many immigrants. Barone compared their American journey to the Irish: “Both rise smartly in hierarchies (government bureaucracies, the military) but haven't fared as well in free-market commerce.” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/941114/archive_013670.htm




2. But Liberal welfare policies, clear failures, have provided not a safety net, but a weakening of the attempt by black Americans to fight their way to the top. And....instead of accepting the so-sorely-deserved blame, Liberals point to the ephemeral 'legacy of slavery.'

"Discussions of racial problems almost invariably bring out the cliche of "a legacy of slavery."
....whether fatherless children, crime or whatever -...

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catch phrase could stop thinking for fifty years. Catch phrases about slavery have stopped people from thinking, even longer than that.

3..... the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race.

[Not] Africans, Asians, Polynesians nor the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere saw anything wrong with slavery, even after small segments of British and American societies began to condemn slavery as morally wrong in the 18th century.

What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage.





4. ... the "legacy of slavery" as an explanation of social problems in black American communities today, anyone who was serious about the truth -- as distinguished from talking points -- would want to check out the facts.
Were children raised with only one parent as common at any time during the first 100 years after slavery as in the first 30 years after the great expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s?

As of 1960, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent, usually the mother. Thirty years later, two-thirds of black children were being raised without a father present."
A Legacy of Cliches - Thomas Sowell - Page full

Poor little brown asian girl so hard trying to be white as your avitar

In their tireless thirst for power, Liberals/Democrats lay the groundwork for the end of America.

The divide-and-conquer, the grievance doctrines, the 'blame-America-first' methodology is aimed at keeping Americans glaring at each other.

1. Black Americans, contrary to the view that they are inferior to other groups, as advanced by Liberals, were actually about to advance along the same path as other Americans.....until they were 'helped out.'

a. It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived. Coulter, "Mugged," chapter 7

b. In fact, black Americans were doing better in individual pursuits than many immigrants. Barone compared their American journey to the Irish: “Both rise smartly in hierarchies (government bureaucracies, the military) but haven't fared as well in free-market commerce.” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/941114/archive_013670.htm




2. But Liberal welfare policies, clear failures, have provided not a safety net, but a weakening of the attempt by black Americans to fight their way to the top. And....instead of accepting the so-sorely-deserved blame, Liberals point to the ephemeral 'legacy of slavery.'

"Discussions of racial problems almost invariably bring out the cliche of "a legacy of slavery."
....whether fatherless children, crime or whatever -...

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catch phrase could stop thinking for fifty years. Catch phrases about slavery have stopped people from thinking, even longer than that.

3..... the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race.

[Not] Africans, Asians, Polynesians nor the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere saw anything wrong with slavery, even after small segments of British and American societies began to condemn slavery as morally wrong in the 18th century.

What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage.





4. ... the "legacy of slavery" as an explanation of social problems in black American communities today, anyone who was serious about the truth -- as distinguished from talking points -- would want to check out the facts.
Were children raised with only one parent as common at any time during the first 100 years after slavery as in the first 30 years after the great expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s?

As of 1960, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent, usually the mother. Thirty years later, two-thirds of black children were being raised without a father present."
A Legacy of Cliches - Thomas Sowell - Page full

Poor little brown asian girl so hard trying to be white as your avitar

This forum never ceases to amaze. Now we have an Asian girl with an identity crisis who has read Thomas Sowell and become a street corner philisopher on the "plight" of Black Americans?

The variety here beats the hell out of a trip to the zoo.

What your post shows is that, in actuality, I beat the heck out of you Liberals.


Couldn't find a single item in my posts to contest, could you.

Why would you assume that I am a liberal? And your "cut and paste" job is devoid of any original thought worth contesting.

I have read Thomas Sowell over many years, most likely prior to you being born and certainly prior to you embarking on your journey as a safely insulated psuedo intellectual with no credible life experience.

While he has abundant "theories" on the social plight of Black Americans, he has offered no viable solutions that have been put into practice and produced positive change.

As for you, you're quite entertaining...carry on.

So in your small mind anyone who identifies and exposes a societal problem, MUST offer a solution or be denigrated. Think again.

And you obviously are not informed on the works of Thomas Sowell. He has made it clear over the many decades...this might help you.
Sowell No magic solutions to way out of poverty - The Grand Island Independent Staff Columnists

Apprantley, YOUR small mind cannot dintinguish the difference between "denigrating" and an observation that he isand ApprantleyInformed enough of him

In their tireless thirst for power, Liberals/Democrats lay the groundwork for the end of America.

The divide-and-conquer, the grievance doctrines, the 'blame-America-first' methodology is aimed at keeping Americans glaring at each other.

1. Black Americans, contrary to the view that they are inferior to other groups, as advanced by Liberals, were actually about to advance along the same path as other Americans.....until they were 'helped out.'

a. It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived. Coulter, "Mugged," chapter 7

b. In fact, black Americans were doing better in individual pursuits than many immigrants. Barone compared their American journey to the Irish: “Both rise smartly in hierarchies (government bureaucracies, the military) but haven't fared as well in free-market commerce.” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/941114/archive_013670.htm




2. But Liberal welfare policies, clear failures, have provided not a safety net, but a weakening of the attempt by black Americans to fight their way to the top. And....instead of accepting the so-sorely-deserved blame, Liberals point to the ephemeral 'legacy of slavery.'

"Discussions of racial problems almost invariably bring out the cliche of "a legacy of slavery."
....whether fatherless children, crime or whatever -...

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catch phrase could stop thinking for fifty years. Catch phrases about slavery have stopped people from thinking, even longer than that.

3..... the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race.

[Not] Africans, Asians, Polynesians nor the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere saw anything wrong with slavery, even after small segments of British and American societies began to condemn slavery as morally wrong in the 18th century.

What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage.





4. ... the "legacy of slavery" as an explanation of social problems in black American communities today, anyone who was serious about the truth -- as distinguished from talking points -- would want to check out the facts.
Were children raised with only one parent as common at any time during the first 100 years after slavery as in the first 30 years after the great expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s?

As of 1960, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent, usually the mother. Thirty years later, two-thirds of black children were being raised without a father present."
A Legacy of Cliches - Thomas Sowell - Page full

Poor little brown asian girl so hard trying to be white as your avitar

In their tireless thirst for power, Liberals/Democrats lay the groundwork for the end of America.

The divide-and-conquer, the grievance doctrines, the 'blame-America-first' methodology is aimed at keeping Americans glaring at each other.

1. Black Americans, contrary to the view that they are inferior to other groups, as advanced by Liberals, were actually about to advance along the same path as other Americans.....until they were 'helped out.'

a. It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived. Coulter, "Mugged," chapter 7

b. In fact, black Americans were doing better in individual pursuits than many immigrants. Barone compared their American journey to the Irish: “Both rise smartly in hierarchies (government bureaucracies, the military) but haven't fared as well in free-market commerce.” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/941114/archive_013670.htm




2. But Liberal welfare policies, clear failures, have provided not a safety net, but a weakening of the attempt by black Americans to fight their way to the top. And....instead of accepting the so-sorely-deserved blame, Liberals point to the ephemeral 'legacy of slavery.'

"Discussions of racial problems almost invariably bring out the cliche of "a legacy of slavery."
....whether fatherless children, crime or whatever -...

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catch phrase could stop thinking for fifty years. Catch phrases about slavery have stopped people from thinking, even longer than that.

3..... the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race.

[Not] Africans, Asians, Polynesians nor the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere saw anything wrong with slavery, even after small segments of British and American societies began to condemn slavery as morally wrong in the 18th century.

What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage.





4. ... the "legacy of slavery" as an explanation of social problems in black American communities today, anyone who was serious about the truth -- as distinguished from talking points -- would want to check out the facts.
Were children raised with only one parent as common at any time during the first 100 years after slavery as in the first 30 years after the great expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s?

As of 1960, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent, usually the mother. Thirty years later, two-thirds of black children were being raised without a father present."
A Legacy of Cliches - Thomas Sowell - Page full

Poor little brown asian girl so hard trying to be white as your avitar

This forum never ceases to amaze. Now we have an Asian girl with an identity crisis who has read Thomas Sowell and become a street corner philisopher on the "plight" of Black Americans?

The variety here beats the hell out of a trip to the zoo.

What your post shows is that, in actuality, I beat the heck out of you Liberals.


Couldn't find a single item in my posts to contest, could you.

In their tireless thirst for power, Liberals/Democrats lay the groundwork for the end of America.

The divide-and-conquer, the grievance doctrines, the 'blame-America-first' methodology is aimed at keeping Americans glaring at each other.

1. Black Americans, contrary to the view that they are inferior to other groups, as advanced by Liberals, were actually about to advance along the same path as other Americans.....until they were 'helped out.'

a. It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived. Coulter, "Mugged," chapter 7

b. In fact, black Americans were doing better in individual pursuits than many immigrants. Barone compared their American journey to the Irish: “Both rise smartly in hierarchies (government bureaucracies, the military) but haven't fared as well in free-market commerce.” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/941114/archive_013670.htm




2. But Liberal welfare policies, clear failures, have provided not a safety net, but a weakening of the attempt by black Americans to fight their way to the top. And....instead of accepting the so-sorely-deserved blame, Liberals point to the ephemeral 'legacy of slavery.'

"Discussions of racial problems almost invariably bring out the cliche of "a legacy of slavery."
....whether fatherless children, crime or whatever -...

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catch phrase could stop thinking for fifty years. Catch phrases about slavery have stopped people from thinking, even longer than that.

3..... the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race.

[Not] Africans, Asians, Polynesians nor the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere saw anything wrong with slavery, even after small segments of British and American societies began to condemn slavery as morally wrong in the 18th century.

What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage.





4. ... the "legacy of slavery" as an explanation of social problems in black American communities today, anyone who was serious about the truth -- as distinguished from talking points -- would want to check out the facts.
Were children raised with only one parent as common at any time during the first 100 years after slavery as in the first 30 years after the great expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s?

As of 1960, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent, usually the mother. Thirty years later, two-thirds of black children were being raised without a father present."
A Legacy of Cliches - Thomas Sowell - Page full

Poor little brown asian girl so hard trying to be white as your avitar

In their tireless thirst for power, Liberals/Democrats lay the groundwork for the end of America.

The divide-and-conquer, the grievance doctrines, the 'blame-America-first' methodology is aimed at keeping Americans glaring at each other.

1. Black Americans, contrary to the view that they are inferior to other groups, as advanced by Liberals, were actually about to advance along the same path as other Americans.....until they were 'helped out.'

a. It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived. Coulter, "Mugged," chapter 7

b. In fact, black Americans were doing better in individual pursuits than many immigrants. Barone compared their American journey to the Irish: “Both rise smartly in hierarchies (government bureaucracies, the military) but haven't fared as well in free-market commerce.” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/941114/archive_013670.htm




2. But Liberal welfare policies, clear failures, have provided not a safety net, but a weakening of the attempt by black Americans to fight their way to the top. And....instead of accepting the so-sorely-deserved blame, Liberals point to the ephemeral 'legacy of slavery.'

"Discussions of racial problems almost invariably bring out the cliche of "a legacy of slavery."
....whether fatherless children, crime or whatever -...

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catch phrase could stop thinking for fifty years. Catch phrases about slavery have stopped people from thinking, even longer than that.

3..... the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race.

[Not] Africans, Asians, Polynesians nor the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere saw anything wrong with slavery, even after small segments of British and American societies began to condemn slavery as morally wrong in the 18th century.

What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage.





4. ... the "legacy of slavery" as an explanation of social problems in black American communities today, anyone who was serious about the truth -- as distinguished from talking points -- would want to check out the facts.
Were children raised with only one parent as common at any time during the first 100 years after slavery as in the first 30 years after the great expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s?

As of 1960, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent, usually the mother. Thirty years later, two-thirds of black children were being raised without a father present."
A Legacy of Cliches - Thomas Sowell - Page full

Poor little brown asian girl so hard trying to be white as your avitar

This forum never ceases to amaze. Now we have an Asian girl with an identity crisis who has read Thomas Sowell and become a street corner philisopher on the "plight" of Black Americans?

The variety here beats the hell out of a trip to the zoo.

What your post shows is that, in actuality, I beat the heck out of you Liberals.


Couldn't find a single item in my posts to contest, could you.

Why would you assume that I am a liberal? And your "cut and paste" job is devoid of any original thought worth contesting.

I have read Thomas Sowell over many years, most likely prior to you being born and certainly prior to you embarking on your journey as a safely insulated psuedo intellectual with no credible life experience.

While he has abundant "theories" on the social plight of Black Americans, he has offered no viable solutions that have been put into practice and produced positive change.

As for you, you're quite entertaining...carry on.

So in your small mind anyone who identifies and exposes a societal problem, MUST offer a solution or be denigrated. Think again.

And you obviously are not informed on the works of Thomas Sowell. He has made it clear over the many decades...this might help you.
Sowell No magic solutions to way out of poverty - The Grand Island Independent Staff Columnists

Apparently YOURsmall mind cannot distinguish the difference between "denigrating" versus an observation over many years. Obviously, Mr. Sowell does serve a need which is to provide a point of view to those who prefer the safe distace between a computer or book to getting out into the communtities that are in distress.

I have seen plenty of Mr. Sowell publicly as well as have known people who have worked directly with him, my own Father for one.


So no need to be bothered by my failure to embrace his ideology as the holy grail of what is the root cause of the issues of Black America.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Looking at how Zimbabwe, Haiti or South Africa turned out...Well, they will probably end this by laying a baseball bat or sliding a knife into my grandchildrens skull.

These people will never have peace with whites. Fact.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Looking at how Zimbabwe, Haiti or South Africa turned out...Well, they will probably end this by laying a baseball bat or sliding a knife into my grandchildrens skull.

These people will never have peace with whites. Fact.

You mean before or after Europe raped the land, people and resources?

 

[NoNukes]

In their tireless thirst for power, Liberals/Democrats lay the groundwork for the end of America.

The divide-and-conquer, the grievance doctrines, the 'blame-America-first' methodology is aimed at keeping Americans glaring at each other.

1. Black Americans, contrary to the view that they are inferior to other groups, as advanced by Liberals, were actually about to advance along the same path as other Americans.....until they were 'helped out.'

a. It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived. Coulter, "Mugged," chapter 7

b. In fact, black Americans were doing better in individual pursuits than many immigrants. Barone compared their American journey to the Irish: “Both rise smartly in hierarchies (government bureaucracies, the military) but haven't fared as well in free-market commerce.” http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/941114/archive_013670.htm




2. But Liberal welfare policies, clear failures, have provided not a safety net, but a weakening of the attempt by black Americans to fight their way to the top. And....instead of accepting the so-sorely-deserved blame, Liberals point to the ephemeral 'legacy of slavery.'

"Discussions of racial problems almost invariably bring out the cliche of "a legacy of slavery."
....whether fatherless children, crime or whatever -...

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catch phrase could stop thinking for fifty years. Catch phrases about slavery have stopped people from thinking, even longer than that.

3..... the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race.

[Not] Africans, Asians, Polynesians nor the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere saw anything wrong with slavery, even after small segments of British and American societies began to condemn slavery as morally wrong in the 18th century.

What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage.





4. ... the "legacy of slavery" as an explanation of social problems in black American communities today, anyone who was serious about the truth -- as distinguished from talking points -- would want to check out the facts.
Were children raised with only one parent as common at any time during the first 100 years after slavery as in the first 30 years after the great expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s?

As of 1960, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent, usually the mother. Thirty years later, two-thirds of black children were being raised without a father present."
A Legacy of Cliches - Thomas Sowell - Page full

Too bad Blacks are too stupid to realize all of this. If only they could read.

Post #17 is for you, as well.

What do you say, Liberal......as none of the homes in the study are populated by former slaves.....what is your explanation?

Slavery has nothing to do with what I said. Ask one of your intelligent friends to explain it to you, if you have any.

So....no attempt to explain the lack of books, the lack of effort to move themselves out of Uncle Sam's Plantation?

You Liberals have to learn that you can run, but you can't hide.

And, again.....that is post #17 that has caused the fear in you.

I have no fear, only an idiot would think that. Oh, now it makes sense