Welfare? The Reason For Black Family Break-Up

[Foxfyre]

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

Just about everybody left of center on USMB for starters.

Really? What about your conservative politicians, how many of them refer to themselves as Liberals, classical or otherwise?

Not all politicians who call themselves conservatives actually are, or at least they are not conservative on all issues. 'Classical liberal' is a term that is gradually re-entering the sociopolitical vernacular, mostly because of the rise of groups like the Tax Protest groups, 9/12ers, Tea Partiers, and yes some Ron Paul followers who understand the concept. Classical Liberal, its roots grounded im the basic concepts given us by our Founders, is also pretty much interchangeable with the basic concept of 'libertarianism' (small 'L'.)

While in no way rejecting the principles of charity, the Classical Liberals of the late 18th Century, of which the Founders all were, completely rejected a concept of the welfare state as they intended absolutely no basis for the federal government to use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, group, demographic, or special interest. A reading of their commentary on that shows that they were extremely wise in judgment of how corrupting that would be to both those in government and to the beneficiaries of any such benevolence.

And now, since we have modern day liberals who ignore the counsel of the founders, we have the sad legacy of the welfare state that for every good thing we can point to, the negatives are fourfold.

 

[Pheonixops]

Welcome to the board, guy....

There is a point in your post worthy of elucidation.

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

Maybe many, if not most.


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

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

Is Liberalism out and out evil?

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

Thoughtful post, and sig, Pheonie....


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



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

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

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

a. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
Ending the Liberal Confusion, by Jim Peron

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Here's some food for thought:
"Resistance to Liberty

We can now see that the rapid growth of the libertarian movement and the Libertarian party in the 1970s is firmly rooted in what Bernard Bailyn called this powerful "permanent legacy" of the American Revolution. But if this legacy is so vital to the American tradition, what went wrong? Why the need now for a new libertarian movement to arise to reclaim the American dream?

To begin to answer this question, we must first remember that classical liberalism constituted a profound threat to the political and economic interests — the ruling classes — who benefited from the Old Order: the kings, the nobles and landed aristocrats, the privileged merchants, the military machines, the State bureaucracies. Despite three major violent revolutions precipitated by the liberals — the English of the seventeenth century and the American and French of the eighteenth — victories in Europe were only partial. Resistance was stiff and managed to successfully maintain landed monopolies, religious establishments, and warlike foreign and military policies, and for a time to keep the suffrage restricted to the wealthy elite. The liberals had to concentrate on widening the suffrage, because it was clear to both sides that the objective economic and political interests of the mass of the public lay in individual liberty. It is interesting to note that, by the early nineteenth century, the laissez-faire forces were known as "liberals" and "radicals" (for the purer and more consistent among them), and the opposition that wished to preserve or go back to the Old Order were broadly known as "conservatives."

Indeed, conservatism began, in the early nineteenth century, as a conscious attempt to undo and destroy the hated work of the new classical liberal spirit — of the American, French, and Industrial revolutions. Led by two reactionary French thinkers, de Bonald and de Maistre, conservatism yearned to replace equal rights and equality before the law by the structured and hierarchical rule of privileged elites; individual liberty and minimal government by absolute rule and Big Government; religious freedom by the theocratic rule of a State church; peace and free trade by militarism, mercantilist restrictions, and war for the advantage of the nation-state; and industry and manufacturing by the old feudal and agrarian order. And they wanted to replace the new world of mass consumption and rising standards of living for all by the Old Order of bare subsistence for the masses and luxury consumption for the ruling elite.
"Slavery, the grave antilibertarian flaw in the libertarianism of the Democratic program, had arisen to wreck the party and its libertarianism completely."

By the middle of and certainly by the end of the nineteenth century, conservatives began to realize that their cause was inevitably doomed if they persisted in clinging to the call for outright repeal of the Industrial Revolution and of its enormous rise in the living standards of the mass of the public, and also if they persisted in opposing the widening of the suffrage, thereby frankly setting themselves in opposition to the interests of that public. Hence, the "right wing" (a label based on an accident of geography by which the spokesmen for the Old Order sat on the right of the assembly hall during the French Revolution) decided to shift their gears and to update their statist creed by jettisoning outright opposition to industrialism and democratic suffrage. For the old conservatism's frank hatred and contempt for the mass of the public, the new conservatives substituted duplicity and demagogy. The new conservatives wooed the masses with the following line: "We, too, favor industrialism and a higher standard of living. But, to accomplish such ends, we must regulate industry for the public good; we must substitute organized cooperation for the dog-eat-dog of the free and competitive marketplace; and, above all, we must substitute for the nation-destroying liberal tenets of peace and free trade the nation-glorifying measures of war, protectionism, empire, and military prowess." For all of these changes, of course, Big Government rather than minimal government was required.

And so, in the late nineteenth century, statism and Big Government returned, but this time displaying a proindustrial and pro-general-welfare face. The Old Order returned, but this time the beneficiaries were shuffled a bit; they were not so much the nobility, the feudal landlords, the army, the bureaucracy, and privileged merchants as they were the army, the bureaucracy, the weakened feudal landlords, and especially the privileged manufacturers. Led by Bismarck in Prussia, the New Right fashioned a right-wing collectivism based on war, militarism, protectionism, and the compulsory cartelization of business and industry — a giant network of controls, regulations, subsidies, and privileges which forged a great partnership of Big Government with certain favored elements in big business and industry."

SOURCE

 

[Foxfyre]

That is the point Phoenixops. "Classical liberal" was simply 'liberal' in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century and represented those who resisted authoritarian government in favor of individual liberties. Conservatives were those who defended the status quo and rejected the new concepts.

But over time those who pushed for positive change in those earlier times became entrenched in their own status quo, and while rejecting traditional institutions of all kinds, they gradually took on the characteristics of the old time conservatives: strong central government that would assign the rights to the people and order society according to the dictates of a pope or monarch or some other authority. They called themselves progressive or liberal but in fact, they in no way resembled those of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They much more resembled those old conservatives.

And those who now are reconsidering and readopting the natural rights concepts of a people who governed themselves rather than be subject to the dictates of pope or monarch or other central authority--the concepts the Founders embodied in our Constitution--became the new liberals but in the classical context. And in America they are now identified as conservatives though they in no way resemble those late eighteenth and nineteenth century conservatives.

The definitions have changed but not the principles.

 

[Pheonixops]

Just about everybody left of center on USMB for starters.

Really? What about your conservative politicians, how many of them refer to themselves as Liberals, classical or otherwise?

Not all politicians who call themselves conservatives actually are, or at least they are not conservative on all issues. 'Classical liberal' is a term that is gradually re-entering the sociopolitical vernacular, mostly because of the rise of groups like the Tax Protest groups, 9/12ers, Tea Partiers, and yes some Ron Paul followers who understand the concept. Classical Liberal, its roots grounded im the basic concepts given us by our Founders, is also pretty much interchangeable with the basic concept of 'libertarianism' (small 'L'.)

While in no way rejecting the principles of charity, the Classical Liberals of the late 18th Century, of which the Founders all were, completely rejected a concept of the welfare state as they intended absolutely no basis for the federal government to use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, group, demographic, or special interest. A reading of their commentary on that shows that they were extremely wise in judgment of how corrupting that would be to both those in government and to the beneficiaries of any such benevolence.

And now, since we have modern day liberals who ignore the counsel of the founders, we have the sad legacy of the welfare state that for every good thing we can point to, the negatives are fourfold.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I don't think that the "welfare state" solely rests on the shoulders of so-called "modern Liberals". Please show me some conservative politicians who actually believe and legislate this way:

"This alliance of the new bureaucratic, war-making central State with privileged merchants — an alliance to be called "mercantilism" by later historians — and with a class of ruling feudal landlords constituted the Old Order against which the new movement of classical liberals and radicals arose and rebelled in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The object of the classical liberals was to bring about individual liberty in all of its interrelated aspects. In the economy, taxes were to be drastically reduced, controls and regulations eliminated, and human energy, enterprise, and markets set free to create and produce in exchanges that would benefit everyone and the mass of consumers. Entrepreneurs were to be free at last to compete, to develop, to create. The shackles of control were to be lifted from land, labor, and capital alike. Personal freedom and civil liberty were to be guaranteed against the depredations and tyranny of the king or his minions. Religion, the source of bloody wars for centuries when sects were battling for control of the State, was to be set free from State imposition or interference, so that all religions — or nonreligions — could coexist in peace. Peace, too, was the foreign policy credo of the new classical liberals; the age-old regime of imperial and State aggrandizement for power and pelf was to be replaced by a foreign policy of peace and free trade with all nations. And since war was seen as engendered by standing armies and navies, by military power always seeking expansion, these military establishments were to be replaced by voluntary local militia, by citizen-civilians who would only wish to fight in defense of their own particular homes and neighborhoods.

Thus, the well-known theme of "separation of Church and State" was but one of many interrelated motifs that could be summed up as "separation of the economy from the State," "separation of speech and press from the State," "separation of land from the State," "separation of war and military affairs from the State," indeed, the separation of the State from virtually everything.

The State, in short, was to be kept extremely small, with a very low, nearly negligible budget. The classical liberals never developed a theory of taxation, but every increase in a tax and every new kind of tax was fought bitterly — in America twice becoming the spark that led or almost led to the Revolution (the stamp tax, the tea tax)."
SOURCE

I will say that there are people from both parties who advocate some of the above, but who really is the "total package", Ron Paul? Ron Paul has been routinely attacked, mocked, and chastised by the conservative republican establishment.

 

[Pheonixops]

That is the point Phoenixops. "Classical liberal" was simply 'liberal' in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century and represented those who resisted authoritarian government in favor of individual liberties. Conservatives were those who defended the status quo and rejected the new concepts.

But over time those who pushed for positive change in those earlier times became entrenched in their own status quo, and while rejecting traditional institutions of all kinds, they gradually took on the characteristics of the old time conservatives: strong central government that would assign the rights to the people and order society according to the dictates of a pope or monarch or some other authority. They called themselves progressive or liberal but in fact, they in no way resembled those of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They much more resembled those old conservatives.

And those who now are reconsidering and readopting the natural rights concepts of a people who governed themselves rather than be subject to the dictates of pope or monarch or other central authority--the concepts the Founders embodied in our Constitution--became the new liberals but in the classical context. And in America they are now identified as conservatives though they in no way resemble those late eighteenth and nineteenth century conservatives.

The definitions have changed but not the principles.

Who are the people? I know plenty of Tea Party people (politicians and candidates) who still advocate their version of big government.

 

[NoNukes]

1. Some argue that today’s weak black-family structure is a ‘legacy’ of slavery. But this view loses credibility when one examines evidence from the past.

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

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


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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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



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


From “Race & Economics,” by Walter E. Williams.

A lot of the disintegration of the Black family is because many Black men do not look towards the future. In their twenties, they figure in a few years they will either be in prison or dead. The problem stems from a hell of a lot more than welfare.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is the point Phoenixops. "Classical liberal" was simply 'liberal' in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century and represented those who resisted authoritarian government in favor of individual liberties. Conservatives were those who defended the status quo and rejected the new concepts.

But over time those who pushed for positive change in those earlier times became entrenched in their own status quo, and while rejecting traditional institutions of all kinds, they gradually took on the characteristics of the old time conservatives: strong central government that would assign the rights to the people and order society according to the dictates of a pope or monarch or some other authority. They called themselves progressive or liberal but in fact, they in no way resembled those of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They much more resembled those old conservatives.

And those who now are reconsidering and readopting the natural rights concepts of a people who governed themselves rather than be subject to the dictates of pope or monarch or other central authority--the concepts the Founders embodied in our Constitution--became the new liberals but in the classical context. And in America they are now identified as conservatives though they in no way resemble those late eighteenth and nineteenth century conservatives.

The definitions have changed but not the principles.

Who are the people? I know plenty of Tea Party people (politicians and candidates) who still advocate their version of big government.

Do you? I am a pretty active Tea Partier in contact with Tea Partiers in four other states, and I am not aware of ANY Tea Partiers who are in favor of big government. Perhaps you can point me to somebody who is?

 

[Pheonixops]

That is the point Phoenixops. "Classical liberal" was simply 'liberal' in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century and represented those who resisted authoritarian government in favor of individual liberties. Conservatives were those who defended the status quo and rejected the new concepts.

But over time those who pushed for positive change in those earlier times became entrenched in their own status quo, and while rejecting traditional institutions of all kinds, they gradually took on the characteristics of the old time conservatives: strong central government that would assign the rights to the people and order society according to the dictates of a pope or monarch or some other authority. They called themselves progressive or liberal but in fact, they in no way resembled those of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They much more resembled those old conservatives.

And those who now are reconsidering and readopting the natural rights concepts of a people who governed themselves rather than be subject to the dictates of pope or monarch or other central authority--the concepts the Founders embodied in our Constitution--became the new liberals but in the classical context. And in America they are now identified as conservatives though they in no way resemble those late eighteenth and nineteenth century conservatives.

The definitions have changed but not the principles.

Who are the people? I know plenty of Tea Party people (politicians and candidates) who still advocate their version of big government.

Do you? I am a pretty active Tea Partier in contact with Tea Partiers in four other states, and I am not aware of ANY Tea Partiers who are in favor of big government. Perhaps you can point me to somebody who is?

Sarah Palin Sarah Palin on the Issues

Michelle Bachman Michele Bachmann on the Issues

Herman Cain Herman Cain on the Issues

Allen West Allen West on the Issues

 

[Pheonixops]

That is the point Phoenixops. "Classical liberal" was simply 'liberal' in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century and represented those who resisted authoritarian government in favor of individual liberties. Conservatives were those who defended the status quo and rejected the new concepts.

But over time those who pushed for positive change in those earlier times became entrenched in their own status quo, and while rejecting traditional institutions of all kinds, they gradually took on the characteristics of the old time conservatives: strong central government that would assign the rights to the people and order society according to the dictates of a pope or monarch or some other authority. They called themselves progressive or liberal but in fact, they in no way resembled those of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They much more resembled those old conservatives.

And those who now are reconsidering and readopting the natural rights concepts of a people who governed themselves rather than be subject to the dictates of pope or monarch or other central authority--the concepts the Founders embodied in our Constitution--became the new liberals but in the classical context. And in America they are now identified as conservatives though they in no way resemble those late eighteenth and nineteenth century conservatives.

The definitions have changed but not the principles.

Who are the people? I know plenty of Tea Party people (politicians and candidates) who still advocate their version of big government.

Do you? I am a pretty active Tea Partier in contact with Tea Partiers in four other states, and I am not aware of ANY Tea Partiers who are in favor of big government. Perhaps you can point me to somebody who is?

"We must project American economic, political and military power around the world to protect American citizens, promote democracy and maintain peace. "
I know plenty of other people personally who are on "government programs" and who won't hesitate to apply for them and use them , while damning them when the other people get it at the same time.
s

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, I am fairly familiar with the point of view of he first four people you listed and just familiarized myself with Jackson who I didn't know. And I'm sorry, I don't see where any one of them holds any position that does not favor smaller, more efficient, ore effective, less overreaching federal government. Certainly having a position on the issues that are a pertinent part of sometimes government and sometimes the more local social contract is not a disqualifying factor?

Which of these positions do you consider suspect?

•For lower taxes, minimal regulations and smaller government.
•He supports the 10th Amendment right of nullification for unconstitutional federal laws.
•He supports drilling for oil and natural gas and the use of Virginia’s vast coal supplies.
•He supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
•He supports the use of foreign aid only when it has direct and measurable benefit for the strategic interests for the U.S.
•He supports a strong military presence.
•He opposes Iran and North Korea’s use of nuclear power.
•He supports the Patriot Act to protect America against terrorism.
•He supports completing the fence on our Southern Border and more border agents to prevent illegal immigration.
•He strongly supports Israel as our sole democratic ally in the Middle East.
•He opposes playing the race card in an attempt to divide the country. We need to unite all Americans under one Constitution, one flag and 1 common destiny.
•He proposes to set aside one full month each year for the celebration of American history, our Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution to end historical revisionism.

And do you think any one of those folks support the policies that have weakened and decimated the black family?

 

[Pheonixops]

Yes, I am fairly familiar with the point of view of he first four people you listed and just familiarized myself with Jackson who I didn't know. And I'm sorry, I don't see where any one of them holds any position that does not favor smaller, more efficient, ore effective, less overreaching federal government. Certainly having a position on the issues that are a pertinent part of sometimes government and sometimes the more local social contract is not a disqualifying factor?

Which of these positions do you consider suspect?

•For lower taxes, minimal regulations and smaller government.
•He supports the 10th Amendment right of nullification for unconstitutional federal laws.
•He supports drilling for oil and natural gas and the use of Virginia’s vast coal supplies.
•He supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
•He supports the use of foreign aid only when it has direct and measurable benefit for the strategic interests for the U.S.
•He supports a strong military presence.
•He opposes Iran and North Korea’s use of nuclear power.
•He supports the Patriot Act to protect America against terrorism.
•He supports completing the fence on our Southern Border and more border agents to prevent illegal immigration.
•He strongly supports Israel as our sole democratic ally in the Middle East.
•He opposes playing the race card in an attempt to divide the country. We need to unite all Americans under one Constitution, one flag and 1 common destiny.
•He proposes to set aside one full month each year for the celebration of American history, our Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution to end historical revisionism.

And do you think any one of those folks support the policies that have weakened and decimated the black family?

All the above items I put in bold put Our civil liberties at risk and grow the size of government and government spending. For people who claim to want to "get government out of our way", they sure seem to want to shove it on us when it comes to their beliefs. A strong "military presence" is his support for the big government MIC that is prevalent in his area and our area here in Hampton Roads.

He "played the race card" himself in some of his campaign ads and statements.
“I am the only candidate in the race capable of taking the conservative message beyond the group of people who are already convinced,” he said, mentioning blacks, Hispanics and evangelicals, specifically." WHY DOES HE FEEL THAT WAY, BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR?

“I am not an African-American, I am an American,” Jackson recently declared at a debate in Roanoke, echoing former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain." WHY DOES HE FEEL THE NEED TO STATE THAT? IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS WHAT HE IS.

"I want to defeat Democrats in Virginia so badly that they will never recover. I want to destroy their coalition and rob them of the death grip they have on the minority communities. They have kept people in bondage to their deceptions. It is time to set people free. " I THOUGHT THAT HE WANTED TO KEEP RACE OUT OF IT??? Just because people vote for democrats doesn't mean that they are "in bondage" or "not free".





If you believe in individualism, then you really can't say that any one policy that is VOLUNTARY has "weakened and decimated the Black family". People of ALL races use the government programs for a hand up or a hand out, people of all races have "family problems", it's not just solely "the Blacks".

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, I am fairly familiar with the point of view of he first four people you listed and just familiarized myself with Jackson who I didn't know. And I'm sorry, I don't see where any one of them holds any position that does not favor smaller, more efficient, ore effective, less overreaching federal government. Certainly having a position on the issues that are a pertinent part of sometimes government and sometimes the more local social contract is not a disqualifying factor?

Which of these positions do you consider suspect?

•For lower taxes, minimal regulations and smaller government.
•He supports the 10th Amendment right of nullification for unconstitutional federal laws.
•He supports drilling for oil and natural gas and the use of Virginia’s vast coal supplies.
•He supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
•He supports the use of foreign aid only when it has direct and measurable benefit for the strategic interests for the U.S.
•He supports a strong military presence.
•He opposes Iran and North Korea’s use of nuclear power.
•He supports the Patriot Act to protect America against terrorism.
•He supports completing the fence on our Southern Border and more border agents to prevent illegal immigration.
•He strongly supports Israel as our sole democratic ally in the Middle East.
•He opposes playing the race card in an attempt to divide the country. We need to unite all Americans under one Constitution, one flag and 1 common destiny.
•He proposes to set aside one full month each year for the celebration of American history, our Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution to end historical revisionism.

And do you think any one of those folks support the policies that have weakened and decimated the black family?

All the above items I put in bold put Our civil liberties at risk and grow the size of government and government spending. For people who claim to want to "get government out of our way", they sure seem to want to shove it on us when it comes to their beliefs. A strong "military presence" is his support for the big government MIC that is prevalent in his area and our area here in Hampton Roads.

He "played the race card" himself in some of his campaign ads and statements.
“I am the only candidate in the race capable of taking the conservative message beyond the group of people who are already convinced,” he said, mentioning blacks, Hispanics and evangelicals, specifically." WHY DOES HE FEEL THAT WAY, BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR?

“I am not an African-American, I am an American,” Jackson recently declared at a debate in Roanoke, echoing former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain." WHY DOES HE FEEL THE NEED TO STATE THAT? IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS WHAT HE IS.

"I want to defeat Democrats in Virginia so badly that they will never recover. I want to destroy their coalition and rob them of the death grip they have on the minority communities. They have kept people in bondage to their deceptions. It is time to set people free. " I THOUGHT THAT HE WANTED TO KEEP RACE OUT OF IT??? Just because people vote for democrats doesn't mean that they are "in bondage" or "not free".





If you believe in individualism, then you really can't say that any one policy that is VOLUNTARY has "weakened and decimated the Black family". People of ALL races use the government programs for a hand up or a hand out, people of all races have "family problems", it's not just solely "the Blacks".

Well all those issues can be debated as to whether they are legitimate functions of what the federal goverment must be as opposed to what creeping liberalism has made it. But that is not pertinent to the topic of this thread.

And we can debate the pros and cons of how we interpret the words of any given candidate or politician or any other public figure. But that is not pertinent to the topic of this thread either.

I subscribed to this thread to discuss how modern day American liberalism has affected the black family which is he topic of this thread and was of particular interest to me. And I apologize for being pulled off that that topic in an effort to define modern day American liberalism. And I would now like to get bac to the topic of the thread.

 

[Pheonixops]

Well all those issues can be debated as to whether they are legitimate functions of what the federal goverment must be as opposed to what creeping liberalism has made it. But that is not pertinent to the topic of this thread.

And we can debate the pros and cons of how we interpret the words of any given candidate or politician or any other public figure. But that is not pertinent to the topic of this thread either.

I subscribed to this thread to discuss how modern day American liberalism has affected the black family which is he topic of this thread and was of particular interest to me. And I apologize for being pulled off that that topic in an effort to define modern day American liberalism. And I would now like to get bac to the topic of the thread.

Ok, that's fine, this answer of mine regarding that topic still stands;
"If you believe in individualism, then you really can't say that any one policy that is VOLUNTARY has "weakened and decimated the Black family". People of ALL races use the government programs for a hand up or a hand out, people of all races have "family problems", it's not just solely "the Blacks"."

 

[Foxfyre]

Well all those issues can be debated as to whether they are legitimate functions of what the federal goverment must be as opposed to what creeping liberalism has made it. But that is not pertinent to the topic of this thread.

And we can debate the pros and cons of how we interpret the words of any given candidate or politician or any other public figure. But that is not pertinent to the topic of this thread either.

I subscribed to this thread to discuss how modern day American liberalism has affected the black family which is he topic of this thread and was of particular interest to me. And I apologize for being pulled off that that topic in an effort to define modern day American liberalism. And I would now like to get bac to the topic of the thread.

Ok, that's fine, this answer of mine regarding that topic still stands;
"If you believe in individualism, then you really can't say that any one policy that is VOLUNTARY has "weakened and decimated the Black family". People of ALL races use the government programs for a hand up or a hand out, people of all races have "family problems", it's not just solely "the Blacks"."

Nevertheless, some of our esteemed leaders focus on the particular demographic of blacks as an essential voting block, to wit LBJ's crude comment that by signing the Great Society initiatives into law: "I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years." And that seems to be the mindset of certain politicians to this day who don't seem to care how government policy is decimating generations of certain demographics.

Whether those effects involve other than blacks is moot re the focus of this thread. Perhaps if we can focus on one particular dynamic, then we can see how it also applies to others.

 

[GodSaveAmerica]

1. Some argue that today’s weak black-family structure is a ‘legacy’ of slavery. But this view loses credibility when one examines evidence from the past.

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

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


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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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



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


From “Race & Economics,” by Walter E. Williams.

Starting with The Great Society, there has been a massive attempt to integrate blacks into American society. It has included large transfers of wealth, government assistance programs, and affirmative action to compel the private sector to get on board. Not to mention a gargantuan public relations and educational campaign to convince all Americans that the races are exactly equal in respect to, among other things, cognitive ability. To blame the American government for continued black dysfunction and poverty is a little like blaming the weatherman for the rain.

Shelby Steele, like Lyndon Johnson, believes that all we have to do is tinker with the black American culture, pull them up to the same starting line as whites, and they will be able to keep up in the race to succeed. What evidence does he have to show that this is possible? Does he really believe that America is unique, the only place where blacks fall behind in achievement? Black American families are, by leaps and bounds, the wealthiest blacks in the world, a fact Shelby Steele must be familiar with. Can he provide even a single example of a modern successful black society outside of America to suggest that this country is an aberration, and that American blacks are victims of government ineptitude? No black country in Sub-Saharan Africa has a welfare system anywhere approaching ours that would have any kind of corrupting influence on black families, and yet they earn on average about $2 a day, mostly from subsistence farming. If the American welfare system causes blacks to be economically and educationally impoverished let’s wean them off of it and see what happens. Even if it restores the black nuclear family, I predict it would not change the black poverty rate.

 

[Againsheila]

Well welfare gives you a check every month and a roof over your head as long as you don't have a man living with you, thats incentive right there to be a single mother and collect benefits especially if you are desperate. I don't have a problem with helping people but welfare shouldn't be a life style.

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

Years ago, when I was arguing against welfare, I called up the DSHS and discovered that in order to go on the dole a girl only need be pregnant. If she loses the child, she loses the money, if she gets pregnant again, she goes on the dole again. So many teenagers back then got pregnant so they could get out of their mother's home.

Last week I met a 19 year old girl and found out she'd had a child. She'd given the child up for adoption to her best friend's sister and her husband. She got to babysit the child or see the child once a month. I told her how happy I was to meet her and what a good thing it was she did when she put her child's needs ahead of her own and much better the world would be if more people did that.

 

[Pheonixops]

Well all those issues can be debated as to whether they are legitimate functions of what the federal goverment must be as opposed to what creeping liberalism has made it. But that is not pertinent to the topic of this thread.

And we can debate the pros and cons of how we interpret the words of any given candidate or politician or any other public figure. But that is not pertinent to the topic of this thread either.

I subscribed to this thread to discuss how modern day American liberalism has affected the black family which is he topic of this thread and was of particular interest to me. And I apologize for being pulled off that that topic in an effort to define modern day American liberalism. And I would now like to get bac to the topic of the thread.

Ok, that's fine, this answer of mine regarding that topic still stands;
"If you believe in individualism, then you really can't say that any one policy that is VOLUNTARY has "weakened and decimated the Black family". People of ALL races use the government programs for a hand up or a hand out, people of all races have "family problems", it's not just solely "the Blacks"."

Nevertheless, some of our esteemed leaders focus on the particular demographic of blacks as an essential voting block, to wit LBJ's crude comment that by signing the Great Society initiatives into law: "I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years." And that seems to be the mindset of certain politicians to this day who don't seem to care how government policy is decimating generations of certain demographics.

Whether those effects involve other than blacks is moot re the focus of this thread. Perhaps if we can focus on one particular dynamic, then we can see how it also applies to others.

Nevertheless, some of our esteemed leaders focus on the particular demographic of whites as an essential voting block, see the republican platform of "the real Americans", farm subsidies for big white owned agribusinesses.

"I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years." Has that quote ever been proven to be true? I remember someone writing quotes that limbaugh "allegedly" said, but they were unsubstantiated.

If you allegedly believe in individualism, how can you think that "government policy" is allegedly "decimating generations of certain demographics"? Why single out "the Blacks"? How about the American Indians aka Native Americans? How about the Hispanics who are on welfare and have family problems? How about white people who have the same dynamics? Why does this focus have to solely be about "the Blacks"? How come the so-called "colorblind" republicans and conservatives just don't focus on the INDIVIDUALS who are on welfare, etc.?
I just find it "funny" that some people who express all of that bullshit about being "colorblind", pontificate about people playing "the race card", and express their alleged desire to see people as individuals, now want to focus on one race and their alleged statistics. Being that white people have higher numeric numbers (not per capita) on the welfare rolls, why aren't people interested in why they are on welfare?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok, that's fine, this answer of mine regarding that topic still stands;
"If you believe in individualism, then you really can't say that any one policy that is VOLUNTARY has "weakened and decimated the Black family". People of ALL races use the government programs for a hand up or a hand out, people of all races have "family problems", it's not just solely "the Blacks"."

Nevertheless, some of our esteemed leaders focus on the particular demographic of blacks as an essential voting block, to wit LBJ's crude comment that by signing the Great Society initiatives into law: "I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years." And that seems to be the mindset of certain politicians to this day who don't seem to care how government policy is decimating generations of certain demographics.

Whether those effects involve other than blacks is moot re the focus of this thread. Perhaps if we can focus on one particular dynamic, then we can see how it also applies to others.

Nevertheless, some of our esteemed leaders focus on the particular demographic of whites as an essential voting block, see the republican platform of "the real Americans", farm subsidies for big white owned agribusinesses.

"I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years." Has that quote ever been proven to be true? I remember someone writing quotes that limbaugh "allegedly" said, but they were unsubstantiated.

If you allegedly believe in individualism, how can you think that "government policy" is allegedly "decimating generations of certain demographics"? Why single out "the Blacks"? How about the American Indians aka Native Americans? How about the Hispanics who are on welfare and have family problems? How about white people who have the same dynamics? Why does this focus have to solely be about "the Blacks"? How come the so-called "colorblind" republicans and conservatives just don't focus on the INDIVIDUALS who are on welfare, etc.?
I just find it "funny" that some people who express all of that bullshit about being "colorblind", pontificate about people playing "the race card", and express their alleged desire to see people as individuals, now want to focus on one race and their alleged statistics. Being that white people have higher numeric numbers (not per capita) on the welfare rolls, why aren't people interested in why they are on welfare?

Re the LBJ quotation, it was reported that LBJ said that to two governors riding with him on Air Force One and it was those governors who confirmed it to Ron Kessler who reported it in his book Inside the White House. I read the book but cannot remember the names of the two governors; however, the story has never been disputed so far as I know.

As for government interference creating or at least hastening the demise of the black family, I suggest any of several excellent and wonderfully researched books by Thomas Sowell and a number a great essays on the subject offered by Walter Williams, Kay S. Hymowitz, and going back to William Raspberry, my all favorite liberal writer ever, and finally to Daniel Patrick Moynihan who sounded the alarm 50 years ago and was branded a racist because of it.

The fact is that more than 70% of black children in this country are born to single mothers and a large majority of those are locked into a seemingly endless cycle of poverty. And it doesn't take a genius to see that the welfare state has had a significant role in this deplorable situation.

 

[IanC]

I can only speak for myself and other men that I know, but being gainfully employed and supporting a family is one of the most self satisfying things that a man can do. it is also a powerful persuasion to modify your behaviour towards being civil and less confrontational over small things.

welfare strips away that motivation, and the necessity of doing the hundreds of things required to help run a family. when you have nothing to do, nothing seems important.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

I can only speak for myself and other men that I know, but being gainfully employed and supporting a family is one of the most self satisfying things that a man can do. it is also a powerful persuasion to modify your behavior to wards being civil and less confrontational over small things.

welfare strips away that motivation, and the necessity of doing the hundreds of things required to help run a family. when you have nothing to do, nothing seems important.

1. Well said.
2. I will go a step further and say, if you have no point in life, you have failed in life.
3. Raising a family yourself, as a man, builds not only you up, but the family individually.
4. Seeking a hand out not only removes you as the source of strength, and over all well being, it tears down those whom have to live under it.
5. Its sound doctrine to learn to work, for working is good for the soul, and the souls you are providing for.
6. If you are not willing to work, then you shouldn't be ready and able to eat at the expense of others.
7. There are always exceptions.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas